1965-03-10

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Sixteenth report of special committee on procedure and organization-Mr. Speaker.
Eleventh report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Pennell.
Eighth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Loiselle.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which deals with equal rights and prerogatives for all members of this house.
The following facts show that there is discrimination, since some hon. members enjoy a privilege which is denied to others:
When the Speaker is in the Chair, and a vote is called, we know that bells ring in every parliament building to warn hon. members. However, when the house is sitting in committee of the whole there are no bells nor any other means to notify members who are in their offices.
It seems that the government has installed for the use of the Liberal members only, a warning system commonly called "electric buzzer" which notifies every Liberal member in his office so he may hurry to the house and vote. This privilege is for Liberal members only and not for members of the other political parties.
Consequently, it would be appropriate to know:
1.	Who paid for the installation of that system in Liberal members' offices?
2.	Why was this done for Liberal members only?
3.	Who instructed that such a system be installed for Liberal members only?
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), that this matter be referred to the Speaker, and that the Speaker report to the house as to which
steps should be taken to remedy this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to decide whether there is a question of privilege here. It seems more in the nature of a complaint than a question of privilege. I also have to find out whether the facts as alleged are true. Certainly in my capacity at the moment I have never heard of bells being installed in the offices of members. I have reason to believe that is not so but I must, of course, check this statement and see whether it is factual. Therefore, without rendering any decision at the moment I should like to check the facts on this matter and take them into consideration.


Mr. Murdo  Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege which has been raised by the hon. member for Beauce, I believe there has been a little misunderstanding which may have arisen from the interpretation. It is not bells; it is buzzers which sound in the offices of government members.
MR. HAYS-REMARKS IN DEBATE BY MEMBER FOR MEGANTIC	'


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I believe concerns every farmer in this country and should disturb every member of this house. Yesterday the hon. member for Megantic directed a supplementary question to me in which he said I had granted a bonus on grain in western Canada. I was not certain of his exact words until I studied Hansard today.
I raise a question of privilege at this time because that statement, either through an inexcusable ignorance on the part of the hon. member or a deliberate attempt to mislead Quebec farmers and make cheap politics from regional and racial prejudices, is absolutely incorrect. I am prepared to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and put it down to his ignorance, although I understand he was raised in Saskatchewan and should know that the Canadian wheat board is not a government agency but the farmers' own marketing organization. The record final payment they received for their wheat this

Question of Privilege
year was their own money and not a government subsidy of any kind.
This sort of approach can only make our serious farm problems worse by confusing the issues and stirring up unnecessary and unfounded resentments between eastern and western farmers. Figures available from public records such as the estimates of my department show that farmers are in no way favoured on a regional basis in so far as federal subsidies are concerned. The share as between east and west varies from year to year depending on many factors. But as a matter of fact during the 1963-64 fiscal year, the latest for which I have complete figures, federal assistance to farmers amounted to twice as much in eastern Canada as in western Canada as a percentage of total 1963 income.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Agriculture, I feel he was justified indeed to consider that he had a question of privilege; if this is the only way to ensure his presence in the house and obtain answers, I will often raise such questions.
Mr. Speaker, I will give the benefit of the doubt to our Minister of Agriculture; I may have made a mistake in saying that these were subsidies granted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture raised a question of privilege but he did not follow it with any motion, so there is no motion before the house at the present time. Although the hon. member may be very much interested, I believe he is out of order in trying to discuss a non-existent question of privilege which is not before the house at the present time. There are other ways and means by which the hon. member can bring his complaint, if there is one, before the house, but not at this time.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I did not make a complaint, I raised a personal question of privilege because the Minister of Agriculture, with his usual lack of judgment, dared to accuse an hon. member of being an idiot. I can assure him that I am not as idiotic as he can be sometimes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rules are made for all members including the hon. member. As I have said, there are other ways

and means by which he can bring any complaint to the attention of the house, but not on this particular point at this particular time.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I will be back with a question to prove my point in 15 minutes.



MR. FAIRWEATHER-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CUSTODY OF LUCIEN RIVARD

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.
On March 3, 1965 the Minister of Justice informed this house that the government had no responsibility for the safe custody and incarceration of Lucien Rivard, and that the safe custody of a prisoner charged with an indictable offence is exclusively a matter for the provincial authorities in whose jail the prisoner is confined during the judicial process.
The minister later publicly repeated this denial of responsibility over the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The last time he did so was last evening on a program called "News Magazine".
It is not denied by the Minister of Justice that under the provisions of section 13 of the Extradition Act, Rivard was arrested, held in custody, his application for habeas corpus heard, and was committed to prison as if charged and convicted of an indictable offence. Upon final disposition of the judicial process it was then the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, under our treaty obligations with the United States, to order the surrender and delivery of Rivard to United States authorities.
This parliament foresaw that by reason of the insecurity of any particular provincial prison there was a possibility of escape, and that the minister had a special duty to carry out the treaty obligations in respect of an extraditable prisoner. In such circumstances parliament, by statute, authorizes the governor in council to provide for the safe custody of every federal prisoner confined in a provincial jail in certain circumstances. To this end this parliament provided in section 3 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act:
The governor in council or the lieutenant governor of the province may, if, from the insecurity or unfitness of any gaol of any county or district for the safe custody of prisoners, or for any other cause, he deems it expedient so to do, order any person charged with an indictable offence confined in such gaol, or for whose arrest a warrant has been issued, to be removed to any other place for safekeeping, or to any gaol, which place or gaol shall be named in such order, there to be detained until

discharged in due course of law, or removed for the purpose of trial to the gaol of the county or district in which the trial is to take place.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has misinformed this house and continues to misinform parliament and the country by his failure to correct this misstatement as to the duty imposed upon him and upon the governor in council by section 3 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the sovereign power given by this parliament to the governor general in council to assume, upon the minister's recommendation, safe custody of a prisoner.
I suggest the minister has danced a constitutional minuet in respect of this whole affair, bowing grandly to the attorney general of Quebec as he casually divested himself of any responsibility for seeing to it that special arrangements were made to suit the very special circumstances of this case.
The minister's narrow concept of "special arrangements" is manifested by his often repeated statement that he could not post members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police outside every provincial prison. Such a silly proposition could only be conceived of by the minister; no one else has ever made any such suggestion. Neither the minister nor the government has given the house any evidence to think otherwise than that the minister never once communicated with anyone in Quebec requesting that extra precautions should be taken to ensure the custody of Rivard.
Mr. Speaker, Favreau's follies may be the newest and most zestful of Canadian musical comedies of the spring season, but I for one do not think it is very funny.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Crouse: Is any consideration being given to raising the percentage rate of subsidy paid on trawlers constructed of wood, to bring it more in line with the subsidy payment on trawlers constructed of steel?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: This matter was dealt with in reply to a question relating to subsidies on wooden fishing vessels on orders of the day on Thursday, March 4, 1965.
Questions


IMPROVEMENT OF PRAIRIE AIR SERVICE
Mr. More: 1.	Is the present air service between Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert to be continued and, if so, what immediate action is the government contemplating to maintain and improve same?
2.	Will improvements be made this year to the Prince Albert airport to permit the use of Viscount aircraft on this route?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Scheduled service between the points Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert continues to be provided by TransAir Limited and the government knows of no plans at this time to change that service.
2. No.


PRODUCTION OF COIN SETS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Is the number of coins to be put into circulation determined in advance and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Are Canadian requirements satisfied before release to the American market and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Would it be possible to give priority to Canadian collectors?
4.	For what reason did the mint cease production of coin sets prior to meeting all existing demand?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The number of coins to be put into circulation cannot be determined in advance. The demand for coins for circulation is determined by the public, and the mint does its best to meet the full demand. The number of coin sets to be prepared and sold to collectors and others is determined by the production facilities available, as well as the demand.
2.	The main requirements for Canadian coin are for circulation in Canada and these are normally satisfied in full. The sale of numismatic sets has never been restricted to Canadian buyers and cannot be effectively restricted to such buyers.
3.	It would not be possible effectively to give priority to Canadian collectors. Genuine collectors in Canada could not be distinguished from those buying to sell to others, including persons outside Canada, without intensive and expensive investigation, which would be very annoying to those ordering sets. Moreover, discrimination against buyers outside the country of origin would no doubt be resented by Canadian numismatists who

Questions
desire to collect uncirculated coin from other countries.
4.	As announced by the Minister of Finance on February 1, 1965, the mint will produce 1965 coin sets until all orders have been filled. Public notice will be given as soon as it is possible to deal with new orders or with those received in January and returned to senders.


DAIRY STATISTICS
Mr. Hamilton: For Canada, in each of the calendar years, 1960 to 1964 inclusive, what was the (a) total milk production (b) number of dairy cows (c) production per cow (d) fluid milk and cream as a per cent of total production?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Year	(a) Total milk Production	(b) Number of dairy cows June 1	(Q Production per cow (a-v-b=c)	(d) Fluid milk and cream as a percent of total milk production11000 lb.	'000	lb.	%Canada-1960	
17,746,475	2,965	5,985	34.01961	
18,339,200	2,987	6,140	32.21962	
18,382,160	2,956	6,219	32.11963	
18,431,982	2,914	6,325	32.41964	
18,490,639	2,906	6,363	32.7
1 Includes fluid sales and fluid milk and cream consumed in farm homes.


FLUID MILK PRODUCTION
Mr. Hamilton: What is the five year average, 1960-1964 inclusive, of fluid milk sales as per cent of total production (a) by provinces (b) Canada as a whole?


Mitchell William Sharp: Five year average, 1960-1964 inclusive, of fluid milk sales1 as a per cent of total milk production.
Prince Edward Island	Per cent 10.0
Nova Scotia	54.2
New Brunswick	39.3
Quebec	23.4
Ontario	30.7
Manitoba	23.5
Saskatchewan	16.4
Alberta	20.2
British Columbia	53.1
Canada	27.4
1 Includes fluid cream in milk equivalent.


MILK PRODUCTION BY PROVINCES
Mr. Hamilton: What is the five year average, 1960-1964 inclusive, of milk production by provinces as per cent of total for Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Five year average, 1960-1964 inclusive, of milk production by provinces as a per cent of total for Canada.
	Per cent
Prince Edward Island	1.2
Nova Scotia	2.0
New Brunswick	2.1
Quebec	33.5
Ontario	35.1
Manitoba	5.8
Saskatchewan	6.3
Alberta	9.3
British Columbia	4.7
Canada	100.0


UTILIZATION OF MILK PRODUCTION
Mr. Hamilton: What is the five year average, 1960-1964 inclusive, of utilization of milk as per cent of total production in Canada, in (a) fluid sales (including milk equivalent of fluid cream) (b) used on farms (including fed to livestock, used for dairy butter, and human consumption) (c) creamery butter (d) Cheddar cheese (e) other cheese (f) concentrated milk products (g) ice cream?


Mitchell William Sharp: IMr. Pennell.]

Questions
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(f)	(g)Fluid sales, including milk equivalent of cream	Used on farms including fed to livestock, used for dairy butter and human consumption	Creamery butter	Cheddar cheese	Other cheese	Concentrated milk products	Ice creamCanada-%... 27.4	10.7	44.5	7.6	1.0	5.6	3.2


PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF CREAMERY BUTTER
Mr. Hamilton: For each calendar year, 1960-1964 inclusive, what is the record of production and distribution of creamery butter under the following headings (a) stocks at January 1 (b) production (c) imports
(d) total supply (e) exports (f) domestic disappearance (i) total (ii) per capita (lbs.) (g) price wholesale, Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Production and distribution of creamery butter1 in Canada, 1960 to 1964, under the following headings:
Canada	(a) Stocks at January 1	(b) Production	(c) Imports	(d) Total supply	(e) Exports	(f) Domestic Disappearance total per capita	(g) Wholesale price at Montreal2'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	lb.	i per lb.I960	.. 105,765	320,403	6	426,174	3,014	289,889	16.22	64.81961	.. 133,271	352,133	-	485,404	9	288,309	15.81	64.91962	.. 197,086	361,720	-	558,806	4	320,752	17.27	57.41963	.. 238,050	351,919	-	589,969	19,359	351,342	18.56	53.91964	.. 219,268	351,822	-	571,090	113,666	357,067	18.53	54.81	Includes the butter equivalent of butter oil.2	First grade creamery prints.


PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHEDDAR CHEESE
Mr. Hamilton: For each calendar year, 1960-1964 inclusive, what is the record of production and distribution of Cheddar cheese under the following headings (a) stocks at January 1 (b) production (c) imports
(d) total supply (e) exports (f) domestic disappearance (i) total (ii) per capita (lbs.) (g) price wholesale, Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Production and distribution of cheddar cheese1 in Canada, 1960 to 1964, under the following headings:
Canada	(a) Stocks at January 1	(b) Production	(c) Imports	(d) Total supply	(e) Exports	(0 Domestic Disappearance Total per capita	(g) Wholesale price at Montreal2'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	lb.	per lb.I960	.. 52,532	110,372	4	162,908	18,552	88,590	4.96	31.01961	.. 55,766	118,912	7	174,685	19,152	91,540	5.02	31.01962	.. 63,993	117,280	7	181,280	26,878	102,944	5.54	32.31963	.. 51,458	139,367	5	190,830	25,249	107,861	5.70	34.71964	.. 57,720	143,599	201,319	30,328	112,054	5.81	36.51	Consumed as such and used in processing.2	First grade, Quebec white.
12180

Questions


PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OP EVAPORATED WHOLE MILK
Mr. Hamilton: For each calendar year, 1960-1964 inclusive, what is the record of production and distribution of evaporated whole milk under the following headings (a) stocks at January 1 (b) production (c)
imports (d) total supply (e) exports (f) domestic disappearance (i) total (ii) per capita (lbs.) (g) price per case, wholesale Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Production and distribution of evaporated milk in Canada, 1960 to 1964, under the following headings:
Canada	(a) Stocks at January 1	(b) Production	(c) Imports	(d) Total supply	(e) Exports	(0 Domestic Disappearance total per capita	(g) Wholesale price at Montreal1'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	lb.	$ per caseI960	44,598	316,950	361,548	3,264	312,831	17.51	6.401961	45,453	324,049	-	369,502	4,659	302,685	16.60	6.401962	62,158	292,606	-	354,764	6,058	207,542	16.56	6.401963	41,164	313,086	-	354,250	5,881	306,472	16.19	6.581964	41,897	314,700	356,597	18,091	302,541	15,70	6.74
'Cases (48/16's) carlots.


PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRY SKIMMED MILK
Mr. Hamilton: For each calendar year, 1960-1964 inclusive, what is the record of production and distribution of dry skimmed milk under the following headings (a) stocks at January 1 (b) production (c) imports
(d) total supply (e) exports (f) domestic disappearance (i) total (ii) per capita (lbs.) (g) price (cents per lb.) wholesale Montreal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Production and distribution of dry skimmed milk in Canada, 1960-1964, under the following headings:
Canada	(a) Stocks at January 1	(b) Production	(c) Imports	(d) Total supply	(e) Exports	(f) Domestic disappearance total per capita	(g) Wholesale price at Montreal	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	lb.	0 per lb1 Spray Roller	I960	21,942	171,969	34	193,945	47,992	122,749	6.87	9$	811961	23,204	213,029	9	236,242	53,090	153,277	8.40	7i	611962	29,875	192,292	12	122,179	35,689	132,977	7.16	8 6f	1963	53,513	176,086	-	229,599	55,556	153,049	8.09	10|	9!1964	20,994	203,047	224,041	42,139	153,517	7.97	14}	131
'Carlot shipments in 50 lb. bags.


FARM PRICES FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Hamilton: What is the average price received by farmers at the farm in each of the calendar years, 19601964 inclusive, under the following headings (a) fluid milk (dollars per cwt.) (b) creamery butter-fat (cents per lb.) (c) milk for concentration and
ice cream (dollars per cwt.) (d) cheese milk (dollars per cwt.) (e) all milk (dollars per cwt.) ?


