1965-03-24

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members will be very glad to recognize in the Speaker's gallery today several very distinguished visitors from Malawi. We have the minister of finance, Hon. Mr. Tembo, the minister of transport and education, Hon. Mr. Msonthi, His Excellency the Malawi ambassador to Washington, Mr. Rubadiri, and several other officers of their official party. As all hon. members know, Malawi is one of the newest nations in the commonwealth, and I am sure all hon. members will join with me in extending the warmest greetings and welcome to this distinguished delegation.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to bring to the attention of those present another distinguished visitor, a man who so very nearly became president of the United States of America, Mr. Richard Nixon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Dietenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at once that it is rather unusual for me to receive the amount of applause provided by all parts of the house. However, I do want to join with the Prime Minister in saying a word of welcome, not only to those referred to by him but particularly to Richard Nixon, a great parliamentarian in his own right, a former member of the House of Representatives, a former member of the Senate of the United States, vice president during the period of eight years and, as the Prime Minister said, almost a president. We in Canada are proud to have been associated-during my term of office he was vice president-with a man who gave the same devotion in time of peace as he did in war, and whose attitude toward Canada was always one of deep understanding. I join in the salute of the Prime Minister to a great American and a great world statesman.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and it is a matter of regret that I have to do so. Approximately nine months ago 22 members of the defence committee of the House of Commons were privileged to join naval exercises taking place between Halifax and Bermuda. A part of the observation of those exercises was made on board an Argus aircraft. From the 10th to the 20th of this month, for the first time in parliamentary history, four members of the House of Commons were invited to be observers at what is known as the Canada-United States "Springboard" naval exercise off Puerto Rico. It was an exhilarating experience. Part of the exercise, sir, included an a.s.w. search by an Argus airplane.
We returned, sir, at nine o'clock last Saturday, that is the four of us who represented all hon. members here. It was therefore with a great deal of shock that this morning we learned that an Argus aircraft participating in the "Springboard" exercise which we just left had disappeared with 16 Canadian servicemen on board. I feel it is only right that I, as one who has just returned from that exercise, should rise on a point of privilege to pinpoint this fact, that during war we expect casualties. We maintain the armed services in time of peace for the defence of our country and, if called upon by a vote of the House of Commons, for the maintenance of peace throughout the world.
This tragedy hits me very hard, just having come back from Puerto Rico and the "Springboard" exercise, and I want to direct attention to what we sometimes forget, that is, that our men and women in our armed services, even while we are not at war, and especially those aboard ships and a.s.w. aircraft, risk their lives every day, as has been demonstrated by what happened during the past few hours to one of our Argus aircraft, at a time just five days before the warships in the area were to return to their home base at Halifax.

Question of Privilege
I know, sir, you will understand my rising on this point of privilege, as one of the four members of the House of Commons attending that exercise, to express our sympathy to the relatives and friends of the 16 who died in this regrettable catastrophe in the service of Canada, and to pinpoint that lives of service personnel are being risked on behalf of this country and on behalf of the peace of the world in both war and peace.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, since the plane came from my constituency and since there were personal friends of mine on that plane, I had intended at the proper time to ask for a statement with respect to the accident. Perhaps the minister is now prepared to give such a statement, explaining what happened and possibly giving a list of those on board.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the house I will do so. I regret that I have to confirm the news reports of the crash of an Argus aircraft of R.C.A.F. maritime air command, involving a serious loss of life.
The aircraft, from No. 404 squadron based at Greenwood, Nova Scotia, was participating in a joint Canada-United States exercise off Puerto Rico, and was reported to have crashed into the sea some 60 miles north of that island at 10.50 eastern standard time last night. The report was made by the Alcide, a British submarine attached to the Royal Canadian Navy and taking part in the exercise. Immediate action was taken to institute a search of the area and three R.C.N. destroyer escorts, H.M.C.S. Annapolis, Gatineau and Terra Nova, were orderd to the scene.
I am sorry that I have to inform the house that the latest messages received indicate that there were no survivors. A full inquiry in an effort to determine the cause of the accident is being undertaken immediately.
The aircraft carried a crew of 15 R.C.A.F. officers and men. In addition, a defence research board scientist from the naval research establishment at Bedford, Nova Scotia, was on board. I am sure all hon. members will join me in expressing to the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives our sincere regrets on their tragic loss.
I cannot let the occasion pass without paying tribute to the outstanding work of the officers and men of the maritime air command. Highly skilled and dedicated to their

work, they have maintained in all types of weather, over the years, constant anti-submarine patrols at very low levels over the waters off our shores both in the Atlantic and Pacific.
Due to the calibre of the men and the level of their training, maritime air command has achieved a record of efficiency and flight safety that is second to none. Indicative of this is the fact that prior to last night the Argus aircraft, which came into service in 1958, had not been involved in any major accident or loss of life while flying a total of more than 132,000 hours.
While our sympathy goes out to relatives and friends, the loss of such men is not only theirs but that of Canada as a nation.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. Matheson.
Third report of standing committee on mines, forests and waters-Mr. Godin.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing):
That, commencing on the sitting day following the adoption of this motion and continuing thereafter until the end of the present session, the hours of sitting of the house shall be as follows:
Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays-from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., from 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.; Wednesdays-from 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.; provided that proceedings on an adjournment motion, if any, on Mondays, Tuesdays or Thursdays shall be taken up at 11 p.m. on any of the said days; and
That, in relation to the foregoing, the provisions of standing orders 2, 6 and provisional standing order 39A shall be suspended or amended as the case may be.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Churchill@: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader a question at this point?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to put the motion first. The President of the Privy Council, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, moves:
That, commencing on the sitting day following the adoption of this motion and continuing thereafter until the end of the present session, the hours of sitting of the house shall be as follows:

Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., from 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.; Wednesdays from 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.; provided that proceedings on an adjournment motion, if any, on Mondays, Tuesdays or Thursdays shall be taken up at 11 p.m. on any of the said days; and
That, in relation to the foregoing, the provisions of standing orders 2, 6, and provisional standing order 39A shall be suspended or amended as the case may be.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Leader of the House a question. In view of the fact that this is a debatable motion, would the leader of the house consider postponing it for another day or two in order that we might continue consultations through the usual channels and perhaps arrive at a solution to some of the problems affecting the business of the house without resorting to debating this motion today?


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question if the house leader is not going to answer that question?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I will answer it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps what I will say might seem to come to the same conclusion suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but may I make a brief comment. We in this party recognize that it is probably necessary that we add some time to our sitting hours in order to get the business of the session over. But we feel very strongly that the amount of time per week proposed in this motion would defeat its own purpose, and we would not be disposed to vote for this motion as it stands. However, we would be willing on a trial basis-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, could we follow the usual course and permit the mover of the motion to make his remarks first, before the house leader for the N.D.P. embarks upon his remarks?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I was interrupting the government house leader. I followed after the house leader for the Progressive Conservatives had spoken.


George James McIlraith: I think the house leader for the official opposition was asking me a question immediately after the motion was put and before I started my remarks. In any event, I do want to make it clear that the motion was put on the order paper last Friday and has been on the order paper on Monday, Tuesday and today.
Business of the House
I had hoped that it would not be necessary to move it. I will be perfectly frank and say that I do not like longer hours any better than anybody else. However, I do think we have got into a situation where we have created in our rules structure the right of veto on the part of any individual member at the end of any day's sitting to prevent any extension of the sittings for a few minutes or for an hour after ten o'clock at night. This veto exists even though it may be obvious that the consensus of all those but one in the house at that moment, is to continue and finish the particular item before the house at the time.
That right of veto has crept into the rules. It is a comparatively new one and, I must say, has created some real difficulties in getting business determined by the house. This is accompanied by the fact that the evening sittings are only two hours in length rather than three hours as was formerly the case. I think those who will be celebrating an anniversary the day after tomorrow will well remember and share with me the opinion that the last hour between ten o'clock and eleven o'clock at night seemed to be a rather effective time to get a good many debates finished up.


Mr. Starr:: You stayed away during that hour.


George James McIlraith: Whatever the reason, it was an effective period, but it has gone.


John George Diefenbaker: Legislation by exhaustion.