Mitchell William Sharp: Average price received by farmers at the farm in Canada, 1960-1964, under the following headings:

Questions
	(a)	(b) (c)	(d)	(e)
		Milk for		
		concentration		
Fluid	Creamery and	Cheese	AllCanada	milk	butterfat ice cream	milk	milk$ per cwt.	$ per lb. $ per cwt.	$ per cwt.	$ per cwt.I960	4.77	68.2 2.70	2.57	3.091961	4.77	67.6 2.68	2.53	3.031962	4.78	68.0 2.64	2.69	3.051963	4.79	69.1 2.67	2.80	3.091964	4.92	71.2 2.77	2.92	3.19


FARM CASH INCOME FROM DAIRY BY-PRODUCTS
Mr. Hamilton: What is farm cash income from dairying byproducts in the calendar years, 1960-1964 inclusive (a) total (b) fluid sales (c) creamery butterfat
(d) cheese milk (e) concentrated milk and Ice cream (f) farm butter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Farm cash income from dairying in Canada, 1960-1964, under the following headings:
(a)	(b)	(c)	(<U	(e) Milk for concentration	(f)Canada	T otal	-Fluid	Creamery	Cheese	and	Farmincome	sales	butterfat	milk	ice cream	butter$ '000	$ '000	$ '000	$ '000	$ '000	$ '000I960	486,529	223,696	176,997	35, 069	50,463	3041961	495,852	220,727	192,091	37,060	45,127	2471962	499,576	221,289	199,282	39,143	39,374	2181963	509,812	224,295	197,084	48,368	39,916	1491964	530,983	234,492	202,939	52,225	41,202	125


FEASIBILITY STUDY OF FISH PROCESSING PLANT, CAPE JOHN, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has the Minister of Fisheries received a copy of a resolution passed by the municipal council of Pictou county, N.S., asking that a survey be made on the feasibility of establishing a fish processing plant in the Cape John area?
2.	Has the minister reached a decision on the possibility of such a survey and, if so, what is the decision and, if not, when is a decision expected?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes.
2.	The resolution involves action by the federal government and by the government of Nova Scotia. Consultation will be arranged with the latter with a view to organizing an investigation at the earliest possible date.


BURNING OF FLAGS
Mr. Coates: 
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Departments of Justice and National Defence as follows:
1.	The only statement regarding the burning of the flag is that which appears at page 11521 of Hansard for February 19, 1965, wherein the hon. member for Carleton asked if the Minister of Justice had given any consideration to amending the Criminal Code to make such an indignity to the flag an offence, and asked if he had given consideration to a general code which would govern the flying of the flag, such as exists in the United States. The Minister of Justice replied that he certainly would take this matter into serious consideration.
2.	No instructions have been issued to units across Canada stating that when they take down the red ensign it is to be burned.

Questions


TRANSPLANTING OF B.C. SALMON TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Mather: Has success been achieved in transplanting B.C. salmon to Newfoundland waters?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The survival of transplanted eggs in a Newfoundland river has proven successful. Further plantings are necessary to determine success of sea life of the salmon. The fisheries research board plans to continue the experiment.


ORDERS FOR NEW COIN SERIES
Mr. Langlois: 1.	In the first ten days of January, how many orders were placed for the 1965 coin series of the Canadian mint?
2.	What are the names of those whose orders were accepted?
3.	How many series did each individual receive?
4.	Will all the orders for the 1965 series be filled?
5.	Are the extra series minted to meet requirements exactly the same as those already struck or still to be struck on new machines?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. It is estimated that 1,250,000 orders were received during the first ten days of January.
2.	It is not expected that the mail containing the 400,000 orders accepted will be completely processed and typed before April 30. At least 200,000 orders are still sealed in their original envelopes and stacked in mail bags.
(The preparation of a list of 400,000 names would require approximately two man years of typing at a cost of between $4,000 and $5,000, and it is considered therefore that an answer to this part of the question would be too costly.)
3.	One, three or five sets. The great majority of orders were for five sets.
4.	In accordance with the press release of February 1, 1965, issued by Hon. Walter L. Gordon, Minister of Finance, all orders for 1965 uncirculated coin sets will be filled even if it is necessary to continue production beyond the end of the present calendar year.
5.	It is not anticipated that there will be any change in the design or the manufacturing process for any uncirculated coin sets bearing the 1965 date, regardless of when they are ordered.


AGRICULTURAL LOANS, MEGANTIC COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Langlois: 1.	How many agricultural loans were granted in the county of Megantic in 1964?

2.	How many applications were received?
3.	If any applications were rejected, what were the main reasons for such rejection?


Harry William Hays: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that for the fiscal year 1964-65 to February 25, 1965, for the municipal county of Megantic, the answers are:
1. 22.
2.	40.
3.	Eleven applications were rejected for a
variety of reasons, the principal one being that the resources of the applicant, together with the maximum amount the corporation could lend on his unit, would not place the applicant in a position where he could expect to obtain sufficient revenue to permit him to pay his operating and living costs, and repay the loan.


HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION, CAMP GAGETOWN, N.B.
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What is the present status of the investigation concerning the building of a new hospital in Oro-mocto, Camp Gagetown, New Brunswick?
2.	Is it intended to provide funds in the next estimates for the erection of this hospital?
3.	If a hospital is built, what is the expected bed capacity?
4.	Will the civilian needs, as well as the needs of the officers and men of Camp Gagetown, be provided for?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Agreement in principle has been reached for construction of a hospital in the town of Oromocto and discussions are proceeding as to detail. It is planned to provide 50 beds to serve the needs of civilians in the Oromocto area and an additional 40 beds for military personnel stationed at Camp Gagetown.
2.	Funding arrangements will be determined when details have been worked out.
3.	See answer to 1 above.
4.	See answer to 1 above.


FARM CREDIT LOANS, QUEBEC
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	How many loans did the Farm Credit Corporation grant in the province of Quebec for the year ended March 31, 1964?
2.	What was the total amount of all such loans?
3.	What was the number of loans granted by the Roberval office?
4.	What was the number of loans granted for the county of Roberval?
5.	How many employees on all levels does the Farm Credit Corporation have in the province of Quebec and how many in the Roberval office?
6.	How many applications for loans to farmers were rejected in Quebec during the year ended March 31, 1964 (a) without any investigation (b)

Questions
after preliminary Investigation (c) after inspection of premises (d) after receiving additional information?
7.	How many applications for loans were filed by Quebec farmers in the year ended March 31, 1964 and (a) how many were from the Roberval office (b) how many were from the county of Roberval?


Harry William Hays: 1. 1,221.
2.	$14,710,400.
3.	206.
4.	The Farm Credit Corporation advises that they do not maintain statistical records on a constituency basis, however, for the municipal county of Lac St-Jean West, which approximately coincides with the constituency of Roberval, the answer is 121.
5.	Province of Quebec, 89; Roberval office,
4.
6.	Of actual applications received by the Farm Credit Corporation the answer is (a) nil; (b) nil; (c) and (d) these two categories are not recorded separately, the total for both being 305.
7.	1,891. (a) 305; (b) 191, for the municipal county of Lac St-Jean West.


VETERINARY COURSES, GROSSE ISLE, QUE.
Mr. Berger: 1.	How many persons worked at Grosse Isle, Montmagny county, in the summer of 1964, in connection with the two summer courses given for veterinarians and what were their duties?
2.	How many veterinarians took these courses?
3.	What was the total cost of the operation, in wages, food, other supplies and repairs?
4.	Will the expected changes for the establishment of a quarantine station for imported animals bring about an increase in personnel and expenditures?


Harry William Hays: 1. The department maintains staff at Grosse Isle on a continuing basis and supplements this staff with additional employees during the conduct of courses. The additional staff directly associated with the two summer courses given in 1964 and their duties were as follows: One cook to supervise kitchen operations and cook for employees and students.
Five assistant cooks to assist the cook on kitchen work, food preparation, serve tables, and maintain sleeping accommodation.
One stationary engineer to assist permanent staff in work on machinery providing light, heat and water to the island.
Three labourers to assist permanent staff in carrying out necessary maintenance repairs and animal care.
2.	Forty.
3. Total cost:		
Wages		$10,216
Food		$ 2,614
Course supplies	(feed, animals,	
etc.)		$ 5,269
Plant maintenance materials		$ 2,344
	Total	$20,443
	(of which	approx-
	imately 60 per cent	
was recovered)
4. Yes.


EXPROPRIATION OF APARTMENT SITE, OTTAWA
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	Has the national capital commission decided to expropriate a high rise apartment site at Sparks street and Bronson avenue, in the city of Ottawa and, if so (a) when was such decision taken by the national capital commission (b) what is the reason for this expropriation?
2.	Has the N.C.C. plans to expropriate similar sites elsewhere in the city of Ottawa?
3.	What financial compensation will the N.C.C. pay to the city of Ottawa for depreciation of revenue resulting from such expropriations?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisier of Public Works):: 1. (a) The national capital commission sought authority in a submission to the treasury board on 27 January, 1965 for this expropriation. Order in council authority was granted to the commission on 19 February 1965.
(b) Reason for this expropriation is as follows: "The government has decided that a new headquarters building for the Department of National Defence should be located in Lebreton Flats. The outline plan being prepared by architects collaborative for the redevelopment of Lebreton Flats, while not yet complete, has indicated that the best site for the headquarters building for the Department of National Defence would be on the eastern side of the Flats, about 100 yards from the escarpment. It will be the largest and therefore the most significant building architecturally in the area.
The new city zoning by-law would permit a building of some 150 feet to be built on the escarpment, which is some 60 feet higher than the ground level in Lebreton Flats. The commission believed that if a tall building were erected on the escarpment it would detract from the plans for the redevelopment of Lebreton Flats. It therefore believed that this site should be acquired so that the government could be sure that a building will be erected on this site as part of and in harmony with the development of the ad-

Questions
jacent area. It would moreover contribute to the over-all government development from parliament hill westward through the Leb-reton Flats and along the Ottawa river parkway."
2.	The national capital commission is not authorized to expropriate any property without the authority of the governor in council.
The commission is therefore unable to announce an expropriation until such authority is given to it. If the commission were to indicate it intended to seek authority to expropriate properties, this would affect their value, and if authority to expropriate were not given, the owners would have cause to complain about the actions of the commission.
3.	The national capital commission cannot make payments to a municipal authority for what may be considered to be anticipated losses. The city is paid a grant equivalent to full property taxes for departmental and crown agency buildings of the federal government except those buildings used for educational, religious or charitable purposes.
The acquisition of property by the crown is part of the normal redevelopment of the city of Ottawa. It is no different from the activities of private developers where they remove obsolete buildings from various sites and re-erect new buildings. When the government removes a building, there may be a loss of tax revenue on the building itself, although grants in lieu of taxes on the vacant land being held for construction of government administrative buildings are still paid. However, any loss is more than offset by the revenues from other government buildings being erected and brought into use elsewhere. The total assessment on government properties in the city of Ottawa increased from $105,279,875 in 1960 to $116,298,675 in 1963.


USE OF DRUG LAETRILE
Mr, Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has a drug bearing the trade name of laetrile ever been available in Canada and, if so, is it still available?
2.	Has the use of this drug been restricted or banned and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, a drug manufactured in the United States and bearing the trade name laetrile was distributed and sold in Canada in accordance with the new drug regulations under the Food and Drugs Act in force prior to October, 1963. Because the manufacture and distribution of

the drug was stopped under orders of the courts in the United States early in 1962, no further supplies of the drug were available for distribution in Canada.
2. Yes, the distribution of laetrile for use in Canada has been restricted. When supplies of the drug were no longer available from the United States a manufacturer developed a process for preparing a new formulation of the drug in Canada and began distributing it during 1963. The distribution of this new formulation of laetrile was found by the Department of National Health and Welfare to be in violation of the department's regulations governing the sale of new drugs in force after October, 1963. The manufacturer refused to comply with the new drug regulations after many discussions and appropriate warnings. Therefore in the interests of public health, seizure action was taken early in 1964 against all available supplies of the drug for use in Canada.


MAIL DELIVERY, CHARNY AND ARTHABASKA, QUE.
Mr. Langlois: 1.	How many delivery points does the Post Office Department require before a municipality is eligible for home mail delivery?
2.	Is mail delivered to all homes in the municipality of Charny, county of Levis and, if so, how many delivery points are there in that municipality?
3.	Is mail delivered to all homes in the municipality of Arthabaska, county of Arthabaska and, if so, how many delivery points are there in that municipality?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: 1.	2,500 points of call are required for the establishment of an independent letter carrier service. However, any community or portion of a community which is located in close proximity to an area receiving letter carrier service may be served as an extension of the existing service if the potential calls are located in a well developed, concentrated area.
2.	Mail is delivered to all homes in the municipality of Charny. A total of 1,080 are so served.
3.	No homes in the municipality of Arthabaska receive home delivery. A survey to determine whether this community qualifies for an extension of the existing letter carrier service in Victoriaville, P.Q., is to commence on March 22, 1965.


EXPROPRIATIONS BY NATIONAL, CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	How many properties has the national capital commission expropriated within the limits of the area known as the Gatineau park since 1958?
2.	What was the reason, in each case, for such expropriation?
3.	Were negotiations carried on with the owners of the expropriated land prior to such expropriations?
4.	What is the policy of the N.C.C. in regard to expropriations of private lands for park purposes?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Eight in 1962; two in 1965; total 10.
2.	Seven of the 1962 expropriations were carried out because these properties were enclosed by the loop of the Gatineau parkway near Chelsea and certain developments proposed for these properties were not suitable in Gatineau park. One expropriation in 1962 became necessary to prevent the erection of cottages along the entrance road to Lac Phillipe park. The two 1965 expropriations became necessary since a subdivision was proposed in the interior of Gatineau park and its access was to be across commission properties.
3.	In five cases negotiations were carried on prior to expropriation, but in five other cases proper negotiations could not be conducted for various reasons which include (1) reluctance on the part of the former owners to negotiate and (2) urgency of expropriation.
4.	The N.C.C. expropriates private lands for park purposes not only in Gatineau park, but in other Quebec and Ontario municipalities in the national capital region. This is done when it is evident that the N.C.C. projects cannot be carried out by negotiation either because the owner does not want to sell or because he insists on a price which, in the public interest, the N.C.C. cannot recommend. When large park developments are proposed expropriation is used to prevent speculation in land which would create greatly increased costs for the government.


LAND EXPROPRIATION, BRANT COUNTY
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration authorized the expropriation of land for the purpose of road construction along the road from Ohsweken in a southerly direction to Sixty-nine Corners between lots No. 18 and 19, in concessions 3 and 4, in the township of Tusearora, in the county of Brant, and along the road from Sixty-nine Corners in a westerly direction to the west
Questions
boundary of the Six Nations Indian reserve in lots 19 to 36 between concessions 2 and 3, in the township of Tusearora, in the county of Brant?
2.	How many landowners objected to this expropriation?
3.	Has compensation been paid for such expropriation and, if so, what were the amounts paid in each case?
4.	If compensation for the expropriated land has not been paid, what have been the reasons for such non-payment of compensation?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Yes, the expropriation of land was made at the request of the elected band council of the Six Nations band pursuant to section 18(2) of the Indian Act.
2. 21.
3.	No.
4.	Compensation is payable out of band funds pursuant to section 65(a) of the Indian Act and so far the band council has not approved settlement of any claim.


FALL WHEAT ACREAGE, BRUCE COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: In the county of Bruce, what was the total acreage seeded to fall wheat for the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964?


Mitchell William Sharp: According to records maintained by the farm economics and statistics branch of the Ontario department of agriculture, the following are estimates of total acreage seeded to fall wheat in the county of Bruce in the specified years: 1960, 5,820; 1961, 5,800; 1962, 6,100; 1963, 6,500; 1964, 6,700.