George James McIlraith: That may be. In any event the situation now is that we are on the 241st sitting day of the session. We have been trying to conclude this part of this session. I must here acknowledge that the house leaders, or at least most of them, have been most co-operative in trying to arrange the business of the house, but there is also some indication occasionally that they have their difficulties, too, in speaking for their own caucuses. This is one of the difficulties we all have in this somewhat difficult job. The result has been that it has not been possible to get a firm and binding pattern or program for arranging the business of the house in a manner that would bring it to a conclusion after having given full opportunity for debate to all hon. members.
Coming to last week, Mr. Speaker, it will be found there has been a considerable lengthening of the time taken until we get to orders of the day each day. The question

Business of the House period has been running to more than two hours each day for quite some time. It will be found that last week the house spent about six hours on the orders of the day in the whole week, and it is just not possible to have our business done that way. This week we are approaching the end of the month. We have questions like interim supply to be dealt with; we have supplementary estimates to be dealt with; we have the Canada pension plan, which hon. members have spent a good deal of time discussing and which seems to have been discussed fully, or almost fully, by most members of the house. But there was evidence yesterday that there was a determination not to have it proceed to a conclusion although the clause under discussion merely gives the name of the act. One member, if I read his remarks correctly, indicated that he had made five speeches on the bill, and there was every indication from the far corner at the conclusion of the debate last night-


Mr. Grafftey:: This is a typical reason why the business of the house has not advanced.


George James McIlraith: -at ten o'clock, when the suggestion was made that we might then hear a few more speeches in an effort to get the bill out of committee stage, and the official opposition indicated no objection to that, that there were many more speeches to be delivered; although Hansard does not seem to record all that I heard on that occasion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government house leader this question. Would he assure the house that no measure more properly associated with the new session will be developed or introduced in the balance of this session?


Mr. Bell:: Such as a budget.


George James McIlraith: We have always put our position quite clearly in this regard. Of the list of business we indicated earlier in the session only the Canada pension plan, the opting out legislation, the Companies Act legislation, interim supply and supplementary estimates are yet to be completed. We have persistently made this clear, and did so at the resumption of the session after the Christmas recess.
I brought the motion forward today because I cannot envisage how it will be possible responsibly to avoid putting such a proposition to this house for its consideration, bearing in mind that the current fiscal year will end on March 31. We should also
[Mr. Mcllraith.3
keep in mind the rather lengthy and thorough debate which this house has had regarding the Canada pension plan and the stage we have now reached. Therefore I am hopeful that this motion will commend itself to this house.
The question raised by the house leader of the official opposition party has presented one difficulty. The motion as it is worded indicates that extended hours could only come into operation on the day following its adoption. I will read that part of the motion to which I refer, which is as follows:
That, commencing on the sitting day following the adoption of this motion-
It would be very desirable to have the extra time available for sitting as of tomorrow, considering the stage we have now reached in the debate before the house, and particularly in the light of what I have said about evening sittings and the desirability of getting on with the business of the house. Unless we hear views to the contrary I hope we can proceed with the vote immediately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to state-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already spoken on this subject, or did he merely ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I spoke, then the leader of the house spoke twice.


Mr. Howard:: And he did not say anything either time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we in this party recognize that in order to get this session concluded it will be necessary to provide for some extension in the hours of sitting. However, we feel that the proposal put forward in this motion is outlandish. If the house sat the number of hours provided for in this motion it would be damaging to the work of hon. members and the staff, and in the long run would produce the kind of atmosphere in this house which would not be conducive to the passage of legislation. In fact we wonder how long it may take to debate this motion.
We would like to suggest to the government house leader that he let this motion stand and ask the house to agree to extending the hours of sitting on the three nights that we now sit-Monday, Tuesday and Thursday- until eleven o'clock instead of ten o'clock. We recognize that these two hour evening sittings provide a vehicle for getting nothing

done, but perhaps with an extra hour we might be assisted in putting some of the remaining legislation through.
We understand the arguments put forward by the house leader, but suggest that we could put forward arguments on the other side of the case. This house should seriously consider how best to complete this session in a responsible and agreeable fashion. This party offers this suggestion quite straightforwardly that instead of adopting this motion the house leader ask for consent of the house to immediately extend the hours of sitting on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays until eleven o'clock. We are opposed to morning sittings and to the addition of sittings on Wednesday and Friday nights. We agree to the provision in respect of matters under provisional standing order 39A.
The motion as a whole is, I think, unacceptable to the house. I could move an amendment to it, but I do not think that is necessary. I urge the government house leader to consider the alternative proposal we have put forward.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this motion the government house leader referred to the situation in which we now find ourselves. In that regard I should like to say that we find ourselves in this position because of the government's failure to provide the house with business on an organized basis. I suggest that the list of priorities which has been established during the session has played a part in bringing us into our present predicament, yet we are now called upon to agree to sitting vastly extended hours.


George James McIlraith: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will the hon. member agree that the list of priorities which was given to him as the house leader of his group at the commencement of this session has been followed exactly throughout this part of the session?


Alexander Bell Patterson: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with that statement. Members of this party have indicated consistently throughout this session that the priority list was completely wrong, and have urged the government to take another position. However, the government has persisted in this wrong course, and we now find ourselves, in the last days of the session, trying to wind up the house business in a disorganized and disorderly fashion.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the importance of getting this session completed and the remaining business passed, and we are prepared to agree to any reasonable proposal in this 20220-806J
Business of the House connection. However, the question I have in mind is, do extended hours ever contribute to the conclusion of a session or the expedition of the house business? It seems to me that all this does is provide an opportunity for extended and expanded debate.
In view of the suggestions which have been made I would seriously urge the government house leader to allow this motion to stand at least until tomorrow, and in the interval to reconsider and discuss it with the house leaders of the various parties in an attempt to revise it in a mutually satisfactory way. If we do not follow that course and the government insists on pursuing the course proposed by the motion, more difficulty, disharmony and disunity will result than we have experienced to this date, and everyone knows that we have had enough. I suggest that this matter be delayed until tomorrow so that efforts can be made to satisfactorily resolve the problem.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, like the other house leaders of opposition parties I feel that the motion brought forward today by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) should have been considered a little earlier. This motion appeared on the order paper last Friday and since then the government house leader has not called the other party leaders together in an attempt to agree on the hours of sitting.
Monday, Tuesday and even this morning, the President of the Privy Council would have had the opportunity to call together, in accordance with the usual rules and procedure, the leaders of the various parties in an attempt to reach an agreement. But he rises now, without a word to anybody and moves the adoption of this motion about which we had not heard anything before it appeared on the order paper.
It can be seen that all the members of the opposition seem to object to this motion. The business of the house is being delayed by stands and tactics such as those of the house leader at this time. Why attempt to impose the idea of one group upon the other groups? Had there been consultations, an understanding might have been reached; but on the other hand, if he maintains his attitude it is possible that this day will be lost again and that by six o'clock we still will be talking about the extension of the sitting hours.
Therefore, following the hon. members from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and

Business of the House Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I suggest to the house leader, the President of the Privy Council, that he should withdraw his motion, discuss it with the house leaders of the other parties and submit it again, so that this afternoon we may resume our debate on the pension plan. I am convinced that we will have reached an agreement by then. Otherwise, I can assure the President of the Privy Council that he will waste the whole afternoon of the house, because we are not willing to accept such sitting hours.
In the first place, the staff of the House of Commons, who have worked long hours do not deserve being treated thus. Indeed, the President of the Privy Council mentioned a while ago that this session had already lasted 241 days.
Second, I object to legislation being passed under pressure, in haste, as the leader of the house would like to. Many days have already been lost because the government could not arrange its work in an orderly fashion. Today, after having received the advice and the views of this side of the house, I believe that the President of the Privy Council should postpone this motion until tomorrow morning, enter into discussions this afternoon or tomorrow morning. I am convinced that it will be possible to reach an agreement and to soon end this session.
On the other hand, if the government tries to impose such hours I am afraid that it will be losing its time more than it has done previously. Imposing such sitting hours would be a bad example to set.
That is my suggestion, and I hope that the President of the Privy Council will take it into serious consideration. He should have consulted with the leaders, but he did not do so. He can still do it this afternoon and tomorrow. Instead of wasting the time of the house, why would he not let his motion stand until tomorrow and in the meantime call a meeting and discuss the advisability of saving the time of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, one can understand the desire of the government to get on with the business of the house. As a matter of fact, without endeavouring to place any blame at all I can say that one of the major reasons this session has lasted so long has been the fact that the government stubbornly refused to produce that which it is the right of all members of the house to have, proceedings in both the English and French languages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They opposed this. They said it would take four weeks, six weeks; all varieties of such excuses were placed before the house, but when they finally found themselves in a position where their alibis could not be upheld they went ahead and produced that which the house has a right to have.


Michael Starr: In four days.


John George Diefenbaker: And all in a matter of three or four days. I should like to join with those who have spoken in support of the suggestion that this matter be postponed until tomorrow. I should also like to hear the Prime Minister in this connection. There have been many rumours, supported by those who occupy high positions at national Liberal headquarters, that a general election is to be called in June, indeed, that a general election is to be called in time for the prime minister of that time to be able to attend the meeting of commonwealth prime ministers on the 17th of June next. I recall that in 1957 similar considerations were entertained, and following the election of 1957 I had the privilege of taking the place of the then secretary of state for external affairs at the Canada club in London on July 1, 1957.
I would ask the Prime Minister this question. Would he let the house in on his views in this connection? Are we to determine whether an election is coming by reading the letters that are being sent to various parts of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the house is not to be treated as the plaything of the government in this connection. If an election is to be called in June following the introduction of a budget and before the conclusion of the debate thereon, surely parliament should know now. The fact I am getting so many interruptions would indicate that I have some basis for saying that is what the government has in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They want to finish this session, then once they finish it call the next session and produce delectable dainties for the Canadian people and before the people realize how much the dainties are going to cost, go to the country. I would hope that the Prime Minister, with that usual candour that characterizes him


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: There was not very much applause that time

will rise in his place now and take the house and the country into his confidence and let the Canadian people know whether the Liberal federation speaks for his party or whether the Prime Minister in parliament does.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman introduced some very extraneous material into the discussion of this normal motion that appears before the house at the end of each session. He asked me, and I am glad he did, whether I speak for this party or whether the federation speaks for this party. I will tell him that I speak for this party and not for merely 52 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman wanted to know whether we are going to have an election. His thoughts went back to 1957, and I can understand that too. If I may misquote scripture, Mr. Speaker, those were the days when young men saw visions and today is the day when old men dream dreams.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are certain expressions being used in the somewhat heated temperature of the moment which I am sure would not normally be used. I do hope I will not hear them again.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the temperature is not heated. We are treating this statement of the right hon. gentleman in the way it should be treated, as a serious contribution to the discussion and resolution of the matter before us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as 1957, 1958, 1962 and 1963 are concerned, perhaps I should reassure my right hon. friend, because it worries me sometimes that he should be so fearful of an election that he keeps on talking about one. Perhaps this is covered by the fact that the sands are running out.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, well, we will both get the old age pension within the next six months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, we both might get the old age pension before the next election takes place. The right hon. gentleman is one year closer to it, I think, than I am.
Business of the House


John George Diefenbaker: No, no. May I say to the Prime Minister he apparently has forgotten the measure before the house which will give him this pension at 69 years of age.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, and there is another measure I should like to see come before this house which would make it possible for me to be a senator from 69 to 75.
What we hope to see is the end of a long session, having lasted over 13 months now, and I assure the house that we have one overriding consideration in the discussion of this matter and that is to bring this session and the legislation before this session to a conclusion. Then we can get on with the new session, thereby making it possible, I hope, to have an Easter recess. Once the new session began we could have the speech from the throne, which will introduce a program of constructive legislation which this house, I know, will wish to put into effect.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the house sees this program in the new session, hon. members will realize that it is going to take a little time to put it through. I hope we will have an Easter recess, and we will go on with this new legislation. Then in June, so far as I am concerned, I shall probably have to leave to attend the commonwealth conference in London, but parliament can continue while I am away. I assume at that time I will be receiving the same advice from the right hon. gentleman as I gave him in 1957 concerning how to behave at this conference.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may interrupt the right hon. gentleman in this jocular discussion, I may say that I listened to his advice and it turned out to be all wrong.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then when I come back to the house at the end of June I hope we will have a summer recess. I would hope by that time we would be half way through our legislation, and that we could reassemble in September to complete this magnificent program which would be before the house in the autumn. Then we could take our normal Christmas recess and look forward to another constructive session.
I think I have answered my right hon. friend's question. So far as this motion is concerned, the parties on the other side do not appear to believe this is the moment to introduce it. They have advanced some arguments to that end which I confess do not impress me very much. I have said that we are in the thirteenth month of the session, and it is the normal custom of the house to

Immigration Policy
extend the hours of sitting at this particular time. The motion has been on the order paper for three days for discussion if discussion were desired.
However, in view of the stand taken by all opposition parties, who are apparently opposed to this motion at this time, I suggest that tomorrow morning there be a meeting of the house leaders to ascertain whether there can be an agreement as to the extension of sitting time. If there cannot be an agreement on the extension of time, then we will proceed tomorrow afternoon with a discussion and decision on the motion on the order paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Churchill the debate was adjourned.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the house to make a statement in connection with Professor Sibley not having been admitted to Canada on Friday last. My officials brought this matter to my attention late Thursday afternoon, just before I left Ottawa for the west coast. The department had learned of Professor Sibley's proposed visit through the newspapers. There had been no request to the department, as is customary in some such cases, for his admission to give lectures in Canada.
The information received by the department indicated that he was a person whose admissibility to Canada was open to question under the terms of section 5, subsections (1) and (m) of the Immigration Act. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read those portions of the act. Section 5 begins in this way:
No person-
I will skip the next few words.
-shall be admitted to Canada if he is a member of any of the following classes of persons:
(1) persons who are or have been, at any time before or after the commencement of this act, members of or associated with any organization, group or body of any kind concerning which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it promotes or advocates or at the time of such membership or association promoted or advocated subversion by force or other means of democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada-

The last few words of that paragraph are not necessary in this context. Then paragraph (m) reads:
(m) persons who have engaged in or advocated or concerning whom there are reasonable grounds for believing they are likely to engage in or advocate subversion by force or other means of democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada;
Now, Mr. Speaker, section 20 of the act is the one which guides the actions of examining officers. It provides:
Every person, including Canadian citizens and persons with Canadian domicile, seeking to come into Canada shall first appear before an immigration officer at a port of entry or at such other place as may be designated by an immigration officer in charge, for examination as to whether he is or is not admissible to Canada or is a person who may come into Canada as of right.
Every person shall answer truthfully all questions put to him by an immigration officer at an examination and his failure to do so shall be reported by the immigration officer to a special inquiry officer and shall, in itself, be sufficient ground for deportation where so ordered by the special inquiry officer.
I am not going to read section 23, but I would like to refer to sections 23 and 24, which deal with what happens when the special inquiry officer comes into the act. In section 27 there is a proviso for a private inquiry with the opportunity for providing counsel.
In reading and in referring to those sections I am not saying that they are as they should be, as to how the law should be. That is a matter for parliament to decide, and I am sure hon. members of the house were as pleased as I was when some time ago the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to prepare a white paper and to open up the Immigration Act for revision at the next session of parliament. Personally I feel so strongly about the necessity of amendments to the act that I doubt if I would have been minister today had it not been the government's intention to recommend before the end of this year that the act be amended.
But, Mr. Speaker, pending changes in this act, as I see it, my duty and that of my officials is to administer the act as it is to be found on the statute books at this time. In fulfilling this duty I want to make it clear that I made no decision that Professor Sibley could or could not be admitted under the act. According to Hansard, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition alleged that I had made an order refusing admission. That, Mr. Speaker, is incorrect. I shared, whether rightly or wrongly, the considered view of senior officials of my department that on material reported to me there was a doubt as to