HAY TRANSPORTATION PAYMENTS
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What sums of money were paid to each provincial government for the transportation of hay during 1963 and 1964?
2.	With regard to the province of Quebec, what sums of money were paid in each county?


Harry William Hays: 1. During the fiscal year 1963-64 the following sums of money were paid to provincial governments as the federal share of fodder freight assistance programs: Saskatchewan, $26,187; Alberta, $8,287; other provinces, nil.
During the fiscal year 1964-65 agreements to share the costs of fodder freight assistance programs were entered into with the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. No sums of money have been paid to the provinces with respect to these programs as supplementary votes for this purpose have not as yet been passed by parliament.
2. See answer to question 1.

Questions


AID TO CHEESE FACTORIES
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What sums of money were spent by the federal Department of Agriculture in grants for the construction or the purchase of machinery or for any other reasons, the purpose of which was to aid cheese factories in Canada during 1963 and 1964?
2.	What are the figures for each province?


Harry William Hays: 1.	1963	1964
	$110,680.45	$221,899.99
2.	1963	1964P.E.I.	-	$ 60,000.00N.B.	-	$ 1,206.00Quebec	$ 61,923.16	$ 36,050.74Ontario	$ 48,757.29	$124,643.25


TEMISCAMINGUE POST OFFICE ROBBERY
Mr. Laprise: Did a robbery take place at a TSmiscamingue post office in 1964 and, if so (a) where is the post office located (b) on what date did the robbery take place (c) what was the value of the money orders stolen on that occasion (d) have the thieves been charged (e) have any arrests been made, and (f) what sentences did the culprits receive?


René Tremblay: We were informed of a robbery which took place in the Pontiac-Temiscamingue riding in 1964.
(a) At Portage du Fort, Que.; (b) during the night of April 6 to 7; (c) no postal values were stolen; (d), (e) and (f) no arrests have been made.


OAT ACREAGE, BRUCE COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: In the county of Bruce, what was the total acreage seeded to oats for the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 1964?


Mitchell William Sharp: According to records maintained by the farm economics and statistics branch of the Ontario department of agriculture, the following are estimates of total acreage seeded to oats in the county of Bruce in the specified years: 1960, 46,200; 1961, 50,400; 1962, 53,600; 1963, 55,900; 1964, 54,300.


DOMINION BROADCASTING LIMITED
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Is the Dominion Broadcasting Limited of Toronto incorporated under the Companies Act?
2.	If so, what was the date of its incorporation?
3.	Who are the directors of this company?


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


PALLETTE PRODUCTIONS INCORPORATED
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Is Pallette Productions Limited incorporated under the Companies Act?
2.	If so, what was the date of its incorporation?
3.	Who are the directors of this company?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


LETTER FROM QUEBEC MINISTER RESPECTING FORMER FEDERAL MINISTER
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	On what date did the Minister of Justice inform the Prime Minister of the receipt of a letter from Hon. Eric Kierans, minister of revenue for Quebec dated December 30, 1964 containing information regarding Hon. Yvon Dupuis, member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville?
2.	On what date were the contents of said letter directed to the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this is less a question than an assertion. It is true that the press has indicated that such a letter does exist. Normally, questions about communications between ministers or between ministers and the Prime Minister should not be replied to, as can be ascertained by a simple reading of the privy councillor's oath. However, in this case I do not think it would be a breach of that obligation to say that the letter in question was communicated promptly to the Prime Minister and also to the R.C.M.P.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: On what date?


MALTING BARLEY ACREAGE, BRUCE COUNTY. ONT.
Mr. Loney: In the county of Bruce, what was the total acreage seeded to malting barley for the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Mitchell William Sharp: This information is not available in the dominion bureau of statistics. The Ontario department of agriculture, farm economics and statistics branch, collect data on acreage seeded to some crops, by county, but not on malting barley.


USE OF FUEL OIL, CAMP GAGETOWN
Mr. MacRae: 1. Has the central heating plant at Camp Gage-town been converted to the use of oil for fuel?

2.	If so, when was this action taken?
3.	Will there be any decrease in the amount of Minto coal used in this heating plant because of this action?
4.	If so, to what extent?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. No. However, the newly rebuilt boiler is being operated with oil as fuel, pending completion of a study into the possibility of continued use of coal. The use of Minto coal in the central heating plant was discontinued approximately December 15, 1964 because of the rapid deterioration experienced on the boiler tubes due to the high sulphur and ash content of the coal.
3.	Yes.
4.	Approximately 20,000 tons per year.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Howard: What is the (a) history of teaching (b) qualifications (c) name, and (d) present school of each teacher employed by the Indian affairs branch in the Indian agencies of (i) Babine (ii) Bums lake (iii) Skeena crossing (iv) Queen Charlotte (v) Bella Coola (vi) Terrace?
Return tabled.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule), the adjournment of the house under standing order 26, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the pernicious political intervention of the government which seriously hinders the work of police forces in their attempt to find Lucien Rivard.
tText]


Mr. Speaker:: I would respectfully point out that this is not the time to raise that particular problem. Perhaps we should go on with the agenda.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, standing order 26 reads as follows:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance
Administration of Justice must be asked for after "Questions" on Mondays and Wednesdays-
Now, today is Wednesday, and I precisely waited after the question period to ask leave to move today, on a Wednesday, the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.
In the circumstances, I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the motion was introduced at the proper time under standing order 26.


Mr. Speaker:: I would respectfully point out that we are really wasting time, because there are two other items on the agenda. Following those items the hon. member can raise his point if he feels it is valid. I would ask the hon. member's co-operation until we get through the matters on the order paper; then he can raise his point.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, now that the question of privilege has been taken care of, you will probably agree to take into consideration the motion I introduced a few minutes ago for the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.
Therefore, I would ask you to accept that motion in order that I may present my views as to why I think it is important and urgent to discuss this matter today.


Mr. Speaker:: Before deciding whether this motion is in order, under the standing orders the Speaker has the right to call on members of experience for their views. Are there any members in the house who would like to help the Chair to try to reach a conclusion? Perhaps I should call upon the hon, member to explain the urgency in connection with the motion he is endeavouring to move under standing order 26.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, may we have
a copy of the motion, please?


Mr. Speaker:: In view of where the hon. member for Red Deer is sitting, perhaps he could ask for a copy of the motion.


Mr. Macdonald:: In both languages.


Mr. Starr:: They don't speak to each other.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not customary to make a number of copies of a motion.

Administration of Justice [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we did distribute copies, but they have been circulating for so long that they may have been lost.
I come back to the subject matter. First of all, it is a very important matter, since the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) yesterday offered a $15,000 reward for the apprehension of Lucien Rivard. But, last Saturday, federal, provincial and municipal police officers received a list of houses they should visit in order to arrest Lucien Rivard. The name of the first person on that list, that is the person to be visited in the first place, happened to be the name of a Montreal M.L.A.
Five minutes before the detectives left for that series of searches, a secret telephone call was received at the office of the detectives and police forces from a political personality requesting, even demanding the cancellation of the visit of police bodies at the home of that M.L.A. whose name was on top of the list in the hands of the police bodies.
I therefore submit that there was a pernicious intervention by political personalities with a view to hindering the police bodies and forces from carrying out a house search which was considered as being the first one and a must on the list held by the police forces. They did not call at the home of that M.L.A. following a secret telephone call from some influential political personality at five minutes to five in the morning, that is five minutes before the police force left to undertake that series of house searches.
That is why I will be asking during this urgent debate: who made that telephone call at the very last minute, who asked and ordered that no search be made at the home of that M.L.A.? Who made that telephone call? Why and under what authority were the police kept from raiding the house of that person heading the list of those to be visited in an effort to find Lucien Rivard?
So, I say it is most important, and I emphasize these words, it is most important to discuss that political interference on the part of this government, and this matter is also most urgent, since the Minister of Justice stated that a reward would be offered after an unusual delay. I suppose the unusual delay to find Lucien Rivard has expired, since a reward has been offered and an abnormal delay has elapsed.
I suggest it is urgent that police forces have a free hand and can act without hindrance from political authorities or personalities, that they be free to recapture Lucien


Rivard. Last Monday morning police were prevented from doing their job.
That is why I say it is most important to bring politicians to reason and to see to it that police authorities have the necessary discretion to do their work according to their judgment and their conscience.


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: On this matter, Mr. Speaker, 1 object to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) being allowed to indulge in innuendoes.
If he wants to mention names, let him do so. He cannot indulge in innuendoes to the effect that some federal members could be involved. If he has charges to make, let him do so. It is absurd to try to make up Sherlock Holmes stories, as he does. The house is a dignified and respectable place where members' rights should be respected and where we must refrain from any innuendoes against hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to decide whether the important business of the house should be set aside under standing order 26 in order to discuss an urgent, important matter. First of all, I do not see any desperate urgency for debate of this particular matter. In my view it is not a matter of sudden occurrence, or of such sudden emergency as is referred to in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100(2). I think these words would cover the situation:
The Speaker ruled that the motion should not be allowed, because he did not think the matter mentioned in the member's statement was of recent occurrence nor so urgent that the proceedings of the house should be halted so that it may be discussed.
There are extremely important proceedings before the house and, as I say, this matter is not of recent occurrence. It is not of such sudden emergency that the important business now on the order paper of the house should be set aside under standing order 26.



PRIVILEGE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege arising out of the answer just given by the Minister of Justice to question No. 2,865. The minister entered into a soliloquy on the subject of the privy councillor's oath, which in no way entered into this question at all. The question is as follows:

On what date did the Minister of Justice inform the Prime Minister of the receipt of a letter from Hon. Eric Kierans, minister of revenue for Quebec, dated December 30, 1964 containing information regarding Hon. Yvon Dupuis, member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville?
There was no answer to that question. The reason the minister indulged in what one might call "Favreaucation" was that he had given an answer recently in this regard. The purpose of this question was to show that the answer the minister gave was not in accordance with the facts.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor-


An hon. Member:: Sit down; he is on a question of privilege.


Guy Favreau: On a point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; perhaps the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was just concluding the matter he raised.


Guy Favreau: Let him conclude his smear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that question was not answered. We have a right to an answer, and he did not give an answer to that question at all. I can only surmise that the reason he did not was because of the embarrassment that will be caused to him if he should do so. The second part of the question was, on what date were the contents of the said letter directed to the attention of the R.C.M.P.? There was no answer to that. I think this is one question that must be answered and cannot be evaded in the manner exhibited by the minister. He realizes the consequences of answering in accordance with the facts and he has endeavoured to wrap up-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -his insufficient answer-


George James McIlraith: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -by a lot of talk about privy council oaths. I ask that that question be reinstated so it can be answered.


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition just implied- in fact said, not implied-that the reason I gave the answer I did-


Mr. Mandziuk:: You gave no answer.


Guy Favreau: -that I referred the letter promptly both to the Prime Minister and to

771J
Question of Privilege
the R.C.M.P., was that I intended to say something that did not conform to the facts. What he has just said is not "Favreaucation," it is fabrication; because if the right hon. gentleman had a minimum of decency left in him he would now charge me with having lied to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to fabrication, but if the hon. gentleman wants to make "Favreaucation" and "fabrication" synonymous, he is the one who knows how to do it.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Make your charge or sit down. This is just another cowardly performance.


Michael Starr: You have no guts. Stand up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I never worry about the statements made by the hon. member for Twillingate because nobody pays any more attention to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At the risk of using an old, old platitude I wonder if we could not have a little more light and a little less heat.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member mentioned a minimum of decency.


Guy Favreau: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: All I have to say to him is that a minimum discharge of his responsibilities would be more in line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: A minimum of honesty.


John George Diefenbaker: I am amazed at the excitement. I simply rose to say that these questions have not been answered, and they have not. I therefore ask that they be reinstated. This type of evasion of the facts and the truth has continued too long in connection with certain matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question really is whether the question should be reinstated, and obviously I shall have to study the question and make up my mind.


An hon. Member:: Study the answer, too.

Question of Privilege


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, may I deal exclusively with the point of order that is raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to the insistence upon an answer. I deal with this exclusively from a procedural point of view, and direct Your Honour's attention to citation 181 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which establishes the rights of members to answers and the traditional rights of ministers in their replies:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal.


Mr. Monieith:: That is on oral questions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The rule is precisely the same in this respect for oral and written questions.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In this case a question was answered-it is true, not to the satisfaction of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition- and I suggest that this citation establishes quite clearly that even though a member may be dissatisfied with an answer it is not regular to raise a question of privilege on his dissatisfaction, but it can be raised in other ways in the house if it is a matter of dispute.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you are going to look into this question. Certainly that is the rule which has been cited by the minister, but does that permit the government to give an answer that is obviously false, for their own purposes?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Who is the Speaker?


Guy Favreau: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has for once stated-or did I hear him wrong-a formal charge that my answer was false. Did I hear that?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Guy Favreau: Let him make the charge and I will move that the matter go to the committee on privileges and elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the thought has come to you, how ridiculous can this minister become?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has made a charge. It has been suggested that it be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. He obviously does not want to do that; so, Mr. Speaker, the charge having been denied I ask that you ask the right hon. gentleman to withdraw it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been requested by the right hon. Prime Minister to ask the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement made, that the answer given by the Minister of Justice was false, and I would ask the right hon. Leader of the Opposition kindly to withdraw that charge.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I always bow to you-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -but I say immediately that the statement I have just made is in accordance with the facts, and I hope you don't direct me to withdraw because I cannot under the rules do so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I asked you to ask the right hon. gentleman to withdraw the statement he has made to the effect that the Minister of Justice has made a statement which was false. The Minister of Justice has denied it was false. The right hon. gentleman should withdraw that charge right now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I made my position clear, and if the government wants to move let the Prime Minister move a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: There are times in the house when the temperature seems to go up faster than is usual. This seems to be one of those days. Surely sensible men can reach a sensible conclusion, and I would ask the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, in the circumstances of this heated atmosphere, to let us get ahead with the business and withdraw the charge, the word "false".


John George Diefenbaker: I have made my position clear. Your Honour did not find it necessary to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the expression "minimum of decency." I have taken my stand. I have a perfect right under the rules to say that a thing is false. The minister has the right to deny it, but I shall point out to you, sir, that I have rights as well as every other hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -and I do not intend to be directed in that connection. I realize that in the heat of debate things are said that would not otherwise be said. From the other side of the chamber I have been called everything; even the word "liar" has been used, and that has never been challenged in this house. I do not ask for a withdrawal, but I ask you, sir, to reconsider any direction.