whether Professor Sibley was admissible, at least admissible until we had further information.
The legislation of this parliament instructs officials what they are to do if there is such a doubt. That legislation is perfectly clear. This course was explained to Professor Sibley when he arrived in Canada on Friday. Since there was some doubt, it had to be resolved by a special inquiry.
At the request of the Prime Minister I have checked the facts carefully on the spot in Winnipeg. Professor Sibley was properly questioned under section 20 of the act. He was questioned by a competent officer and he was told he could not be admitted without a special inquiry, that is, an inquiry giving the right to counsel and to cross-examine witnesses.
Neither the examining officer nor I were prejudging or had prejudged the results of any such inquiry. The doubt that the examining officer was expressing was a genuine one. It was a legal doubt under the legislation that we are charged with administering. In recognizing this doubt we were simply following the law; we were passing no judgment on Professor Sibley's character, sincerity, scholarship or other qualifications or qualities.
If the department went outside the law at all, it was to perform an act of courtesy. The superintendent of immigration in Winnipeg on Thursday informed the Voice of Women organization in Winnipeg that there was some doubt as to Professor Sibley's admission. I am advised that this information was conveyed to Professor Sibley in Minnesota during the evening of Thursday last. I should add that the departmental officials in Ottawa at no time had any definite advance information as to when and how Professor Sibley was planning to arrive or whether, in view of the information given to the Voice of Women on Thursday, he would in fact make the journey for the date in question.
This was the position reported to the Prime Minister when he inquired of the department at lunch time on Friday. It was at 2.45 p.m. Ottawa time that my officials, having in the meantime received a report from Winnipeg, told the Prime Minister's office that Professor Sibley had in fact arrived by plane at about 1.20 p.m., Ottawa time, and had chosen to leave again rather than be subjected to the special inquiry, which could not have been properly conducted until early the following week. I would say that I was so advised while in Vancouver, and also immediately teleimmigration Policy
phoned the Prime Minister's office. It was then about three o'clock, and I could not get the Prime Minister because he was in the house, but I spoke to one of his senior staff.
This information, however, was not available and could not have been made available to the Prime Minister at 2.30 when he answered a question according to the information which had been made available at lunch time. It seemed to me then, and still does seem to me, that in recognizing the doubt as to Professor Sibley's admissibility, based on reliable information before me, I was following the course which the law laid down for me to follow. However, in this matter we should not be and are not concerned only with the administration of immigration law. We should be and are concerned also with the rights of Canadian citizens, specifically their right to the free exchange of ideas. This was also canvassed when I was in Winnipeg.
Some Canadian organizations had invited Professor Sibley to Winnipeg. They wanted to hear him, and I regret because of the circumstances that this right was interfered with.
Professor Sibley arrived in Winnipeg only shortly before he was due to speak-a matter of a few hours-consequently the doubt as to his admissibility, which legally we had to recognize, could not be resolved in time to enable him to keep the speaking engagements. This meant-and it is unfortunate that this is so, but this is the case-that the choice the law allowed us to offer Mr. Sibley was academic from his point of view. The inquiry could not be held before he was due to speak. He therefore preferred to leave again rather than to wait and have the doubt about his admissibility resolved.
I might say, however, that Professor Sibley intends to return to Canada. That arrangement was made before I arrived in Winnipeg. He will return in the very near future at a date to be agreed upon. Those arrangements were made and discussed I think during his recent visit. He is to appear at such a special inquiry and he will have counsel because he is entitled to counsel. I might say that I have met and spoken with the counsel. He is a respected and able member of the Canadian bar.
There is a genuine conflict between the rights of Canadians to listen to what ideas they choose, and the rights and procedures regarding immigration as defined by the statute.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is my view that our Immigration Act ought to recognize the difference between people who apply for

Immigration Policy
admission to Canada as landed immigrants and those who come here on the invitation of Canadians to give lectures or make speeches. However, the act makes no such distinction, and in revising it later this year parliament might be wise to consider such a change. I intend to suggest it in the white paper that is being prepared.
Perhaps the suggestion might be implemented by incorporating a provision in the act that, if anyone arriving at a border point can show he intends only a short term visit for a speaking engagement, or some similar purpose, sponsored by a reputable Canadian organization, such as a university or the Voice of Women, then such a person should be allowed to proceed, even if there be a doubt as to his admissibility for any long or protracted period. In other words, for a short term visit of this kind the legislation would make it clear that we do not have to try to resolve the questions that would be asked if a man or woman were applying to be a landed immigrant, or were planning an extended visit, which would afford time for a full inquiry. In this way for the short term visitor the rights of Canadians, that is their rights to listen to whom they wish, would be put ahead of normal immigration requirements.
The only way such a change can be made as a general procedure is by amendment to the law. In the meantime, I intend to do what I properly can within my existing legal authority to follow an administrative course which will reduce to an absolute minimum the danger of conflict with considerations of free speech and the rights which are involved not only for visitors but also of Canadians who choose to listen to lecturers from outside Canada.
As a new minister in the immigration department I should like to end by saying that the responsibilities that parliament and the legislation in its present form have given to the minister and his officials are difficult and, most of the time, delicate ones. I honestly do not believe that any human being can discharge these duties in accordance with that existing law and procedure without making some mistakes. I hope I am not going to make any, but if I do I also hope you will bear with me. In the short time that I have been with the department, and, I might say, contrary to views that I have often heard expressed in this house and elsewhere, I have already learned that on the whole the department of immigration's standards of conscientiousness and efficiency are high. I am

surprised and pleased, in view of the frequently unwarranted attacks which have been made upon it, to find that the morale and the efficiency of the department are very high; and as I have said I am pleased with this fact. I and my officials will do our best to make the amendments which, in my view, unquestionably are needed.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the house might appreciate this incident. During the course of my visit to Winnipeg-I had a busy schedule, starting at about 6.30 p.m. and continuing until 12.30 noon the next day-I saw many people, but the most human thing that I saw was a group of 100 or so students on my arrival at the airport, carrying banners. When I went out to meet them later they still carried the same banners. I explained that I could not make a statement until I had completed my investigation and had made a statement in this house. But I was very amused not only with the kind reception that they gave me but with some of the signs they carried. One said "Welcome, Mr. Nicholson. How did you get in?" Another one said "Rivard is free, why not Sibley?". It was a typical college youth demonstration done with sincerity and with good humour, and it did lighten my few hours in Winnipeg.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has the faculty of being able to present a bad case in a rather happy way. He has endeavoured by touches of humour to laugh off a situation serious in its import and dangerous to freedom in this nation. When the minister raises the excuse that what he has done has simply been done under the statute, may I ask this: How did Rockwell, the nazi leader from the United States, get into Canada on two occasions? How was it possible for him to come? For after all that took place under the present administration, the explanation given by the minister cannot be accepted as a just and proper explanation of the very serious matter at stake in this case.
All I know is what I read in the papers. But when the minister speaks of the reception he got from the students, I think it appeared in the papers and was broadcast over the radio that he also had a bodyguard of police to protect him.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I did not have any bodyguard. I walked from the plane to the immigration

office, just about the same distance I am now from the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Even when one has
guards, one can be as close as that without being in any danger.