Mr. Speaker:: I was about to suggest to everyone in the house that the time has come to wipe the slate clean, and that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition should withdraw that charge; and I am sure if the Minister of Justice used words in the heat of the argument which were perhaps extraordinary, he on his part would also stand up and withdraw any implication that was intended or sounded as if it was meant to be intended.
For the sake of parliament I suggest to both parties, in view of the position they hold in this chamber, which is the highest court of appeal, and in view of the great experience of both hon. gentlemen, that the charge "false" should be withdrawn, and the other expression which was used-I have forgotten the exact words-should also be withdrawn and that we should get on with the business before the house.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I recall to your attention that in connection with statements of this kind Your Honour has already ruled that a statement made that such and such a thing is false is not necessarily the type of statement which needs to be withdrawn. I think I, or any member, am certainly entitled to say that information given in an answer or a statement is false. To say that it is deliberately false is, I think, what makes the distinction; it is the use of the word "deliberately".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: Your Honour has ruled this already. I have not the citation, but I would call that ruling to Your Honour's attention. I think under those circumstances a withdrawal must be made, but not under the circumstances which exist now.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: That's right; howl us down again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Question of Privilege


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as one who has occupied the distinguished and difficult position that you now occupy, I realize the problem with which you are faced. The question of what is parliamentary and unparliamentary language is always difficult, and the rule in this regard is one which the Chair must try to enforce as much as possible, in keeping with standing order 12-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we might have a little less chatter from people opposite.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In regard to what has occurred in the last several weeks, it has been my uncomfortable and regrettable experience to see that there has crept into this house the use of language which a year ago we would not have deemed even possible-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -on both sides. There has been the use of the invectives "liar", "falsehood", and what have you. I am not assessing blame, but I think it lies ill in the mouth of anyone to today ask that the word "false" be withdrawn; because after all this is much less harmful than the word "liar", and that word has been bandied about by all kinds of people-


Michael Starr: Including the Minister of Transport.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -from ministers down. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the sensible thing would be for all members to resolve not to use such language; for the Prime Minister to desist in connection with this rather minor request; that we just say "All right. We are sorry. In the heat of the battle these words were used", and that we get on with the business before the house. This is a serious suggestion which I offer to all members of the house, because I feel that this type of activity can only bring discredit on the house and on the Chair.
If I may make a suggestion to Your Honour, perhaps a little firmer control on the use of that type of word-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -might have meant that we would not have been brought into these situations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think members of the house on all sides will agree with what

Motions for Papers
has been said by the hon. member who has joist sat down, and I think they will appreciate the spirit in which he has said it, although they may not agree with all the implications of everything he has said. I would like to echo his appeal that we do try to get on with the business of the house. We have some important business to deal with, and there should be a minimum of this kind of disputation across the chamber. I would hope that what has happened this afternoon-and it has not been very pleasant for anyone in the house-may have the effect of clearing the air, and that from now on we may be able to reduce this kind of disputation to a minimum. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we can let this particular matter drop now and get on with the business of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could not be more in agreement; and I seem to recall that the Prime Minister himself used the expression to me, not so very long ago, "That is false".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may use these words, I think this, if not a happy conclusion to the affair, should end this discussion. Now I suggest that we get on with the business before the house.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say a word, in view of what has been said. Although I am the one directly affected, I am not going to insist. I will insist only on one thing, and that is that my answer was truthful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motion 226 is acceptable to the government.
Motions 218 and 219 are acceptable subject to the usual reservation concerning the consent of provincial governments.
In the case of motion 227, I understand that the hon. member is agreeable to the insertion of the words "other than between public servants" after the words "to or from any person". With this amendment, and subject to the usual reservation covering communications to or from other governments, this motion is acceptable.

Would Your Honour please call motions 200, 224, 228 and 229. I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these motions be adopted subject to the reservations expressed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



OPINIONS OF INDIAN BANDS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 200-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all minutes, notes or other writings of opinions of Indian bands, band councils or individual Indians, concerning Bill C-130, introduced during the 1963 session of parliament which were recorded by any Indian superintendent, or other officer of the Indian affairs branch and in the possession of the said superintendent, or other officer or in any field office of the said branch.
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the hon. member concerned, and he is agreeable to the motion being accepted, subject to our obtaining the approval and concurrence of the band councils concerned as regards band minutes and council resolutions.


Mr. Howard:: That is quite agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservation as stated by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 218
Mr. Rondeau:: That an humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence and documents exchanged between the Department of Justice on the one hand, and the department of revenue and the attorney general of the province of Quebec on the other hand, with regard to the setting up of a race track at St. Luc, St. Johns county, Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 219-Mr. Laprise:
That an humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence and all documents exchanged between the Department of Agriculture on the one hand, and the Quebec department of agriculture on the other hand, from October 1, 1964, to the present day,

in the matter of assistance to farmers in the Abitibi, Temiscamingue and Saguenay-Lake St. John regions.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 224-Mr. Coates:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Transport, Air Canada and interested parties, with regard to the construction of an addition to the Moncton airport and the extension of runways to accommodate jet aircraft and international traffic.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I had a word with the hon. member about this motion, Mr. Speaker, and he was good enough to agree that if the words "Air Canada and interested parties" were struck out of the motion, so the relevant line would read "between the Department of Transport and interested members of the public", that would meet his wishes; and in that case it would be acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservation as expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
INCREASE IN STEEL PRICE Motion No. 226-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters or telegrams exchanged between the United Steelworkers of America and the Prime Minister regarding the recent increase in the price of steel.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 227-Mr. Coates:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all letters, correspondence, telegrams and other communications in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to or from any person dealing with the immigration status of Joe Bonnano.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 228-Mr. Mandziuk:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of a letter dated December 30, 1964 written by Hon. Eric Kierans, revenue minister for the province of Quebec, to the Minister of Justice concerning Hon. Yvon Dupuis, member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville.
Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this motion
Motions for Papers
asks for a copy of a letter, of which I have already admitted the existence, from a provincial minister in Quebec to myself, concerned exclusively with a matter which is now before the courts. I am sure that in the circumstances the mover of the motion, who is a member of the bar, will appreciate that even if the provincial government was prepared to give its consent to the production of such a letter, it would be improper for the government to publish it while the matter is before the courts of justice. I should therefore hope that the hon. member will withdraw the motion.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: No, Mr. Speaker, I refuse to accept that explanation. I ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 47 this motion is transferred to notices of motions (papers).



REPRESENTATIONS FROM MEMBER FOR DOLLARD RESPECTING VINCENT COTRONI

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 229-Mr. Mandziuk:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all letters and correspondence since January 1, 1964 that passed between Andre Letendre, executive assistant to the Minister of Justice, and Mr. Guy Rouleau, the member for Dollard (formerly parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister) regarding one Vincent Cotroni of Montreal, and any briefs that came to the Department of Justice and/or the said executive assistant or to the parole board from said Mr. Rouleau and others asking for a declaration clearing said Cotroni's name of any and all convictions for criminal offences registered against him.
Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this motion asserts that a number of documents exist and asks for their production by the government.
I should like to deal first with the request for documents submitted to the parole board in the case of one Vincent Cotroni of Montreal. It is true that representations have been made to the parole board with respect to Mr. Cotroni, but it seems to me that the work of the parole board would be completely nullified if documents or other information from its files, much of which would only be given on a confidential basis, became subject to production in parliament. For that reason I hope there will be no desire on the part of the hon. member to insist on this motion for the production of such documents.
Next, in respect of the point of order, there were only two documents which came to me

Inquiries of the Ministry or to the Department of Justice regarding this man. The main one was a petition from Cotroni himself, addressed to the governor in council and submitted by Cotroni's solicitor. I did not feel that the granting of Cotroni's request should be recommended to my colleagues and I so indicated to his solicitor.
The other document was a letter to me relating to Cotroni's request.
Again in respect of the point of order, there is no correspondence whatever between Andre Letendre, my executive assistant, and Mr. Guy Rouleau, M.P., regarding Cotroni, notwithstanding the assertion made in the motion that such correspondence exists, nor is there any letter to anyone from Mr. Rouleau on the subject. The assertion in the motion, as hon. members will have noticed, has given rise to regrettable publicity damaging to a member of this house and to a public servant. In the circumstances I hope the hon. member will see fit to drop this motion.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the evasive manner in which the Minister of Justice has treated this motion I would ask the house to allow it to stand for a week, so I can give it some consideration after I have read Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent the motion stands.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he is in a position to indicate the date on which he received a letter from Hon. E. Kierans regarding the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis).


Guy Favreau: the hon. gentleman is referring to the letter dated December 30, 1964, I received it on December 31, 1964.



CANCELLATION OF PROPOSED RAID BY POLICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can he tell us today whose M.L.A.'s place was going to be raided by the police last


Saturday morning in order to find Lucien Rivard and why the raid did not take place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to the Chair that this question is still out of order. I believe an attempt was made to ask it yesterday, but I do not know how the Minister of Justice can be held responsible for matters which concern members of a legislature, except in certain circumstances. It does seem to me that this question is not in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to show that my question is justified.
Since it is the R.C.M.P. which was implicated or at least which was making some of those raids, I am of the opinion that this matter concerns the Minister of Justice, and that is why I put my question to him, because the R.C.M.P. was directly interested in those many raids.
Moreover, the question I asked yesterday was in respect of a member of parliament, while actually it was an M.L.A., as we ascertained later on.
That is why I believe that my question is in order and that I may put it to the Minister of Justice.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is evident that hundreds of clues were given the police concerning Lucien Rivard.
I state before this house that I am not aware and that the R.C.M.P. did not report to me that a provincial member's residence had been visited or raided.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are so many questions I have difficulty in sorting them out. The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe just pointed out to you that yesterday he asked a question concerning a

federal member of parliament and not a provincial member, but today he is changing his position.
As a matter of fact, as recorded at page 12126 of Hansard, the following question was asked by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, is this question of privilege in order?


Guy Marcoux: This is the question:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Would it be a member of the legislature, and could the minister tell us his name?
So, this question was actually asked yesterday.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I asked the Minister of Justice if he could inquire from the R.C.M.P. if a raid was to be made in the residence of a member of the legislature, and why it was not made. Could the minister inquire about this?



LUCIEN RIVARD-DELAY IN ANNOUNCEMENT OF REWARD FOR CAPTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a very brief question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that it took the government nearly a week to decide to offer the magnificent reward of $15,000 for any information leading to the arrest of Mr. Rivard, was this delay in announcing this reward occasioned by any consultation with the state of Texas with a view to that state sharing this expense?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Not to my knowledge.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Minister of Justice tell the house at what hour yesterday or the day before the order in council was passed providing for the $15,000 reward?


Guy Favreau: There was no formal order in council passed. It was a decision taken as a result of consultation between members of the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say that there was consultation, but no order in council in this connection was passed? On what basis can an order like that be made?


Guy Favreau: Of course, the necessary machinery and practice is being followed.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: What was the necessary machinery that was followed in order to give the Minister of Justice the power to grant a reward?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: A treasury board order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Does the fact it had to be approved by treasury board account for the six day delay in reaching this decision?

Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer to my question. I was seriously asking the Minister of Justice why it took six days for the government to make up its mind to offer a reward for Lucien Rivard. It seems to me some explanation for that long delay is due from the government to the people of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: They were moving faster than in most things.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Beauce.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should now like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with certain representations that were made to him by the premier of Saskatchewan regarding what are described as depressed areas. Were any representations made to the government by the premier of Saskatchewan to the effect that in view of the serious economic conditions of small farms in northern Saskatchewan something in the nature of acreage payments should be made so that these farmers may have something to carry them through their spring work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated a day or two ago the premier of Saskatchewan did bring this matter to my attention. This involves a question of policy which is now under consideration.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which relates to the recent announcement that the cost of

Inquiries of the Ministry living index rose during the month of February and has now reached the all-time high of 137.2. In view of the fact that since these figures were compiled there have been increases in the prices of steel, lumber and other commodities, and in view of the fact that one of the goals set by the economic council of Canada was that the government should endeavour to obtain some stability in price levels during the next five-year period, in respect of which Professor Deutsch suggested that the government ought to take immediate steps toward implementing this as quickly as possible, would the minister indicate what steps he proposes to deal with this situation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and I were most privileged this morning to hear a brief presented by the Canadian Labour Congress, during the course of which the congress expressed the view that there was no immediate danger of inflation. At that time I thought my hon. friend agreed with them, but perhaps I was wrong.
Like all members of this house I regret any increase in the cost of living, but I would point out to my hon. friend that during the last 12 months, to the end of February, the consumer price index in Canada has gone up by 2 per cent which, with the exception of the United States increase, is the smallest increase of any of some 10 or 11 countries including Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Japan, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy. While I regret any increase, I think we can take some satisfaction from the fact that the increase which has occurred in Canada is lower than that of any of the other countries I have mentioned.
My hon. friend has asked what we intend to do about this situation. I think the first thing we must do is to define the extent of the problem. As I have just said, I felt that my friend applauded this morning the statement made by the congress, a very influential group, that in their opinion this was not one of the major problems with which we have to contend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. Instead of answering my question the minister seems to have posed a dilemma for himself. I would be interested in reading any statement of the Canadian Labour Congress to the effect that they are not concerned about the rising costs of living. On


the contrary, they devoted one entire section of their brief to a request to the government to do something about the increased price of steel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member will pose his question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement that the first thing we have to do is obtain information, I should like to ask him whether he proposes to take any steps to ascertain whether the increases in the price of steel, lumber and other commodities were warranted and, in the event they are not, what action does the government propose to take to deal with the situation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to assure my hon. friend that I was not seeking to confront myself with a dilemma, but attempting to confront my hon. friend with a dilemma. This whole situation is being considered by the government and I hope that we will be able to make a statement before very long.


Mr. Heward Graff  ley@Brome-Missisquoi: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question and I suggest the urgency of it can be found in the fact that over 25 per cent of the Canadian population belongs to the fixed income group. Does the hon. minister feel that his statement will satisfy the 35 per cent of our population living in poverty, deprivation and destitution, all of whom must pay these increasing costs from their fixed and shrinking incomes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Canadian minority report has been rejected by the government of North Viet Nam and that in its reply it not only accuses Canada of bad faith but also of misrepresentation will the minister inform us what action he has taken, or what has been the result of this reply?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that a minority report has been

issued by a member of the commission. The Polish commissioner has done so on at least two occasions. I have noted what the government of North Viet Nam has said about the conclusions in the Canadian report, but I have no further comment to make.
VOICE OF WOMEN-PROMOTION OF UNDERSTANDING IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS On the orders of the day:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but first of all may I say I have been informed he has been appointed honorary colonel of the Essex Scottish regiment and I wish to congratulate him on that appointment. I trust he will live up to Scottish military tradition by taking any march past in full regimentals when required.
In view of the established purposes and objectives of the Voice of Women in Canada and in view of the fact that a number of its former and present officers and members are highly respected and well known national figures, would the minister inform the house of his thinking with respect to the contribution made by this organization toward promoting an understanding of problems relating to international and national affairs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my hon. friend wanted to honour my city and its two regiments. The honour which is mine is with regard to the Windsor regiment. There already is a distinguished honorary colonel of the Essex Scottish.
With regard to the question of my hon. friend I will simply say that I have received delegations from this organization on a number of occasions and their representations have received the careful consideration I endeavour to give to all those who make submissions to me on international matters.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister correct his statement of fact that there are two regiments in his city and will he explain to the house how he can hold two regiments, and the rest of us cannot even hold one?


[Stage Direction]
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN UNIONS AND OFFICE WORKERS On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on March 8 the hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Edmonton West inquired about the labour negotiations affecting the staff of Expo '67. I have now received a report from the exhibition corporation to the effect that these negotiations have been completed to what appears to be the satisfaction of the staff and the unions. There are at present some 152 positions in the corporation included in the bargaining unit. The two unions concerned, the Montreal labour council and the confederation of national trade unions, have agreed that these employees will be free to join or not join a union as they see fit. Effective March 10, however, new employees whose positions fall within the bargaining unit will be called upon to join either of the two unions as a condition of their employment with the corporation. Union dues will only be collected from those who will be members of unions.
Hon. members will be aware that the corporation has negotiated an agreement with the two labour councils in the Montreal area which provides for unionization of employees on the site of the exhibition in exchange for a no strike undertaking and consultative machinery to settle all grievances. I am happy to advise the house that all parties to the agreement are working together to apply it constructively and in the best interests of the exhibition.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise whether this is in conformity with government labour policy and was this settlement encouraged or proposed by the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. From the very outset, as hon. members will realize, it has been most desirable to reach an agreement with the labour unions in the area in which the exhibition will operate to avoid strikes. One of the besetting problems of the New York world's fair, for example, was the number of interruptions that took place, and it was very much in the interests of exhibitors and the three governments concerned that such an arrangement should be made. While the government was not the instigator, we think that the corporation has acted very wisely.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister think that this action is appropriate in connection with the celebration of our centennial and does it not deprive Canadians of certain liberties which I think he would agree are most important?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think this is depriving anyone of any liberties. In so far as the existing employees are concerned they can join a union or not. As for the future people do not have to work for the exhibition. The exhibition has made it a condition of employment that if they do take employment they have to join one of the unions in order that the unions themselves may carry out the no strike pledge they have given.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand the minister correctly when he said that the exhibition had made it a condition of employment? Was that the wording?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, the exhibition has made it a condition of employment for those persons who would be subject to unionization. There are a great many employees of the exhibition, such as all supervisory people and all professional workers, who will not be covered. This only applies at the present time to 152 employees out of several hundred.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question. Does the minister not realize that the laying down of such a condition for any type of work is interfering with freedom? I know that in my own province and possibly in every other province the labour legislation does not permit conditions of employment. Therefore I ask the minister to look into any situation where workers under federal jurisdiction would be subject to any conditions prior to getting a job.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I suggest to my hon. friend that I am sure there is no understanding with the trade unions in his constituency, such as exists now with respect to employment by the exhibition, whereby the unions have given a no strike pledge.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which is related to the answer he gave the hon. member for Edmonton West. As a result of the action which has been taken by Expo '67 concerning new employees, with the apparent approval of the government, can the minister inform the house whether or not the government feels this is a precedent which should now be followed by industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any suggestion being made that disputes in general would be subjected to compulsory arbitration as is the rule in Expo. It is a very extraordinary situation designed to en-

sure that there are no interruptions to the building of Expo, so I do not think it is of general application.