Mr. Sharp:: The minister said he had no guards.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me say immediately that this explanation is one that cannot be accepted. I do not know anything about Professor Sibley. However, I do know that the vice president of the United States, Mr. Hubert Humphrey, according to a telegram which I have received from the Voice of Women, has stated that the federal government of the United States will take any steps necessary to investigate the incident. He also added that he had known Professor Sibley personally and he termed him a respected scholar. The president of the University of Minnesota, Meredith Wilson, has said of Sibley that he is a man of good character and highly regarded among political scientists in the United States. His point of view on nonviolence in the United States is a legitimate part of the present debate on international policy.
The minister says that no harm has been done to Mr. Sibley. Well, I do not know how you can smear a person more with McCarthy-ism than by what has been done in this case; let that be perfectly clear. I may disagree with what Mr. Sibley would want to say. But the explanations given in this house indicate a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the department of immigration. They indicate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was not told the full facts. They indicate that an official in Winnipeg, Mr. Cross, had advised the Voice of Women, I think it was on Thursday last, that this man's reputation was such that it might be difficult to permit his entry into the country.
A question was asked of the Prime Minister in this house on March 22 by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), as reported at page 12634 of Hansard. It is as follows:
Is it the policy of the government to force organizations that wish to invite a speaker here for one day to get a clearance from the government before that person is allowed in?
The Prime Minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker; but there are occasions when this is desirable, in the light of the information which government officials have in respect of the man in question who is being invited or in connection with the organization which is inviting him.
Immigration Policy
The organization which was inviting him was the Voice of Women.
This is one of those matters which is not administrative. It is not a question of administrative lawlessness. Action was taken. I am told that the minister confirmed the order that was made in Winnipeg.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: The matter was brought to his attention and he went on to British Columbia.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I stated earlier that no such action was taken; and I repeat that I did not confirm any such order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must necessarily accept the denial; but what, then, was the minister doing when the matter was brought to his attention? What did he do-in face of the smearing of a man who sought to make a speech before a respectable organization regarding matters of international importance? I am told that on Thursday evening at 6.45 Dr. Lockhart of the United College in Winnipeg was in touch with Mr. Cross of the department of immigration and was advised that Mr. Sibley was not to be permitted to enter the country. Mr. Cross was asked why that was so, and he answered: "I cannot tell you, but it was an order from Ottawa". I ask, who gave the order? What did Mr. Cross mean when he said that the reason this man was going to be denied entry into Canada was because of an order from Ottawa?
I am told by the representative for the Voice of Women that when Mr. Sibley arrived at the airport the procedure was as follows. He was informed that he would be held in custody until a hearing was set up. In other words, he would be held in custody until this week, for the minister has admitted that the hearing would not take place until Monday or Tuesday. Or the alternative was that he could go back.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to be continually rising, but I rise again on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think I am entitled to be heard on this question.


John George Diefenbaker: Well.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The right hon. gentleman has made a statement as to what he was told by the Voice of Women, who were not there,

Immigration Policy
who do not know all the facts. They were not at this examination.


John George Diefenbaker: That is an interruption, Mr. Speaker.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize the important principle involved in this discussion. But it is not up to the Chair to decide the substance of this matter; I have to apply the standing orders as given to the Chair. May I recall to all hon. members-this seems to be the right moment to mention this-that with regard to the business of the house standing order 15, subsection (2a), which is a new subsection in this session, says:
On motions, as listed in section (2) of this standing order, a minister of the crown may make an announcement or a statement of government policy. Any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the house and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.
It would be of great material help to the Chair if hon. members would try to operate within that limitation, which is a standing order given to the Chair to apply.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, no one is trying harder than I am in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: But the minister went out of his way to exculpate himself and his department; he went out of the way to explain the limitations on freedom. Surely on a matter as important as the liberty of the subject he will not interfere with a discussion in this regard; for this indeed is a shocking case, a shocking example of bureaucracy at its worst, whether it was confirmed or not.
Keeping within the limitations that you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I want to review what has taken place in this matter. It is an alarming and it is an inexplicable situation that has been created. Now they say to Mr. Sibley, "You are out. We would not let you speak. But if you come back we will treat you differently". It is like calling Rivard back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They are now saying to Mr. Sibley, "Come back; please come back, and we have decided that we are going to give you different treatment". This is after they have maligned him in a way that will

cause him to suffer for the rest of his life. The minister himself in Winnipeg-again I am speaking from the information I have-made this statement to the Voice of Women, "If you knew what I know I hope you would have agreed with the action taken". If all that the minister knows is what he told the house, the action taken is totally inexcusable; and let that be clear. He said to the Voice of Women, "If you knew what I know". What does the minister know? Did this man come over here for the purpose of stirring up revolution, for arousing the Voice of Women to become a combative organization? Is that why he came here? The government wanted to preserve this peaceful group of women from the influence of this terrible man who would arouse them to become bellicose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What manner of nonsense is this? Is the government trying to establish a kind of arid conformity in this country? The minister gave a lengthy explanation and I want to refer to that. I took down what he said. He was concerned about the freedom of the mind. The way in which the minister is going to meet this problem is to have a white paper.


An hon. Member:: A whitewash.


John George Diefenbaker: We do not want a white paper; we want some reason for the application of the law as it now is, because in my opinion this is the first time anything like that has occurred in this country. Are we going to destroy freedom within Canada? A man coming into Canada has no right to do wrong. Freedom is the right to be wrong, not to do wrong. Yet this man is judged by some officials, and the minister said he did not approve. All I have to say is that the information I have is to the effect that he did. The minister says this is not so, so we are going to ask for the production of the documents in this connection.
Are ideas to be policed? This is the government that has tried to apply thought control in political matters in Canada. Are they going to try now to apply thought control in the thinking of Canadians? This, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. What the minister should have done today was rise in his place and state, "I am sorry that this happened". But instead of doing this, he stubbornly gets up and continues to besmirch Mr. Sibley's reputation by inference and innuendo and says, "Well, if he comes back we will give him another

chance to prove that he is not what we know him to be".
I was under the impression-and I know something about the Immigration Act-that orders such as this have to be confirmed by the minister. I refer to orders such as were made by Mr. Cross in Winnipeg. If that order was not confirmed, then I believe it is in fact a nullity. Sir, imagine in 1965 a government that believes that unorthodox minorities shall be penalized. It does not seem to realize that unorthodox minorities often become orthodox majorities. What this government deserves in this connection is a stern rebuke from this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Now the minister says, "Well, after all I had my officials, and my officials are excellent people". That is no answer. Justice often dies in the hands of those that are excellent people unless there is somebody to speak out on behalf of those being treated unjustly. Abraham Lincoln once said, "To serve by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men". We protest, and protest most strongly what has happened in this connection. I come back to this point, Mr. Speaker. This matter rests on the shoulders of this government and it cannot be shelved by generalities of the kind that we have had presented. The minister said today, "I shared the considered views of my department". What does that mean? Those were his words. Does that not mean that he approved of what they did; that he approved of this conduct that is so-well, I am restricting my language, but I must say that this type of thing has given Canada a black eye in the United States.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rise again, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor now, Mr. Speaker, and I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. When the right hon. gentleman takes a sentence right out of the middle, or part of a sentence right out of the middle of a paragraph, he is not doing justice to that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently sentences are not to be taken; we are to just take this general exordium. The words he used were these, if they were taken down correctly and I believe they were:
I shared-the considered view-of my department-
Immigration Policy
What does that mean? I will let the minister rise and explain, if there is an explanation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I shared the considered view of my senior departmental officials. That is the statement I made and there is no equivocation about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I shared the considered view of my department that on the material which was available there was a doubt and that that doubt could only be resolved by a special court of inquiry. That is what I said and those are the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister is now finding himself in a difficult position. Those are his words and I simply repeated them to show they place the responsibility right on the back of the government. The minister has said that he shared the considered view of his department. What was the considered view, that this man was dangerous?
What has happened here has given Canada a black eye in the United States and in any freedom-loving country in the world. This is action which cannot be justified in any way, and no kind of fantastic explanation or verbiage can remove the condemnation that is his. The government can in no way take action to remove this condemnation.
The minister has been continually jumping up and down. Will he say that he felt, following his examination of the facts, that Sibley was going to raise a revolution or bring about a change; that he was going to take the Voice of Women organization and transmute them into fighters for a revolution and change the government of this nation by force? The explanation he has given is so ridiculous that one can only say it is in fact an alibi for action in respect of which there should have been an apology made to parliament rather than a disposition which still leaves a smear of McCarthyism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement seems to indicate that this government, which has not been successful in keeping undesirable characters in Canada, has been overzealous in keeping some very desirable people out. The minister seems to be under the impression that by simply making a categorical statement without any corroboration he is advancing an argument.