Robert Simpson: May I ask a supplementary question? Normally, under many of the agreements which are for a two year period, there will be a no strike clause with a closed shop aspect to it.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising out of a circular distributed this morning on the occasion of the Canadian Labour Congress presenting its submission to the cabinet. It is on the letterhead of the building and construction trades council of Ottawa, Hull and district, an affiliate of the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. It deals with Canada's centennial project, the centre for the performing arts, and alleges that the contract for the first stage of this project has been awarded to a company that has no agreement with the affiliates of the council. I would ask the Minister of Labour to assure the house that he will look into the matter and see that contracts for the centennial project, the centre for the performing arts, are awarded to companies with union employees. Will he look into this matter and report to us?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this matter and report to the hon. member.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Walter L, Gordon (Minister of Finance): On Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked a question concerning the pension fund of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I wish to inform the house that this pension fund is a private trust fund over which the government presently has no control.
In the proposed pension legislation about which the hon. member inquired at the same time, there will be control over the investment of pension funds of this type. I indicated in my statement in this house on December 18 of last year that further discussions would take place with the provincial authorities before this legislation would be introduced.

Some of these discussions have already taken place, at which progress has been made, and more are expected in the near future.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: May I
ask a supplementary question? I wonder if the minister can tell us if in the proposed legislation there will be a prohibition against any conflict of interest between the directors and trustees of the pension fund which the employees feel very strongly has been allowed to develop?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My hon. friend has a question on the order paper which is close to the one he has just asked. I wonder if I might deal with it in the regular way?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the minister expect to be introducing this legislation early in the new session?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would hope so, but I cannot make any promises about that. It will depend on the legislative program.



REPORTED DECISION TO ABANDON MAIL AND EXPRESS SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the Canadian Pacific Railway given notice to the government that shortly all mail and express will be removed from trains 3/7 and 8/4, between Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As Acting Postmaster General, I will take the question as notice, and direct the Postmaster General's attention to it.


David Vaughan Pugh: I wonder if, at the same time, the minister will inquire whether or not the department has made a survey as to the adverse effect on mail service to the interior of British Columbia, and what steps will be taken to counteract any diminution in the service?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will also draw the minister's attention to this question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he has any information with re-
Inquiries of the Ministry gard to the reported sighting of an unidentified submarine in the gulf of St. Lawrence?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I do not believe it is customary to give information with regard to sightings of unidentified underwater objects, but I will take the question as notice.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question? When the minister looks into this will he ascertain whether or not the pilot of a Quebecair plane notified of the existence of such a submarine and that he saw it some 65 miles northeast of Quebec city? The minister says it is not customary to give information in this regard, but that has not been my experience during peacetime. Is it a fact that the naval authorities, when asked this question, denied they had any knowledge that there was any such submarine?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I have said, as I recall,
it has been the custom not to make statements in respect of these matters. I will take the question as notice and find out both the facts, and interview anyone my hon. friend would suggest.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance further to the question I asked him on February 23. Has the minister's department now been contacted by the province of New Brunswick with respect to a further allocation under the municipal development loan fund? If so, what was the minister's answer?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to look into it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister look into this quickly because it was announced in the New Brunswick legislature last week that the minister's department had been contacted and serious decisions have to be made in Moncton and Saint John in the near future in connection with the centennial grants. It is important to know if extra municipal funds will be available.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to look into it immediately, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



CRESTON, B.C.-ALLEGED DROPPING OF GOD SAVE THE QUEEN FROM RADIO STATION OPENING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chaiterion (Esquimall-Saanich):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I am informed that at Creston, British Columbia, the C.B.C. March 1 and 2 morning broadcasts commenced with "O Canada", but were not followed by "God Save the Queen" as had been the case before. Can the minister advise if this is new C.B.C. policy, and if so is it in line with the government's position?


Maurice Lamontagne: No directives have been given to the C.B.C. by the government in this respect. However, I will seek the information from the C.B.C. and reply to the hon. member later.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Does he intend to accede to the request of the French speaking federal employees association of Ottawa who want the government to grant a bonus to bilingual federal employees? The latter are also complaining of discrimination in various federal departments in Ottawa concerning the use of the French language in the various departments.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now under consideration.



REQUEST FOR FRENCH COPY OF PENSION COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As the minister has said we were unduly delaying the business of the house in respect of Bill No. C-136 because we knew nothing


about the pension plan, would the minister consider postponing consideration of clause 1 of the bill until we get the French version of the reports of the 51 sittings of the committee, so that we may consider it since, according to her, we are ignorant in that field.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not use the plural. I was speaking in English. If I had said "vous" there might have been some mistake but I used "you" when I was referring to the hon. member for Beauce, who was the representative of his party on the joint committee but attended only six of the 51 meetings. I did not say they were ignorant-I said he was ignorant-with respect to the bill, although I might well have said it. If the committee of the whole must wait until that particular group is informed with respect to the bill, it would never clear the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has seen fit to beat around the bush throughout her reply, is it not a basic privilege of members of this house to receive the proceedings of each committee in both languages?
Are not the French speaking members of the house being done a grave injustice and made the victims of discrimination on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare when she does not provide them with the French version of those committee proceedings, which it is their right and privilege to receive when it is time to study the bill.
That is my question of privilege. There is discrimination and the minister should have the discussion of her bill postponed so we can be in a better position to examine clause 1 of the bill.
[Text}


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, there was simultaneous translation during the course of the meetings and anyone who really cared to attend would have been able at all times to understand what was going on.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-

Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question needs to be discussed any further. The points have been made and the explanation has been given.


Gilles Grégoire: That is not an explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. [Translation]


Gérard Perron: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 9, 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.
Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, not Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
In view of the arrogance of the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to questions put to her, I want to call the attention of Your Honour to the fact that perhaps I should assert my rights and privileges in this house and demand, before clause 1 of Bill No. C-136 is considered, to have in hand the French version of the 51 sittings of the special joint committee on the pension plan.
I know that before coming to this clause there are still several others which might be amended by the committee, but I want to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I will use my privileges when clause 1 of Bill No. C-136 is considered.


The Chairman:: When the committee rose last night, clause 46 was under consideration.
When the committee rose last evening clause 46 of the bill was being considered. Shall clause 46 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 48-Average monthly pensionable earnings in case of pension commencing after December, 1975.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the joint committee considered this clause and made a recommendation with regard to what is called dropout. I am informed copies of the amendment are on the way to the chamber.


Mr. More:: In French and English?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In French and English. I move, seconded by my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue:
That subsection (3) of section 48 be amended by striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 37 and substituting the following:
(i)	15 per cent of the number so remaining, and
if such 15 per cent includes a fraction of a month
This amendment provides for the increase of the dropout allowance from 10 to 15 per cent. Hon. members will recall that the joint committee on the Canada pension plan had recommended an increase to 20 per cent, after having heard representations from the teachers federation, the firefighters association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, Dr. Robert Clark and Professor McGregor, to the effect that 4.7 years were insufficient to allow for years of schooling beyond the age 18 and for periods of illness and unemployment which might occur before the age 65. A 20 per cent dropout, as recommended by the committee, would allow the total contributory period to be reduced from 47 to 37.6 years.
The government has given a great deal of consideration to the recommendation of the joint committee and to the views of those organizations which raised this matter in their representations before the committee. Subsequent to the hearings of the joint committee a brief was received from the students union but I believe it was not circulated to the members of the committee. It was a particularly good brief and it also recommended an increase in the percentage of dropout allowed.
It is apparent that some retirement plans have a normal retirement age lower than 65 years. Some may have 62 or 60 as a retirement age, and some even lower. While some

Canada Pension Plan
adjustment to account for these special circumstances appears to have some merit, it must be kept in mind that many of those covered by such plans continue working either in the same type of employment or in some other type of work.
In the case of teachers many continue on to age 65, even though their teachers retirement plans may be set at an age lower than 65. In the case of the firefighters many of these able-bodied men take on other employment after retiring from the firefighting service. None the less there is a valid point that some recognition of these special circumstances needs to be made.
At the other end of the scale are those who continue on in school beyond age 18. Some of these may be for only a year or two in high school and in technical and vocational schools, in which case the amount of dropout provision needed to compensate for this period is not great. But others continue on to university. In their case many work in the vacation period and earn enough more than the $600 basic minimum to be able to count such a year. A student who has earned, say, $800 in summer employment will contribute $3.60 for the year, that is, 1.8 per cent on $200, and will be credited with $800 in pensionable earnings. Also, for most of those who receive a university education average earnings will be well over the $5,000 earnings ceiling throughout their later careers. They will probably get a maximum benefit under the Canada pension plan, for they, it should be expected, will for most of their work life be above the income ceiling. Also, they will in most cases earn sufficient income to permit them to make substantial other provision for their retirement; and that of course includes private pension plans. Teachers, for example, as in the case of other groups such as civil servants, will have other retirement benefits from well established retirement plans. Also it is generally true that those with a university education would not require as large a dropout provision for unemployment as would industrial workers.
Having reviewed all these considerations, the government was of the view that somewhat more generous provision was needed by way of dropout; but the question was, how to achieve this and how much additional compensation should be provided. Any attempt to deal with individual groups by providing special dropout provisions raised so many administrative problems and anomalies affecting the equity of treatment of
fMiss LaMarsh.]
different groups in the population that it was decided an increase in the general dropout provision as proposed by the joint committee was the most practical and fairest way of achieving this objective.
When the joint committee made its recommendation it had only a general indication of the magnitude of the cost involved in any change. Since that time the chief actuary has been able to make estimates of the cost, and this has been of some assistance to the government in arriving at its decision. Two points should be emphasized. Raising the percentage of the dropout provision has no effect in the first ten years because it does not become operative during the transition period. It is of particular significance for only long term costs. A higher percentage not only makes the plan more generous for groups that have a shorter work career, such as those I have mentioned, but it makes the plan more generous for all participants. The low years or no years of earnings, or perhaps I should say the low months or no months of earnings, that can be dropped out are increased for all contributors under the plan.
On the assumption of an annual rate of increase in average earnings of 4 per cent, and on the basis of intermediate cost estimates, the chief actuary estimates that expenditures on benefits would be increased by the following amounts if a 20 per cent dropout rather than a 10 per cent dropout were adopted: For 1980, $12 million; 1985; $38 million; 1990, $76 million; 1995, $125 million; for the year 2000, $180 million; for the year 2005, $244 million. As I have pointed out, that would be the effect of doubling the dropout provision which appears in the present bill.
It will be noted that toward the end of this period the effects of that provision in increasing costs are very considerable. Reserve fund projections based on intermediate cost estimates, a 4 per cent annual rate of increase in earnings and accumulation interest rate of 5 per cent to the end of 1975, and 4 per cent thereafter, show a considerable effect on the reserve fund. Twenty years from now, in 1985, reserves would be $200 million less; five years later, in 1990, reserves would be $600 million less; in 1995 the reserve fund would be $1,300 million smaller. In the year 2000, assuming the present level of contributions, reserves would be down to $300 million with a 10 per cent dropout provision; but if it were increased to 20 per cent there would be a deficit of $2.1 billion. In the long term, the increase in total benefits resulting from

a change from a 10 per cent to a 20 per cent dropout provision would be equivalent to an increase of about 5 per cent in the required pay-as-you-go contribution rates.
In proposing the amendment to clause 48 (3) the government took into account the special circumstances of the groups which might be adversely affected by the dropout, and the long term effect on the finances of the plan. A dropout of 15 per cent, however, as is included in the government's amendment, will allow the contributory period of 47 years to be reduced to 40 years. It should be pointed out again that no one will be affected by the dropout provision in the first ten years of the plan, since the dropout allowance is not permitted to reduce one's contributory period below 120 months, or ten years. During this time anyone who can do so will want to contribute in order to build up the level of the benefit to which he is entitled. For the next ten years of the plan, from 1976 to 1986-that is, the second ten years-it makes only a very small difference whether the dropout provision is 15 per cent or 20 per cent. A dropout of 15 per cent by 1986 will allow three years of earnings to be removed from the calculation of one's average earnings, and a dropout of 20 per cent will allow four years of earnings to be removed from the calculation.
Thus it can be seen that it is only after the plan has been in operation for many years that the size of the percentage dropout takes on much significance. At that time a decision could be made regarding the appropriate level of the dropout allowance, having in mind the trends in employment that will have developed 20 years from now. Automation and other developments may affect the normal retirement age over the next decade or so, which will mean this provision will need to be reviewed periodically.
This is the kind of problem that the draftsmen and the advisory committee on the Canada pension plan would be expected to study very carefully as relevant information becomes available to it. No doubt the advisory committee would be in a position to make a recommendation to the government of the day for the appropriate level of the dropout allowance after a decade or two of experience with the operation of the Canada pension plan. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, we consider that it would be prudent, as a government measure, for the committee to consider the adoption of a 15 per cent rather than a 20 per cent dropout provision as recommended by the special joint committee.
Canada Pension Plan


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Kindersley will be moving an amendment to the following clause in connection with students, and we have given notice of this amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: I wonder whether the hon. member wanted to address the committee on the amendment now proposed by the hon. minister?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: In that case I will put the amendment to the committee. It has been moved by the Minister of National Revenue:
That subsection (3) of section 48 be amended by striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 37 and substituting the following:
"(i) 15 per cent of the number so remaining, and if such 15 per cent includes a fraction of a month."


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Kindersley will be moving an amendment to the next subclause which relates directly to this question, and it makes his amendment concerning students even more valid and important when we find that the committee's recommendation for a 20 per cent dropout provision has not been accepted by the government. In the first place there are, I think, three groups which are particularly concerned with the dropout provisions. First and foremost is the group of students who are being encouraged by the government to stay in school to take university, vocational or other training.
The second group are those such as firemen who are limited to a certain retirement age. The firemen's association came before the committee and stated that in their position they had to retire at age 60, and that the dropout provision was not sufficient for them. The third group are teachers and others who must retire at an earlier age and who are also not being aided by the dropout provision.
As the minister pointed out, if you take 15 per cent-


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not desire to limit the hon. member's remarks at this time in any way, but I would not want his statement on the merits of the matter to prejudice the right to raise a point of order when he has finished. He indicated last night that perhaps we were in error in not raising points of order quickly enough, so I do want to indicate that we will have a point of order to raise with respect to the appropriateness of this proposed amendment.

Canada Pension Plan


Jay Waldo Monteith: The only amendment before the committee is the one suggested by the minister.