Immigration Policy
The minister concluded his remarks by saying that he had tremendous confidence in the staff of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I point out to you that in his remarks he admitted that the decision to question Professor Sibley was taken on Thursday, yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) did not know this on Friday afternoon at two thirty o'clock despite the fact that he had consulted with department of immigration officials between 1 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. that afternoon. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister had received a telegram, as he said to the house yesterday, in the morning from the Voice of Women organization. After consulting with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration officials during the lunch hour he then stood up in this house, as recorded at page 12575 of Hansard and said:
The man in question has not yet appeared at the border, and I hope that as a result of the investigation which has been made there will be no difficulty in this regard.
This is a man in respect of whom the department had already decided the day before that he should be stopped, and according to the minister's statement of a few minutes ago Professor Sibley himself had been informed in Minneapolis that he was going to be questioned, yet the following day the Prime Minister had not been given this information by the department or by his minister.
The minister gets up and talks about the efficiency of his officials, yet his officials and he are responsible for making the Prime Minister of this country a spectacle of ineptitude, as he was last Friday. I think the minister and his department owe the Prime Minister an apology.
There is no doubt that this decision was not made just by an official on the spot in Winnipeg. At page 12619 of Hansard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the Prime Minister whether he had information concerning the report that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson) had the day before approved an order not to allow Professor Sibley into Canada, to which the Prime Minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister had approved the order the day before that he be not admitted without a special examination or unless an organization made an application for his admission so the matter could be looked into at once. It is true that the minister made that decision on Thursday afternoon, or some time on Thursday.
Who is kidding whom? The minister made the decision and approved the order to stop

this man and question him at the border. According to a report which appeared in a newspaper, the minister said in Vancouver:
In Vancouver, Mr. Nicholson said that he felt the decision to refuse Prof. Sibley entry to Canada was proper.
He said he spoke by telephone to Winnipeg immigration officers on Thursday, and according to the information given him he felt their decision was justified.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the statement quoted by the hon. member is not true. I did not make such a statement as he suggests.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask the minister whether the Prime Minister's statement that the decision was taken by the minister on Thursday is untrue?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In reply to the hon. member's question, let me state that I did not say, that I did not agree, on the information available, that this man should not be questioned by a special inquiry officer. On the information and material available and on the recommendation that came from my officials, I felt that was the proper thing to do. I would make the same decision again on the same information, that there should be a special inquiry at which facts could be brought out and at which this man would be entitled to be represented by counsel. That is the only way the real facts could be brought out. That cannot be done under section 20 of the act, but it can be done under section 23, and following sections.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would make up his mind. He has now apparently decided that he did agree to the decision on Thursday. The Prime Minister says it was an order, but whether it was an order or a decision it was agreed to by the minister, and the minister gave his instructions according to-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I state that the hon. member was referring to an alleged statement; a phone call, referred to in a report of a statement that I allegedly made in Vancouver.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am referring to a statement in the press which says the minister gave this order. Whether it was given by phone or by written document does not alter the fact that the minister did on Thursday approve a decision to hold this man up at the border. The press report goes on to say* however,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do hope that my interruption will be of some assistance. I must call hon. members' attention once again to a standing order which it is my duty to apply. Briefly, it is that statements should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the house and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage. Then a spokesman for each of the other parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly subject to the same limitation.
It seems to me this is developing into a debate. I realize the importance of the principle involved, and certain leeway has been given in view of the importance of the principle under discussion, but I would ask for the co-operation of the hon. member to try to confine himself within the terms of the standing order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to comply with your rulings, but with the greatest deference I would point out that the minister not only made a statement but presented a lengthy argument which in my opinion was spurious and fallacious in a great many respects. I think members of the house in commenting are entitled to point out how fallacious it was. I was pointing out that this press statement goes on to say:
However, the minister said he could not disclose the reasons-


Mr. Byrne:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -for the refusal because he had not seen the relevant documents himself.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if this incompetent mediocrity who represents Kootenay East will keep quiet I should like to resume my remarks.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad the hon. member recognizes himself from the description.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, it is quite outside the rules of the house to quote newspaper articles in the house as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has been doing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel reasonably certain that the hon. member was just about to terminate his remarks and was coming to his conclusion.
Immigration Policy


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I cannot completely share your optimism. I want to point out that the minister has given the house no reasons whatsoever for stopping Professor Sibley at the border and giving him the option of either going back to the United States or being subjected to an inquiry. All the minister has done is to quote from the act and cite clauses which have to do with subversion and the overthrow of the government. Does the minister think Professor Sibley was going to overthrow the government? He does not need to bother. This government is in the process of overthrowing itself-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -by the kind of fiasco it has perpetrated in this particular case. Does the minister want this house or the country to believe that Professor Sibley, a man who has written a book called "The Quiet Battle", a man who is a Quaker and a pacifist, a man who has now had public protests made on his behalf by Governor Rolvaag of Minnesota, by Senator McCarthy, senator from Minnesota, by Vice President Hubert Humphrey, former senator for the state of Minnesota, was a threat to the security of this country, that this man was going to incite the Voice of Women to revolution? Surely the minister is insulting the intelligence of the house by quoting clauses 5(m) and 5(1) about subversion or reasonable reason to suppose he was likely to advocate the overthrow of the government.
The other thing the minister hinted was that a person seeking admission to this country must answer questions truthfully. What questions, Mr. Speaker? We have a right to know what questions. Questions regarding his political affiliation? Questions regarding his religious views? I asked the Prime Minister yesterday, is it the custom of the government when persons are entering this country to deliver lectures, to ask them regarding their political affiliation? The Prime Minister said "I hope not". I share his hopes, but the minister has shattered them today. The minister now says that this man would not answer truthfully. Professor Sibley himself told the press that the question he was asked was, "Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party?", and he said "I refuse to answer that question; I have always refused".


An hon. Member:: Why?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When he was asked by the press if he was a member of the communist party he said "No, and I never have been",

Immigration Policy
but he said he had refused to answer that question.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Some members across the way are indicating that this question should be asked. Why, Mr. Speaker? The communist party is not disallowed in Canada. It is not an illegal organization in Canada. Is the Liberal party now saying, and is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration saying, that before any person can come into this country to deliver a lecture he must first of all state what are his political and economic views?


Mr. Cashin:: The Americans made it the other way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The sputtering Roman candle says that the Americans make it the other way. In the last 30 years, Mr. Speaker, I have gone to the United States scores of times to deliver lectures, and to this day I have never had to give notice that I was going, and I have never been asked any questions whatsoever as to the nature of the address I was going to deliver.
I want to ask the minister another question. The minister says that the Voice of Women had not made any application for this man to come and give a lecture, and that Professor Sibley had not made any application. I want to know since when has it been required that a Canadian organization inviting an American or anyone else to come and give a lecture in this country has to get the consent of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
The issue is simply this. Have we come to the point in this country that the government is going to censor ideas and decide what kind of speakers will address the Canadian public and what they shall say? I do not know what Professor Sibley was going to talk about, but I say that neither I nor the government nor anybody else has a right to decide what the Canadian people shall listen to. Have we so little faith in the maturity of the Canadian people that we cannot allow them to be exposed to the ideas of some other person?
Here is a man who is a Quaker and a pacifist, a man who has spoken out against nuclear warfare. Apparently this man was shut out because somebody in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, backed by the minister, endorsed by the minister, decided that this man should be stopped. This man, Mr. Speaker, was in this country lecturing only a few months ago. Why was

he not stopped then? On December 28 he was lecturing in the city of Regina before the C.U.C.N.D., the combined university campaign for nuclear disarmament. He was there from December 28 to January 1 last. There was no question then that he was likely to advocate subversion. What was the difference? Is the difference that on this occasion he was invited by the Voice of Women? The minister will have to give us a far better explanation than anything we have had today.
As a matter of fact Mr. James Cross, the official in Winnipeg upon whom this burden seems to have fallen, did not mention the question of subversion at all. He noted the fact that Professor Sibley, in an article in a university newspaper, had once advocated the establishment of campus clubs dealing with communism, atheism, the promotion of free love and other controversial subjects.


An hon. Member:: Where do you stand?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. gentleman says "Where do you stand?" I would be very glad to give a lecture on where I stand. I will tell my hon. friends where I stand. I stand for the right of those who disagree with me to have an equal right to a public forum as I expect for myself. If a man wants to come into this country and argue about communism or atheism or any of the subjects with which I disagree, he has a right to express his opinion provided I am given the right to reply.
All I want to say in closing is that the explanations given by the minister will not satisfy the members of this house, and certainly they will not satisfy the people of Canada. The actions of this department, both in failing to notify the Prime Minister when he was asked about this on Friday although they had taken a decision on Thursday, and in turning back this man, a reputable scholar and political scientist, on the flimsiest grounds imaginable, have made this country a laughingstock. I say to the minister and to the Prime Minister that they would do well to apologize to Professor Sibley and tell the Canadian people that they goofed. They should do their best to rectify an almost inexcusable situation.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, having respect for your remarks a little while ago to the effect that our statements should be strictly related to the point in question and condensed as much as possible, I shall endeavour to keep to the point

without repeating arguments that have been made by the two previous opposition speakers. I think perhaps I have some basis for speaking on this point today because it so happens that I was in Winnipeg at the time these events took place. I was lecturing at the law faculty at the University of Manitoba.