John Carr Munro: I am talking of the amendment to which the hon. member referred.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I understand very well the facetious remarks of the parliamentary secretary and forgive him, but he does not add one word to the debate we are undertaking.
As I say, there are three groups who would be affected. It was felt by some members in the committee that a dropout provision of 25 per cent was what was really required, because that would allow a student to continue in school until age 25 and then retire at some time before the age of 65 without losing out. However, others pointed out that 10 per cent was in the bill and therefore a compromise agreement was reached on 20 per cent, which is what the committee recommended. I assume that since the committee reported further estimates have been made; and the minister has pointed out that the actuarial result will reduce the fund at one point below the level it should be. However, we feel that the reduction in the dropout period from 20 per cent to 15 per cent will make even more important the problem for students. Because if you take the present 15 per cent dropout, from 47 years it allows a dropout period of seven years. In the proposal which will be made, of which notice has already been given, students up to the age of 25 years would not have their years of dropout counted. The years between 18 and 25 are now proposed to be the dropout period. Therefore I do not think that the amendment will meet the case of the students, as the minister attempted to show it would. It will mean that if they do continue on at school until they reach the age of 25 they will not be able to miss one further year in their whole lifetime earning period up to age 65, which will certainly not meet the situation for them. Neither will it meet the situation for the others who put forward a strong case to the committee.
The minister pointed out that the provision would not be applicable in the first 10 years; that between now and 10 years hence it does not matter whether the dropout period percentage is 10 per cent or 20 per cent or 25 per cent, it can still be amended at a later date. I merely ask this question: If it does not matter for the next 10 years, then why bother moving the amendment at all? It seems that if the amendment is to be made it should be made on a basis which will meet the situation. If at the end of the 10 year

period which the minister has mentioned it is found that the conditions of employment and business generally to which she referred have changed, then the reduction might be made the other way. It really seems unnecessary to make any amendments at all if the minister takes the attitude that it does not matter in any case.
I merely say, Mr. Chairman, that the increase to 15 per cent will not meet the situation for students, firemen, teachers and many other people who are forced into a shorter earning lifetime by the circumstances of their profession; and I must express great disappointment that the dropout period was not increased to the amount recommended by the joint committee. I have not discussed with my hon. friend from Perth whether we will support this amendment. I think 15 per cent is better than 10 per cent and perhaps we should be thankful that there has been some increase; but as I say, I am disappointed that the recommendation of the joint committee was not accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty well established that the member for Winnipeg North Centre has been one of the keen supporters of this measure and has done everything he can to further its progress. However, I regret I must express very keen disappointment at the fact that the government has not accepted the unanimous recommendation of the special joint committee with respect to the dropout provision. As members of the committee know, we wrestled with this problem and for a considerable time we discussed two different ways of dealing with it. One way was by providing some special category, such as for students, firefighters and other groups. The other way was by increasing the dropout provision.
The members of the joint committee know that I went along with the argument advanced by the supporters of the government, and I think advanced by the staff people we had before us, to the effect that setting up special categories would not be a good idea. But I went along with that proposition because of the agreement that was reached to recommend a dropout of 20 per cent rather than 10 per cent. It is a matter of knowledge among those of us who were there that there was a certain amount of bargaining all the way from 10 per cent to 25 per cent; but in the end we agreed on 20 per cent, on the understanding that no member of the committee would vote against it. I do not think

that even the time honoured words "on division" were used when this figure was arrived at. Therefore I am quite disappointed that the minister now tells us that the government has decided to recommend a change to 15 per cent only rather than to 20 per cent.
As others have pointed out, the 10 per cent dropout provision made possible dropping out only 4.7 years out of the 47 of a full working career. In our recommendation that the figure be 20 per cent we would have provided for 9.4 years. Even that figure did not cover some cases which were brought to us, but I for one felt that that was a reasonable figure and made possible staying in school up to age 25 and dropping out certain other years of low income. I felt that those who stayed at school to get a better education were the people who would not need many dropout years, so I felt that the 20 per cent figure or the 9.4 years dropout was a reasonable one and that the committee was doing a reasonable thing in settling for that on a unanimous basis.
This proposal for a 15 per cent dropout puts this back to only 7.05 years that can be dropped out of the calculation so far as lifetime earnings are concerned. As has already been said, Mr. Chairman, this leaves no margin for people who may stay in school until 25 years of age, and it will create other problems. As a matter of fact, what is going to happen is that people who want to receive special consideration in respect of special categories will again raise their voices. I hope the government will yet reconsider this whole question and go along with what was recommended unanimously by the committee.
A great deal has been said during our discussions about the good work that was done by the committee. The committee has been commended for its attendance, study and attention to the briefs, and has been commended for its recommendations, and up to this point all of the recommendations have been accepted. I am quite disappointed that this unanimous recommendation has not been concurred in by the government.
I made a few notes while the minister was speaking as to what I might say, and I discover that one of them relates to a point already made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, but perhaps I may be allowed to repeat it. If the minister contends that this provision can be changed 10 or 20 years from now, why put in any figure at this time? Why not just leave it to some future and wiser parliament, as the minister would say, to wrestle with this problem?
Canada Pension Plan
The fact of the matter is that by putting in a figure now we are telling the Canadian people that this is the structure of this bill, and I am sure this will be disappointing, particularly in view of the fact there has been public knowledge of the unanimous agreement of the committee regarding the 20 per cent figure. There will be disappointment in respect of the government's decision that the figure should be set at 15 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, we should reconsider this situation, and therefore I have written out an amendment to the amendment which I propose to move. I point out to you, sir, and to all members of this committee, that the minister's amendment has been brought in without any prior resolution, and therefore it is not regarded as one which is contrary to the general terms of the plan. Her amendment is one that cannot be ruled out for the reasons some of us advanced last night against another amendment. It is my submission that if the minister has the right to move a change from 10 per cent to 15 per cent without a prior resolution it is my right as a member of this committee to move a further change from 15 per cent to 20 per cent.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You did not say that last night.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure that if the hon. member for Perth reads objectively the terms of the resolution that preceded the bill he will see that there is no question at all regarding what was then attempted; it was out of order. But in this case may I point out that there was nothing in the terms of the resolution preceding the bill that referred to the dropout provision.
I take it that the minister and her advisers have decided that she does not have to bring in a prior resolution. On that basis I do not think my amendment is out of order either. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, so the committee of the whole might reconsider this important matter and look again at the unanimous recommendation made by the special joint committee, I move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting the phrase "15 per cent" from both places where it appears therein, and by substituting therefor the phrase "20 per cent".


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Without questioning or going into the submission with respect to the resolution, which perhaps could be contended as not being applicable in this particular case, the hon. member's amendment will create a

Canada Pension Plan
charge on the consolidated revenue fund. The minister read the figures in this regard, which indicate that many millions of dollars would be involved. The hon. member's argument in respect of a resolution preceding an amendment not applying in this case is one argument, but surely he cannot say that this amendment will not create a charge on consolidated revenue.
That being the case, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must agree that all the rules and reasons submitted to you yesterday make it clear that this type of initiative can only be taken by a minister of the government on behalf of the crown. I do not know that it is necessary for me to review the argument, but I must state that it has been established already, as a result of the ruling you made yesterday, that this is a money bill. Citation 243 was quoted to you last evening in reference to this being a money bill, and I would refer Your Honour again to that citation.
I also direct Your Honour's attention to citation 263 which in part reads as follows:
All taxes, duties and grants of money, and all measures imposing financial burdens on the people are matters within the sole jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
Part 2 of that citation states in part:
The principle that the sanction of the crown must be given to every grant of money drawn from the public revenue, applies equally to the taxation levied to provide that revenue.
Later in the same part of the citation the following is stated:
In like manner, no increase can be considered either of an existing, or of a new or temporary tax for the service of the year, except on the initiative of a minister, act on behalf of the crown;-


Lucien Lamoureux: What was the number of that citation?


John Carr Munro: I have read from citation No. 263, Mr. Chairman.
I should now like to refer Your Honour to citation No. 249 which states in part:
No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian Commons receiving the authority of the crown, through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money.
Mr. Chairman, I think it has been clearly established that, this being a money bill- there is no argument about that-any increase in the dropout, which in the essence of the member's amendment, would create an additional expenditure of many millions of dollars. Those figures were placed on the record about ten minutes ago by the minister.

That being the case, Mr. Chairman, a recommendation by a private member involving an increase of expenditures from public revenue is undeniably out of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I think to follow the argument of the parliamentary secretary would be to carry the ruling Your Honour made last night to its final and ultimate extreme. We are inclined to agree with the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He would not agree with us last night but he is agreeing with us today, and I suppose better late than never. On that ground we are going to support his proposition that this particular amendment is in order.
I merely want to put it this way. If Your Honour should follow the proposition put forward by the parliamentary secretary, then any amendment whatever to this bill that any private member might put forward, which would in any way affect the contributions to be made, the benefits to be paid out, the period during which contributions would be accepted, the age of persons entitled to benefits, the conditions under which they would benefit-anything down to the most minute and minor change in the bill- would be assumed to be a charge on the public or to be a change in the plan and therefore out of order. I cannot see that such a ruling could be made on a bill of the magnitude of this one, and that the only amendments to the bill that can be put forward are amendments proposed by the government.
The sequence of the argument put forward by the parliamentary secretary is that an amendment to the dropout period would make some pensions a little better, that therefore there might be more money paid out of the fund, that therefore there would be a charge on the revenue and the minister should bring this in by way of resolution, or else it is out of order. This is the logical sequence of his argument. To what point of absurdity can one go in a ruling of this type?
I say that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is in order and we intend to support it because it is restoring what the joint committee recommended. We feel that at some point some of its recommendations should be accepted. For that reason we say that to follow the argument of the parliamentary secretary would be to carry your ruling to the point of absurdity. I cannot see how the amendment could possibly be out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first, sir, for your comfort, if I may use that word, may I assert that in my view there is a considerable difference between what was before us last night and what is before us now.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We moved the one last night and you are moving the one today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, even that is quite a difference. Last night, Mr. Chairman, you had before you an amendment that proposed to pay benefits to non-contributors, which was in direct conflict with the principle stated in the resolution and approved by the Governor General, that benefits were to be paid to contributors. There was a direct conflict, and that was the nub of my argument that last night's amendment was out of order.
This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, you have before you an amendment that relates to a detail in the bill that is in an area concerning which there was not a solitary word in the resolution. It is a detail in the bill not dealt with in the resolution and therefore the committee is competent to deal with it. That is all I need to say on that point to indicate that there is a marked difference between last night's situation and the situation this afternoon.
I want to deal now with the arguments that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare advanced. I would say to him that if he had not been advancing these arguments just 10 minutes after his own minister had moved an amendment without prior resolution he might have had a leg to stand on, but everything that he said against my amendment, if it is valid, is a criticism of his own minister for having brought in an amendment without a prior resolution approved by the Governor General.
The parliamentary secretary picked up Beauchesne and read various citations earlier in the book, and later on, but he somehow managed to overlook citation 246, paragraph 3, which was part of the basis of our argument last night.


John Carr Munro: What is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Citation 246, paragraph 3. It is the one which says you cannot change the fundamental terms of the resolution, and then it goes on to say:
And this standard is binding not only on private members but also on ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the royal recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
Canada Pension Plan
All the other citations that the parliamentary secretary read not only referred to the superior rights of ministers but pointed out that ministers exercise those rights only when they have the royal approval, the approval of the crown. But in this instance the minister did not bring in a prior resolution. She moved her amendment as a simple technical amendment within the details of the bill. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that if you find I am out of order in moving this kind of amendment, which does the things that the parliamentary secretary says it does, then you have to find the Minister of National Health and Welfare out of order also with regard to the amendment she proposed.
The advantage she has that I have not got is, of course, that she can get and bring in a royal recommendation and proceed with her amendment in that way and get it approved. But frankly, Mr. Chairman, although I think we have to be treated equally and the rule has to apply in the same way to both sides of the house, I do not think a royal recommendation was necessary for the kind of detail that the minister has brought in by way of her amendment. It deals with a point of detail that was not mentioned at all in the resolution. It is a change that is in no way in conflict with the general principle of the bill that was adopted on second reading, and I think the minister was quite competent to bring in this amendment without prior royal recommendation. But if she is competent to do that in her capacity as a member of the house without resorting to the obtaining of the royal recommendation, I suggest that any other member of the house has the right to move the same kind of amendment.
The two situations are completely on all fours. The minister moves that 10 per cent be changed to 15 per cent and she admits that this will cost a certain amount of money 20 or 30 years from now. Mine is to change the 15 per cent to 20 per cent and it is admitted that it will cost a certain amount of money 20 or 30 years from now. They are both the same and I suggest that they be treated in the same way. Either both of us have the right to bring in such an amendment without a royal recommendation, or if neither of us has that right then the minister has to go back and get a royal recommendation. I do not think that is necessary. As I say, I think she had the right to bring it in because it is a technical detail and not in conflict with the principle of the bill. I think, sir, that

Canada Pension Plan
you should allow both the amendment and the subamendment.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the submission of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as every other member does to submissions by him on points of procedure. When he rose in his place the first time it seemed that his argument was that the amendment that he and his group were proposing was not offensive to the resolution. I am very pleased to hear that, because that goes a long way toward explaining the government's own amendment. After all, the resolution is the government's resolution and so the amendment proposed by the government does not run counter to that resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Neither does mine.


John Carr Munro: I acknowledged at the beginning that at this time we were not advancing the arguments put forward yesterday with respect to the other amendment which did run counter and was offensive to the government resolution. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will recall that yesterday an argument was presented that the amendment was offensive to the resolution on the ground it entailed an expenditure out of the public revenue. At that time the chairman based his ruling, when he ruled it out of order, on both grounds. I submit that where the hon. member is out of luck is that we have a resolution backing up our amendment, whereas the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not a resolution backing up his amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a unanimous report of the joint committee of which the hon. member was a member.


John Carr Munro: My answer to that is that it was interesting to note the argument yesterday that the report indicated wide latitude should be considered by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he tell me where in the resolution he says he has-and I know he means the resolution passed on November 9- there is any reference to the dropout period?


John Carr Munro: It is contained in the general sense of the resolution to provide a pension for contributors; I think that encompasses it.
I was happy to hear the hon. member's own argument at the beginning of his submission this afternoon to the effect that his amendment was not offensive to the resolution. If the resolution would allow for his
[Mr. Knowles.l
amendment, which I believe is 20 per cent, surely it would allow for ours which I believe is 15 per cent. This very argument only creates a difficulty for the hon. member. The government has a resolution; but the hon. member, being a private member, is not in a position to introduce a resolution prior to his amendment.
I should like to refer you also, Mr. Chairman, to section 54 of the British North America Act which reads as follows:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
Now, this is a resolution of the government. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in his initial submission, has already stated that the government's amendment is in line with this particular resolution. He cannot now say that the government's amendment needs a different resolution because he has already said his own amendment falls within the scope of the government's resolution. We are not advancing the argument that this particular amendment is offensive to the government resolution. All we are saying is that the hon. member's amendment is not preceded by a resolution of his own because, in his particular capacity and in view of the fact he is not a minister of the crown, he cannot introduce such a resolution. It is for these reasons we say this particular amendment is out of order.


Mr.   Barnell@: Will the hon. member for Hamilton East permit me to ask him a question? I should like to ask him whether, as a member of the parliamentary committee which brought in the recommendations in that report, he does not think he could have been much more usefully employed, in view of the fact the minister is much closer to him than to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, by advancing this most admirable proposal and asking the members of the government to support it, rather than in engaging in a lengthy procedural debate? This is a worth-while proposal which should be adopted by the committee.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to pay any particular attention to the personal remarks of the hon. member who last spoke. I should like to emphasize that the essential point here is that this is an amendment proposed by a private member and

creates an additional charge which has not been recommended by a message of the Governor General. I would point out also that the hon. member is not a minister of the crown and therefore is incapable of introducing this particular amendment. Again, I would refer to citation 249.


Lucien Lamoureux: After listening to the very interesting arguments from both sides of the house, the Chair is perhaps more confused than it was at the start of the discussion. I want to begin by referring to a statement made by one hon. member, I believe the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, that there is no distinction to be made between the amendment moved by the hon. member for Perth and the one which has just been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In my opinion, there is a substantial difference between the two.
The contention last night was that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Perth was inconsistent with the resolution preceding the bill in respect of its financial provisions. This was really the basis of the decision rendered by the Chair last night. It is clear that this amendment was out of order. I might say that this bill is unique in many ways. It is not easy to find a clear precedent that is applicable in circumstances such as these. My understanding of the rules, and I have glanced through a number of citations which have been brought to my attention by the learned gentlemen at the table, indicates that even if an amendment imposes an additional charge it is not out of order if it does not extend the purposes of the resolution. This is the argument, of course, made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the amendment is not out of order if it does not extend the charges contemplated by the resolution itself. I suggest, therefore, that this subamendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre is substantially different from the one moved last night by the hon. member for Perth.
The only authority I can cite, which in my opinion is very close to the point and will guide the decision of the Chair, is citation 250 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, paragraph (3), which reads in part as follows:
The constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure forbids an increase by the Commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state. This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on
Canada Pension Plan
the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
In my opinion, this is exactly the type of resolution we have before us. I do not believe the amendment now moved goes beyond the terms of this very general resolution. I agree with the arguments that have been put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I understand that very strong arguments may be made for the contrary view, and a strong argument was made by the parliamentary secretary. There is obviously a doubt and this citation shows the situation is not as clear as we would like it to be. In view of this I suggest to hon. members that perhaps the Chair should be allowed, in the circumstances, to accept the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr.   Canlelcm@: No, Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to this subamendment. We know that this subamendment will correct some inequities that would be facing students in Canada. We are aware that the minister's amendment leaves this at 15 per cent.
Since the minister has introduced the matter by mentioning the brief received from the Canadian students union, I think this is a good time to emphasize the students' claims with respect to this legislation. Students who take advanced training, which may well go beyond the age of 25, will be badly hit by this bill. Just for the purposes of dropout during the time they are at university they would need seven years, and if we allowed a 20 per cent dropout they would require another two years on top of that because, after they leave university and enter the labour market, they generally have low earnings during their first two years of employment. At the other end of the scale, if they stop work at an early age, as often happens, they will not have enough dropout years.
It might be argued that this is a specific case and does not merit great consideration. I deny that, because though this parliament is not specifically interested in dealing with education, that being a matter for the provinces, nevertheless we should not discourage students from going to university, and in effect that is what this limited dropout provision will do.
A far better solution would be to allow students to drop out the years which they attend university, and I hope to move an amendment toward that end when we reach the next clause.

Canada Pension Plan
We need highly skilled and educated people in Canada. We are hearing more and more about the effects of automation, and more and more about unemployment, particularly from the Minister of Labour. That is also a strong argument not to discriminate in this manner against students who are taking advanced training.
The minister referred to the students brief as a particularly good one. In it they urged that the most satisfactory way of curing the problem would be through the method which I hope to propose in my amendment, and at this point I would like to emphasize some of the arguments presented by the students.
First, they pointed out that students' expenses have increased substantially in recent years, that tuition fees have gone up, that room and board are more expensive than they used to be, and that all other living expenses have risen correspondingly. This means students require more money.
Some of them go to work in the summertime. In fact in my area in Saskatchewan every student who can find a job does go to work in the summer, but summer earnings have not kept pace with what I might call the rising cost of university living. Not only that, but there is a depreciating number of jobs. This is not to say that the absolute number of jobs has declined, but because university enrolment is rising so rapidly job opportunities are not rising at the same rate, and hence more and more students find they are unable to get summer jobs. Even when they do, they have to take lower wages than were offered a few years ago, due to the pressure on the labour market.
The University of Victoria which investigated this problem found that 8,000 of its students did not find jobs in 1961-62. It also found that 13.4 per cent of the students were unemployed in the summer of 1963, and that 26.5 per cent had employment for only part of the summer. This emphasizes the point that it is essential we should not discourage students by making them use their university years as dropout years. The University of Victoria also noted that their average earnings were something like $595; and if that is so, then obviously they would have to use their university years as dropout years. It is correct some did make more than that, in fact as much as $1,500, but generally speaking their incomes were relatively low.
These are some of the arguments which make me feel it is important that students should not be penalized by having a 15 per

cent dropout provision instead of a 20 per cent figure. In fact, I believe students should be allowed to have their university years excluded from the dropout provision.


George Louis Chatterton: I am very disappointed with the attitude of the minister. The special joint committee was unanimous in recommending a 20 per cent dropout. In fact this was a compromise by committee members. The Ontario recommendation was that the pension should be calculated on the basis of the best 10 years of earnings, or perhaps the last 10 years of earnings, and personally that is what I favour; but for the sake of unanimity our group on the committee went along with the 20 per cent compromise even though we preferred a dropout of 25 per cent.
I wish to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Kindersley. In the report by Dr. John Deutsch of the economic council it has been pointed out that Canada is 20 years behind the United States in technological and scientific skill, and we have seen newspaper reports of highly trained and skilled Canadians leaving the country.
Canada should do everything in its power to encourage attendance at university, and it is essential that the government reconsider its stand and adopt the 20 per cent dropout recommended by the joint committee. However, judging by the attitude of hon. members on the other side, they are not considering the interests of university students and will vote against the amendment which we shall move later.
I now want to make a plea for the married women of Canada, those who stay at home and attend to their families and children. The Canada pension plan penalizes them, and this reduction in the dropout from 20 per cent to 15 per cent further discriminates against them. I shall give an example. A young lady who starts working at age 20 may work for five years with average earnings of $2,500 a year. She does not return to the labour market and at age 65 she will be offered the generous pension of $6.17 a month. If she had taken her pension plan contributions and bought herself an annuity from the government she could have a pension of $16.20 a month.
I shall give another example, of a young lady starting work at 20, who works for ten years and has average earnings of $3,000. She then stays at home attending to her family and at age 65 she will get the magnificent pension of $15.43 a month. If she

took her pension contributions and invested in a government annuity she could have a pension of $40 a month. If the dropout had been 20 per cent, at least there would have been some adjustment-it would not have been a major one-in favour of that type of woman. But no, Mr. Chairman, obviously the government is not concerned with the woman who stays at home and minds her children; and I am surprised that the minister, one of the same fair sex, does what she does.
The next point I want to make with regard to this dropout provision is that I think it is generally agreed that people in the higher income brackets, say $5,000 a year or more, have a continuity, generally, in their employment. It is the people in the lower income brackets whose employment record is erratic; they are the ones who for many years perhaps earn less than the minimum provided for in the bill. Therefore I maintain that reducing the dropout penalizes the people in the lower income brackets. Of course, the Canada pension plan does that throughout, but at least in this one respect, with regard to the dropout, certainly the government should consider that increasing the dropout provision penalizes those people in the lower income brackets, because they are the ones who have the erratic employment record.
I am surprised that the minister now, all of a sudden, is very concerned that at some particular point in history there will be a drain on the fund greater than they had anticipated. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, everybody recognizes that there is no rhyme or reason as to the amount to which the fund is to be built up; there is no actuarial reason, there is no yardstick. The representatives of the government of Ontario who gave evidence before the committee pointed out very clearly that there is no yardstick; there is nothing that says in any way that the fund shall be five times the annual requirement, or twice. So the concern that in some particular year there will be a great drain on the fund is difficult to understand. As a matter of fact, in regard to the first two Canada pension plans that the minister proposed to this house she said, not only that it was not necessary to have a fund but that it was not advisable to have a fund. Now there is this great concern that at a particular point in history the drain on this fund will be too great. I hope the minister will reconsider this question and will remember that the committee unanimously recommended the 20 per cent dropout provision. This was a compromise on our 20220-772
Canada Pension Plan
part, and we certainly think the minister should reconsider the stand she has taken.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. member for Kindersley and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich very carefully, and I think the points they brought forward were extremely well taken with regard to university students, and so on. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich put forward a very forceful argument in the detail which he gave and the references he made regarding married women who did work for a number of years before marriage and then looked after their homes. I think these points should be given consideration by the government.
We have so far directed our attention to the years of dropout, but it would seem to me that the government should consider bringing in at this stage an amendment which would treat all the years in which a married woman-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend, but this just indicates how long he has been in the chamber, because he is not aware, nor is the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, that there is a government amendment before the committee, and a subamendment, which does not, as my hon. friend from Esquimalt-Saanich said, decrease but actually increases by 5 per cent the printed provision in the bill. My hon. friend from Okanagan Boundary who is now speaking was not in the chamber and I suppose therefore could not be expected to know what he is actually speaking about now, and that there is a government amendment-


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I take exception to the insinuation of the minister that I do not know what I am talking about. I know the government is now proposing an increase in the dropout provision. I know perfectly well- better than the minister does-that the bill provides for 10 per cent. I was referring to a reduction in the unanimous recommendation of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, the minister got on her two little feet, and she did not rise on a point of order; she merely pushed herself into the debate and started talking about my not being here. I might say that I have been here, I have listened to the debate and I understand the amendments-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Then why don't you-

Canada Pension Plan


David Vaughan Pugh: Perhaps the minister would just listen for a little while without speaking directly across the chamber. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you would ask the minister to contain herself-which is a nice phrase in this house-for a little while, when she will probably find out that I am directing my remarks to the point at issue. I quite agree that there is an amendment, but carrying on from the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the examples he gave, I would say that the government should consider erasing all the years that a married woman with children stays at home and maintains that home. In other words, if she has an unbroken record of working for five years and then she becomes married, has children and stays at home and looks after those children and is not out working, I would say the government might well consider women in that position and exclude them entirely from the number of years in the dropout provision. This would mean that the pension they would receive would not be cut down so drastically. The minister said, "We are going to put them all up 5 per cent". I do not think 5 per cent is enough.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: How many years does it total?


David Vaughan Pugh: Would the minister rise and ask her question, Mr. Chairman?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, perhaps my hon. friend will tell the committee how many years, over a working life, 15 per cent represents.


David Vaughan Pugh: If you take it on a basis of ten years, and she works for five years, that is 50 per cent of the time. I say, don't have it watered down by all the years she has been away. The minister shrugs her shoulders, but these people will have paid in. At the present time I am not talking about married women, but we have windfalls for all those people who are 54, 55 and on, gaining a pension at age 65. In the highest earning period, perhaps, in their lives they will participate in this pension scheme, and they will participate only for ten years; but if for instance they start paying for their pension at age 59, at 65 they will be able to retire and will receive a pension that has not diminished too much. The Minister of National Revenue might well pay attention to this. I refer to the fact that married women-


Mr. Benson:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was paying attention; I had my earpiece on. What the hon. member said did

not make much sense, but I was paying attention.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I was looking at the minister and saw that he was looking back at me and paying attention to what I was saying. I know he is paying attention to what is being said in the committee. I am suggesting that he might pay attention to what I am saying with regard to married women and the number of years they are allowed under the dropout provision; because, as we know, married women throughout Canada have a duty to perform in the family life-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have a Judy.


David Vaughan Pugh: -which is a great part of the Canadian life. Therefore to penalize them- and this is a penalty clause-is, in my opinion, wrong. If I have laid a little more stress on these points, it is only because the minister seems to be treating everything I say with levity. She has jumped to her feet and injected herself into my speech, largely-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Vaughan Pugh: -and that is why I have laid more stress on the points I have put forward.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Benson moves:
That subsection (3) of section 48 be amended by striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 37 and substituting the following:
" (i) 15 per cent of the number so remaining, and if such 15 per cent includes a fraction of a month"
In amendment thereto, Mr. Knowles-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Look at your own side.


Mr. Winkler:: What are you calling order for? Turn around and have a look at what is happening behind you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Korchinski:: Look at that member coming in there.
Amendment to the amendment, (Mr. Knowles) negatived: yeas 60; nays 66.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. During the taking of the vote in committee just now there was a good deal of interruption while you endeavoured to put the question and a large number of members came into the chamber.


An hon. Member:: It was the same on your side.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I did not say that was not the case. Hon. members opposite assume that I am going to put one side of the case, which is not true. However, I would draw attention to the fact that a good many more came into the chamber.


Mr. MacEwan:: Six.


Mr. Crouse:: Seven.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am raising this point because there was disorder in the chamber during the taking of the committee vote and I think some mention of it should be made. I also think some suggestion to prevent a similar thing happening in the future should be made. Perhaps the Chair could advise the chamber as to the point at which members should not enter the chamber during a vote, particularly when the chairman is actually on his feet putting the question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point of order, and noting the result of the vote, as my hon. friend has just stated I think there was possibly some contravention on both sides of what is considered to be the rule. Nevertheless the hon. member for Renfrew South and the Minister of Fisheries came in after the vote was called in each case, and while the vote was being counted, which is not in keeping with the rules.


Mr. Lloyd:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how you can resolve this question. Because it so happens that from where I sit on this side I am looking at the doors behind the curtains on the opposite side of the chamber, and what the hon. gentleman has said is also true of hon. gentlemen opposite. How many came in or did not come in, I do not know; but I do know that after the vote was called the door of the opposition side of the house was opened several times.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Name them.


John Edward Lloyd: I am not going to name anyone, although I could.


Eric Alfred Winkler: In reply to the hon. member's remarks, Mr. Chairman, I can say that I can name five other members as well who came into the chamber, but I do not propose to complain about them because the fact is well known and I think it was seen by all hon. members. Such was also the case on our side at that particular moment too; but I did mention two specific cases where members 20220-7724
Canada Pension Plan
came into the chamber and voted after the vote had been called, which was not the case on this side of the house.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Chairman, on the point
of order, inasmuch as I have been singled out, being one of the more prominent members of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: -one whose presence would be noted by the whip of the official opposition, I would point out that, as far as I know the rules, if one is within the back wall he is eligible to vote.


Mr. Nugent:: Then you do not know the rules. Read the rules.


John James Greene: There were many hon. members on the other side of the house who came in after the vote was called. Most of them are such inconsequential beings that I did not notice them personally, but I did notice a general herd of sheep moving forward after the vote was called. So far as I understand the ruling, as long as one is inside the back wall of the chamber he can come in. If the vote had been called earlier during the considerable filibuster carried on by hon. gentlemen opposite, there would not even have been ten members of the official opposition in the committee.


Mr. Cardiff:: No, that is not true.


John James Greene: I think the vote was taken quite properly, and it is unfortunate that the opposition's filibuster did not work; but I suggest they quit crying in their beer and get on with the business.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Would the hon. member permit a question. Was the reason for his delay in entering the chamber the same as on another vote? Was he wanted on the telephone?


John James Greene: I was within the chamber and within the house all afternoon, not like hon. members opposite who came in at the last moment for the vote only, in spite of having carried on a filibuster all afternoon.