Mr. Fairweather:: Was your subject free speech?


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask the members of the Conservative party to give me the same right of free speech as they expect for themselves.
I do not understand the minister's statement to the effect that neither he nor his departmental officials knew when Professor Sibley was to arrive. I arrived at the airport just a few minutes after ten o'clock and I overheard the events being discussed by people who evidently knew of the imminent arrival of the professor. When I reached the University of Manitoba, proceeding there directly from the airport, it was a matter of discussion prior to going into the first lecture I was to deliver. Professor Gibson, who is responsible for that particular lecture-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I know the hon. member well enough to know that he would not want to misquote what I said. I said that the officials in Ottawa did not know the time of arrival and did not know, in fact, whether or not the man was coming. I stated explicitly that this referred to the officials at Ottawa, and if the hon. member did not hear that I am sure it was just an accident.


Robert Norman Thompson: I respect the remarks of the minister, but if the officials at Winnipeg, who had apparently received instructions on how to deal with this man the day before, had been fulfilling their duty they would have telephoned the department here in Ottawa to inform them when Professor Sibley was arriving.
As I was saying, at that time we discussed whether someone should take the lead in going to the airport in order to provide Professor Sibley with the legal counsel to which he was entitled. As a result of that discussion Professor Gibson left the university and went to the airport with that intention in mind. He was unable to reach Professor Sibley, who had arrived at approximately 12.20 in the afternoon, and therefore submitted to an immigration officer a letter addressed to Professor Sibley offering him legal counsel.
Immigration Policy
After Professor Sibley had been questioned and had chosen to go back to Minneapolis rather than spend the week end in custody awaiting the setting up of an official board of inquiry, the same immigration officer was asked whether the message had been delivered to Professor Sibley. The reply was, as has been recorded in the press, "He did not ask for it". It seems to me that someone has goofed in this matter.
I am concerned about this, because it is my particular privilege to cross the border to the United States often on speaking engagements. Never to this day have I been questioned, other than is normal when you pass by the immigration desk, nor have I ever heard that it was necessary for a person from the United States coming to Canada for the purpose to have a request submitted to the immigration service of Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been much better in this particular instance if the minister, for whom I have great respect, had merely said that perhaps they were too hasty, that this was an error on their part. This professor holds a very responsible position in a very respectable university, and it was an error to treat him the way he was treated. It seems to me that reasonable Canadians agree that even if Sibley may have been regarded as an extremist in many ways he should not have been denied entry because it was expected, perhaps, that he would express views in contradiction of the policies of the state department of his country and, as we have found within the last few days, contrary to the policies of our own Department of External Affairs.
This is no excuse for barring him entry to this country. I know the members of this house know my own stand in regard to that particular issue which involves Viet Nam. On the other hand, I do not see how we can be justified in barring a citizen of the United States, who obviously had no intention of subverting or overthrowing the government of this country, from entry to this country. I believe in the light of all this it would only be proper to apologize to Professor Sibley for the way he was treated, and the debate should be closed on that note. It seems to me that the department made a very poor decision.
There is a point I should like to make that has not been mentioned by the minister or by any of those who have spoken before me, which I feel is extremely important. It involves the security of this country. All we have to do is look back over the last few

Immigration Policy
weeks to realize that there have been a number of Canadians involved in some form of subversive activities. I am concerned about this, and as I travel about the country I find a lot of other people are also concerned.
As I mentioned only a few days ago in the house, it is imperative that the government do something about laying down some sort of policy relating to the security of our nation. I mention this now because obviously someone in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration had a fear regarding the advisability of letting this man come up and lecture on the topic on which it was expected he would lecture.
I ask this simple question. Had the F.B.I. given any notice to the department, or to those responsible for security in Canada, about this man Professor Sibley? I know the department must have been aware well in advance of the type of man he was. I say that because the Voice of Women-though I do not understand the reason this organization circulated the document I am making reference to-openly stated in that document that this man was going to deliver a lecture on peace as it related to United States government policy at this time.
This document also stated that he was a controversial man who had advocated setting up campus clubs espousing communism, the violent overthrow of governments, free love, nudist colonies and other controversial subjects. Assuming that the department must have had access to this type of information, did it contact the F.B.I. with regard to this man? Was there a proper investigation made, or not? If there was the fear, which apparently there was, that led to the decision that he be stopped at the border, or that a special court of inquiry be set up, it seems to me it should have been the department's responsibility and the far wiser course to inquire from the other side as to the status of this man relating to security.
I do not intend to speak much longer on this, but I do urge it as being very important to the government that a situation such as that which occurred last Friday should not be allowed to occur again. Either a white paper should be prepared, outlining just what is the situation in Canada so far as security is concerned, or we should adopt a policy similar to that in the United States where the F.B.I. has full responsibility for security, and from time to time publishes documents giving necessary security information to the public.
[Mr. Thompson.)
It is not good enough to continue as we are doing now. Whether we like to admit it or not we are facing a very serious situation in the world today, and the security of this nation is of basic importance to its future and the well-being of its people. It seems to me the government could well avoid an incident like this, a very unfortunate incident, if it would only firm up some policy and put it into action.
Again I say this whole incident was most unfortunate. The very thing that apparently the officials who made the decision had intended to prevent has now been amplified 100 times over. Publicity which arose out of this action has been far worse than that which would have attended a single lecture to the Voice of Women organization in Winnipeg, a lecture that might have received a little publicity in the local press and might or might not have been reported across the nation. However, the issue that is involved is much bigger than this one incident. Not only does it involve the right of freedom of speech and the freedom of expression, but it involves the security of our nation and its future well-being.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Malheson: What information, if any, has the Canadian government in the case of each nation, or law district, which, has abolished capital punishment with respect to the rate of conviction for murder per million inhabitants during the decade prior to and the decade subsequent to abolition?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: The Canadian government has no information in the terms of the question but the following publications contain information of the general character mentioned:
Capital Punishment, United Nations publication ST/SOA/SD/9; 62. IV. 2 (particularly chapter 3); royal commission on capital punishment 1949-1953 report (particularly appendix 6) (United Kingdom); report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on capital punishment, June 27, 1956 (particularly chapter III) (Canada).


REGULATIONS ON ENTRY OF CHAROLAIS CATTLE
Mr. Horner (Jasper -: Edson):
What are the new regulations of Charolais cattle coming into Canada, and when are they in effect?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: It is expected the new maximum security quarantine station, required for the importation of cattle from approved areas in countries in continental Europe, will be ready for use in the late fall of 1965. It is anticipated that the technical details pertaining to health certification will be published shortly. However, in general the following will be required: Health certificate from the country of origin, 30 days quarantine in the country of origin with disease tests, shipment to the Canadian quarantine station by ship, quarantine in the Canadian quarantine station for a minimum of 90 days with additional disease tests during this period of quarantine.


DEVELOPMENT OF RIDEAU WATERWAY
Mr. Webb: Would the Minister of Forestry give consideration to the development of the Rideau waterway in the counties of Frontenac, Leeds, Lanark, Grenville, Stormont and Carleton under the ARDA program?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: The responsibility for initiating and carrying out the majority of projects lies with the provinces. If the province of Ontario submits a project proposal to develop the Rideau waterway, it would be carefully considered by ARDA and if approved by both governments, could qualify for federal financial participation.


TRANSFERS FROM AIR CANADA MAINTENANCE BASE, WINNIPEG
Mr. Churchill: How many personnel have been transferred from the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg to Montreal, since January, 1964?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advise as follows:
A total of 28 personnel were transferred from the Winnipeg maintenance and overhaul base to Montreal from January 1, 1964 to date.