Mr. Barneil:: Mr. Chairman, I rose on a similar point of order on an earlier occasion when we were having a vote in the committee, at which time I believe the chair was occupied by someone other than yourself. As I recall it, at that time this matter was going to be taken into consideration and some definition given. However, my recollection of the suggestion of the Chair at that time was that

Canada Pension Plan
the rules clearly provided that no one who is not in his seat in the house, certainly after the count had begun, was entitled to participate in the vote. Inasmuch as the hon. member for Renfrew South has seen fit to rise on this point of order, I would suggest in all deference to his views that that is what he did. He entered this chamber when the vote was being counted.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As far as my observation goes, no one on this side of the chamber did that. It is true that there were members coming in from behind the curtains on both sides at the time Your Honour was on his feet, but before you had read the question. I would not quarrel too much with that situation, but I do suggest there is a clear distinction between that situation and the one which exists when a member deliberately walks into the house and takes his seat after the actual counting of the vote has begun.
I do hope that this matter will be given serious consideration by Your Honour and Mr. Speaker, so that we may have a clear-cut understanding as to where we stand on this matter, particularly when a situation develops where the vote is close. No one wishes to have the feeling that a vote is not a proper one as far as the count is concerned, but I think this is something which should be clearly brought out so that disorder in the matter of taking committee votes

and I might say that they are becoming more prevalent than has been the case in the past -will not be allowed to continue.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, in relation to the words of the hon. member for Renfrew South, let me say that he cannot call us names on this side of the house because of the incident which occurred. It is my understanding, and I support the statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that once a question is called a member cannot enter the house and take his seat to vote. That is what the hon. member for Renfrew South and the Minister for Fisheries actually did, and there is no question about that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, in respect of this same point of order, let me state that the same thing occurred once before and, as members on this side have indicated, there was an abuse of the privileges on both

sides of the house. The Minister of Forestry was invited to stay. No one took any objection in that regard because the question had not been called. However, it is an entirely different matter when the count is actually under way.
As has been pointed out, the Minister of Fisheries and the hon. member for Renfrew South, along with the member for St. John's West-and he will verify this-came in late. The hon. member for St. John's West realized that he came in late and remained in his seat without voting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. member for St. John's West recognized the fact that he was not entitled to stand and be counted. We on this side of the house make a distinction between the action taken by the member for Renfrew South and the Minister of Fisheries and that taken by the hon. member for St. John's West. We on this side support the stand taken by the hon. member for St. John's West, who did the right thing. I suggest, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that as was done on a previous occasion when the same situation occurred, the votes of the hon. member for Renfrew South and the Minister of Fisheries should be struck off.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. In view of the fact that my name has been brought into this discussion, I want to make it very clear to this house that I did not come in after the vote was called. I was here during the entire debate on the subamendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I was sitting in the chamber discussing a fisheries matter with the hon. member for Kent-


An hon. Member:: No, you were not. I saw you come in. You were not discussing anything-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think there has been sufficient discussion on this point of order. Let me suggest to the committee that during recent days there have been a number of discussions as to what should be done when a vote is being taken. During the years I have been in this house a number of rulings have been made in this regard. I do not intend to cite them at this time without having the appropriate documents before me. I think this committee

should decide upon two things. First of all, what are the confines of this chamber and at what point when a question is being put should members be stopped from entering the confines of this chamber? I would ask this committee to give me permission to refer this matter to the chairman for a ruling in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. There has already been a precedent established in this house in respect of a similar situation to the effect that any member passing the curtain after the vote has been called is out of order. On previous occasions votes cast by hon. members who entered the chamber after the question had been called were struck off. That precedent has been well established in this chamber and I think the votes cast by the hon. member for Renfrew South and the Minister of Fisheries should be deleted from the record.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may just say a few words on this point of order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South and I are often of the same view. What has been pointed out and acknowledged by the applause of hon. members in all corners of the house is that my honesty and integrity are above reproach. Consequently the solution to the situation with which Your Honour is now faced may call for something of a Solomon.
Because of the tributes paid by hon. members opposite, and in view of the seriousness of this matter, I feel compelled to say at this time that as I entered this chamber there was no one behind the curtains on this side. I hesitated some time before entering my seat. I had to battle with my conscience in deciding whether or not I should vote. At that time I can say that members were just beginning to vote, and the Minister of Fisheries appeared to me at that time to be well settled in his seat.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Don't give us any excuses.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I will listen to the hon. member in a moment. It is my hope that the debate on this point
Canada Pension Plan
will not be extended. We have had considerable discussion.
I now recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. John's West has verified his own integrity, but at the same time he has cast some reflection on a couple of his colleagues to whom we have referred. The hon. member stated that he came in late. There is no reason why someone who came in ahead of him could not also have been late. That hon. member stated that the Minister of Fisheries seemed to be well settled in his seat. That is not so; the Minister of Fisheries was standing behind the curtain.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, that is
absolutely false. I was sitting in my seat.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to have the Minister of Fisheries tell me that what I have said


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: He is not in his own seat yet. On the question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please; order.


Malcolm MacInnis: On the question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Fisheries just now said that what I stated was absolutely false. I would ask him to withdraw that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: He said he was in his own seat. That is not the case. He has not as yet reached his own seat. He was counted while standing at the back and he has yet to reach his own seat. The statement he made that he was in his own seat is entirely wrong and false. The Minister of Fisheries is making an absolutely false statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In order to satisfy the hon. member I want to state definitely that I was within the chamber when the vote was called.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege. The Minister of Fisheries-

Canada Pension Plan


An hon. Member:: Sit down; sit down.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I had the floor and the hon. minister should not have butted in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the minister has referred to a remark I made as an absolutely false statement. He said he was in his own seat. I draw Your Honour's attention, and the attention of the entire house, to the fact that the Minister of Fisheries has yet to reach his own seat. I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that when the vote was taken the minister was standing back by the curtain, nowhere near his seat as he and the hon. member for St. John's West have stated. The Minister of Fisheries in this case has lied.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege. I want to make it very clear to this house that what was being taken was a vote in committee and that I was sitting in a seat in this chamber during the entire debate on the subamendment. I was not behind the curtains. I was sitting in a seat of this chamber. If I said I was in my own seat I want to retract that statement. I was not in my own seat, but I was sitting in a seat in this chamber when the vote was called. I was here during the debate which took place prior to the calling of the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: You lied and I have said so. Make an issue of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Answer the charge.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I wonder if we could have order, please. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman. I should like to point out that we are going to support the amendment, as it is better than nothing.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, before clause 48 carries I should like to say one word. I pointed out earlier that we did have an amendment to this clause but it was consequential upon the way in which clauses 44 and 46 were dealt with. As a result we are not moving the amendment.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 49-Contributory period defined.


Mr. Cantelon:: Mr. Chairman, consequent
upon the comments I made on the preceding clause I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth:
On page 37, line 37, strike out the words "any month for which a disability pension was payable to him under this act or under a provincial pension plan" and insert:
"(c) any month for which a disability pension was payable to him under this act or under a provincial pension plan, or
(d) any year that a contributor who is less than 25 years of age and is in full-time attendance at a school or university as defined by regulation, elects to exclude by notice to the minister on or before April 30 in the following year."
I have one or two comments to make on this amendment. It seems to me it is a great deal more important than it was before, when we thought there would be a 20 per cent dropout provision in clause 48. Now that we have only a 15 per cent dropout provision it is my feeling that this amendment is of a great deal more importance to students. On this ground I think it ought to be accepted.
There is also another reason. I believe the charge would be very little so far as the Canada pension plan is concerned, if this amendment is adopted. It certainly would be an incentive for students to continue at school and to get as much training as they possibly can, which undoubtedly will be of great benefit to the country. On these grounds I think the amendment should carry.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, before the
question is put I think I should make some comments on matters that were raised by the minister when she was speaking on the previous clause. When we were talking about the dropout period on the previous clause it was stated that the government did not feel

that particular classes of people should be given special privileges. Those may not be the minister's exact words but that was the intent. In other words, the government could not start exempting people like firemen, teachers and other groups from the provisions of the act because it would take away from the solidarity of the provisions and bring about fragmentation with regard to various groups and classes of people.
I submit that students are not a group or class of people in that sense. Students, according to the definition we usually accept, are people who are taking post-secondary education at a vocational school, a university or in any other type of full-time academic work. Students are not confined to a certain type or class of person according to income and we want to exempt them across the board. At any time up to the age of 25 a student who is attending a university full time would be able to exclude those years from the calculations under the Canada pension plan. As has been explained, the pension is payable on 25 per cent of the average lifetime earnings of any person under this act.
In the case of students who attend a university or vocational school until the age of 25, now that we have accepted 15 per cent, which gives them only seven years during which their earnings can be dropped out from their average, they are not given one more year from the time they become 25 until they retire at 65. In other words, for 40 years they must pay into the Canada pension plan. If they are sick and off for a year, if they suffer any disability or if they are unemployed or anything else happens to them during that period of 40 years, their average earnings come down. Believe me, the total is not great. The maximum pension at the moment is $104 per month. If you do not make an exception for students, then every year during that 40 years will bring down their average and bring down the pension they have earned.
We believe that the figure of 15 per cent, or even 20 per cent as proposed by the joint committee, does not meet the position of students whom members of parliament and of the legislatures and many of our social and economic organizations throughout Canada have been encouraging to continue their education either at a vocational school or a university. Even though the minister and the government's advisers felt that 20 per cent would be too high for people across the board, we make this special plea on behalf of students so they may continue with their
Canada Pension Plan
education to the point where they need not fear they will lose out under their pension plan.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Cantelon) negatived: Yeas, 48; nays, 93.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 56-Amount of widow's pension.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, last week one of the hon. members opposite drew the committee's attention to a situation which will occur in 1968 and 1969 involving widows in receipt of widow's pension who reach the age of 65 during one of those two years. A widow in receipt of a pension calculated at $25 a month plus 37J per cent of her husband's retirement pension who becomes 65 at any time between February 1, 1968 and November 30, 1969, would suffer a temporary drop in the size of her pension income for a period not exceeding 12 months. When she reaches age 65, the widow's pension changes from the flat rate $25 plus 37J per cent to an amount equal to 60 per cent of her husband's retirement pension. For any widow this will entail a decrease in the amount of the widow's pension. For most widows, this difference will be more than made up by the availability of the $75 a month old age security pension at age 65. However, in the years 1968 and 1969, old age security will not yet be available to widows on reaching their 65th birthday.
A widow who reaches age 65 in 1968 will suffer a drop in her widow's pension following her 65th birthday, and will not be able to receive her $75 old age security pension until she reaches age 66, some time during 1969. For 12 months, then, she will have to take a lower pension.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; could we have order, please?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The widow who reaches the age 65 some time in 1969 will similarly suffer a drop in her widow's pension, and will be unable to claim her $75 old age security pension until January 1, 1970. She will therefore receive a reduced pension for something less than 12 months.
It was suggested the government give consideration to meeting this situation. After due consideration, the government is prepared to propose adding a new subclause (6) to clause

Canada Pension Plan
58. It provides that a widow can receive either the basic monthly amount of the pension as set forth in paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 56 or the basic amount referred to in paragraph (b) of subclause (1) of clause 56, whichever is the greater. This alternative will be open only to those widows who reach age 65 during the calendar years 1968 or 1969, having already become entitled to a widow's pension before reaching that age. This alternative will be open to such a widow only for a month during which no retirement pension can be paid to such a person because of her age as set forth in clause 56. It is important to recognize that some widows will become entitled to retirement pensions in their own right on reaching age 65. The amount of the retirement pension has a direct effect on the amount of the widow's pension as provided in subclause (2) of clause 56. The special arrangement contemplated by this new subclause (6) of clause 56 is therefore designed to apply only during a period when such a widow cannot yet claim a retirement pension because she has not reached the age specified in clause 66 at which a retirement pension could be paid to her. In this regard, the fact that she may not have contributed toward a retirement pension in her own right does not alter the general rule.
The practical end result of this proposal is that, during the years 1968 and 1969 only, until a widow can apply for her $75 old age security pension, and an earnings related retirement pension, she may continue to receive the $25 a month flat rate pension plus 37\ per cent of her husband's retirement pension since this amounts to more than the 60 per cent figure to which she would normally be entitled under subparagraph (b) of subclause (1).
The amendment that will be moved by the Minister of National Revenue is as follows:
That clause 56 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
(6) Where a widow reaches 65 years of age in 1968 or 1969 after a widow's pension has become payable to her, the monthly amount of such pension for any months in those years after she reaches that age but for which by virtue of section 66 no retirement pension is payable under this act to a person of her age shall be calculated as though for the reference in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section to the basic monthly amount mentioned therein, there were substituted a reference to the greater of that basic monthly amount or the basic monthly amount of the widow's pension payable to her immediately before she reached 65 years of age.
This, Mr. Chairman, is the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and I would have been pleased to

give him the opportunity to move it. However, as he appreciates there is an additional charge on the treasury and therefore it was necessary to have my colleague do so. I am sure the committee would like to give him credit for having pointed out this situation.


Edgar John Benson: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 57-Amount of disabled widower's pension.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is a similar situation here, Mr. Chairman and it was also raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. The remarks which I have made apply to this as well and are further proof that all men and women are equal under the Canada pension plan. This is the widower's benefit. The amendment is as follows:
That clause 57 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
(6) Where a widower reaches 65 years of age in 1968 or 1969 after a disabled widower's pension has become payable to him, the monthly amount of such pension for any months in those years after he reaches that age but for which by virtue of section 66 no retirement pension is payable under this act to a person of his age shall be calculated as though for the reference in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section to the basic monthly amount mentioned therein, there were substituted a reference to the greater of that basic monthly amount or the basic monthly amount of the disabled widower's pension payable to him immediately before he reached 65 years of age.


Edgar John Benson: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 58-Amount of orphan's benefit.
Gérard Perron: Six o'clock.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, may we continue until we have completed this clause?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the hon. member for Beauce realizes that the amendment to clause 58 has to do in part at least, with increasing the number of orphans who can qualify for benefit. Would he not let the minister make this effort to get one more clause passed before calling it six o'clock?


Gérard Perron: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The amendment to subclause (1) sets the amount of a disabled contributor's child's benefit at an amount equal to that already provided for an orphan's benefit, namely $25 a month, escalated by

the pension index. This is in line with the joint committee's recommendation in paragraph 8 (iii) of their report.
Also, in paragraph 8 (ii) of its report the joint committee has proposed that the maximum amount payable where there are five or more orphans of a contributor be raised. The committee recommended that the orphan's benefit should be $25 a month for each of the first four orphans and $12.50 a month for each additional orphan. The amendment to subclause (2) is designed to implement this recommendation. Without the amendment the maximum amount of orphan's benefits that could be payable with respect to one contributor would be an amount equal to the maximum retirement benefit payable which, in the initial stages, will be $104.17 a month.
Under the amendment each of the first four orphans or disabled contributor's children will get $25 a month. Where there are more than four children, the total of the disabled contributor's child's benefits, or orphan's benefits, payable with respect to any contributor will be the sum of $25 a month for each of four children, plus $12.50 for each additional child. This total amount payable in respect of any one contributor will be divided equally among the disabled contributor's children, or the orphans as the case may be.
The chief actuary has estimated that the additional costs of the amendment in so far as it relates to orphans would be as follows: 1975, $0.7 million; 1980, $1.2 million; and 1990 $1.8 million.


Edgar John Benson: I move, seconded by the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
That the heading preceding section 57 and section 54 be revised to read as follows:
Disabled Contributor's Child's Benefit and Orphan's Benefit
Amount of Benefit.
58.(1) Subject to this section, a disabled contributor's child's benefit payable to the child of
Canada Pension Plan
a disabled contributor and an orphan's benefit payable to the orphan of a contributor is a basic monthly amount consisting of a flat rate benefit, calculated as provided in subsection (2) of section
54.
Limitation.
(2) Where the total number of disabled contributor's child's benefits or the total number of orphan's benefits payable at any time in respect of the same contributor exceeds 4, the basic monthly amount of each such benefit is the quotient obtained by dividing
(a)	the aggregate of
(i)	the amount of the flat rate benefit mentioned in subsection (1) multiplied by 4, plus
(ii)	i of the amount of the flat rate benefit mentioned in subsection (1) multiplied by the number by which the total number of such benefits payable at that time in respect of the contributor exceeds 4,
by
(b)	the total number of such benefits payable at that time in respect of the contributor.


George Louis Chatterton: If I may have just 60 seconds, I would point out we were going to move an amendment to provide $25 for the first orphan and $20 for each orphan thereafter without limit, but for the sake of unanimity in the committee we support the government's amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say that we also are pleased that the government has accepted the recommendation of the committee as represented in this amendment. Actually, as the minister pointed out, we are dealing here, not with just one of the recommendations but in part with another as well, namely that there is to be no limit on the number of orphans one can leave and who will benefit, and no limit on the number of children of disabled contributors for whom benefit can be drawn. We are glad this has been accepted in full and we support the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
It being nine minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
12221
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 11, 1965