CENTENNIAL TRAIN STOPS, MANITOBA
Mr. Simpson: 1.	What points in the provinces of Manitoba will the Canadian centennial train visit?
Questions
2.	Have arrangements been made for this train to visit some central point in the Swan river area and continue on to The Pas, Cranberry Portage, Flin Flon, Lynn Lake, and major points along the Hudson Bay line, including Wabowden, Thompson, Gillam, and Churchill and, if not, will the government take the necessary action to see that definite arrangements are made to have this train visit these as well as have it make stops at some of the smaller communities in order to allow the people of northern Manitoba every opportunity of seeing this special feature of our country's centennial year?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the centennial commission as follows:
1.	The 1967 confederation train will visit the following cities in Manitoba: Brandon, Neepawa, Dauphin, Portage La Prairie, Winnipeg and St. Boniface. It will visit the province of Manitoba from April 22, 1967 to May 13, 1967, a period of 22 days.
2.	No. However, a confederation automotive caravan, will visit the northern Manitoba area. The details of the caravan itinerary are not yet completed.


UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES, TORONTO
Mr. Scott: For the latest month on which figures are available (a) what was the total number of unemployed in metropolitan Toronto (b) how many of these have been unemployed for 60 days or less (c) how many have been unemployed between 61-90 days (d) how many have been unemployed between 91-120 days (e) how many have been unemployed for over 120 days?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Data are not available on number of unemployed in metropolitan Toronto, either in total or by length of unemployment. Persons registered for work with the Toronto, Weston and Long Branch offices of the national employment service on February 26, 1965, numbered 51,569. These data are not available by length of unemployment.


PROSECUTIONS UNDER NARCOTIC CONTROL ACT
Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-: Revelstoke):
1.	How many prosecutions have there been under section 5 of the Narcotic Control Act since it was brought into force on September 15, 1961?
2.	How many convictions have there been under the section and in each, what narcotic was imported and in what quantity?
3.	What has been the number of prosecutions in each of the provinces in the period?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Six.
2. Four, one involving small quantities of morphine in solution and tablet form, 1 vial

Questions
of numorphan, 38 cc's of demerol, 60 codeine tablets J gr; one involving 18J oz. morphine; one involving 4 oz. marihuana; one involving 1$ oz. heroin.
3.	British Columbia, 3 convictions. 2 cases are outstanding. Ontario, 1 conviction, 2 dismissals, 1 case is outstanding. Quebec, 1 case under section 408 (i) of the Criminal Code of Canada (conspiracy to import narcotics) was dismissed.


POST OFFICE AMHERSTVIEW, ONT.
Mr. Alkenbrack: With reference to the decision of the Post Office Department to open a post office to serve Amherst-view, Ontario in the township of Ernestown, in the county of Lennox and Addington (a) when will this new post office be opened (b) will the department erect a building or lease quarters for this service (c) where will the site or location be (d) will the department expedite this badly needed service as soon as possible (e) will a full time postmaster be engaged together with any necessary assistants (f) will some of the Collins Bay or Bath rural routes be operated from the new Amherstview post office (g) what is the current salary of a postmaster in such capacity as in question (e) ?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliameniary Secretary to Postmaster General):: (a) As soon as a suitable person is selected for the position of postmaster, and is available to assume charge of the proposed office.
(b)	A preliminary evaluation indicates that this proposed post office should be initially established as a revenue post office, group 10. In post offices of this category, the postmaster is responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment.
(c)	As the person selected for the postmastership will be required to provide, as a condition of employment, suitable premises centrally located for the majority of the residents to be served, the site of the office is dependant upon the location of the accommodation provided by the postmaster.
(d)	Yes.
(e)	A revenue post office in this category is normally operated by the postmaster in conjunction with another business. Our preliminary inquiry indicates that normally the work load in an office in this category would not require the full time of the postmaster.
(f)	No.
(g)	Initially, the postmaster will be paid a basic salary of $1,615 per annum. This rate will be reviewed every three months during the first 12 months of operation and adjustments retroactive to the date of opening will be granted when the postal sales and busi-
[Miss LaMarsh.l
ness performed indicate that such action is warranted.


NATIONAL DEFENCE ADVERTISING AGENCY
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What advertising agency will handle the Department of National Defence's advertising for armed forces recruits commencing April 1, 1965?
2.	What amount will be paid to this agency for the advertising as set out in 1?
3.	Why is a change being made from the advertising agency now handling this advertising?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Vickers & Benson Ltd., 980 Yonge street, Toronto 5, Ont.
2.	The value of this account is $736,000.
3.	It is felt that better service and value would be obtained if one agency (with a two language capacity) was assigned to handle the accounts of the three armed forces. It would:
(a)	reduce administrative costs and bring greater efficiency in such areas as accounting, checking, communication, filing, billing, etc.;
(b)	enable the agency to provide research, survey, and other valuable services which are now severely limited;
(c)	lead to the development within the one agency of a greater depth of knowledge than now exists among the several agencies of the armed forces personnel requirements and of the best methods and media to be used in advertising for recruits; and
(d)	be in line with the principle of integration.


MERCIER PAVILION, MONTREAL-BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Laprise: 
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. No consideration has been given to installing an air conditioning system as such in the corridors in the apartment located at 6595 Boyce street, Pavilion Mercier, Montreal. Because of a recent ruling by the city of Montreal requiring fire doors to be kept closed at all times, in this project, a ventilation problem may develop. The corporation is studying the matter at the present time and if ventilation is required it will be installed.

2. No. The building located at 6595 Boyce street is part of a two building complex of 86 apartment units. The building at 6595 Boyce street cannot be equipped with a recreation room for the 29 tenants because of the fact that no space is available. The tenants in this building, however, have the use of a recreation room located on the ground floor immediately across the street at 6666 Boyce street.


LEGALITY OF CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT
Mr. Smith: Prior to the signing of the Canada-United States auto trade agreement, was any legal opinion obtained from the combines investigation branch of the Department of Justice as to whether or not the agreement was in contravention to any combines or restrictive trade legislation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: The proposed automotive plan was discussed with senior officials of the Department of Justice prior to its introduction in order to obtain their views on its position vis-5-vis the Combines Investigation Act.


SPECIAL TERMS FOR CANADIAN MOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD.
Mr. Coates: 3.	What are the special terms that would provide Canadian Motor Industries Limited with the opportunity to participate in the Canada-United States free trade auto scheme?
2. Are special terms available to Volvo under the aforementioned scheme and, if so, what are these terms?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. At present there is no special agreement between the government and Canadian Motor Industries Limited. Discussions are under way with the company in this regard.
2. As an established motor vehicle producer in Canada, the Volvo Corporation of Canada Limited will be operating under order in council P.C. 1965-99 dated January 16, 1965, as is the case of all the other motor vehicle producers which were in production in Canada during the base year. Accordingly, no special terms were required in the case of this corporation.


IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, MARINE RAILWAY AREA, YARMOUTH. N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Is the government giving consideration to carrying out a cleaning-up and improvement program in the area surrounding the marine railway at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and, if so, will this cleanup program be completed before the commencement of another tourist season?
Motions for Papers


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: No. The area on crown property between the ferry terminal and the public wharf was cleaned up last fall. All debris and a rotten boat hull was removed.


CLERICAL STAFF AFFECTED BY CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT
Mr. Smith: 1.	Has any estimate been made of the number of office workers and clerical staff in the automobile industry and the automobile parts industry who will be out of work directly or indirectly as a result of the Canada-United States automobile agreement?
2.	Have any steps been taken or plans made to retrain and/or relocate these workers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The program for the automotive industry is designed to achieve a substantial expansion in production and employment in Canada. It is, of course, not possible to predict where these increases will take place but we hope and expect that it will take place in all segments of the industry. The matter of how the expanded labour force in the industry will be distributed between various categories of workers including office workers will vary from company to company depending on how these companies adapt themselves to the new opportunities for expanded production and greater specialization. We have no evidence to suggest that for the auto and auto parts industry taken as a whole there will be a net reduction in office and clerical staff.
2. There are retraining programs operating on a continuous basis in most cities and towns in which motor vehicle or automotive parts manufacturers are located. These programs are designed to give the best type of retraining available to the worker, depending upon his skills and his interests. This service is sufficiently flexible to offer appropriate retraining to office workers or clerical personnel.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 233 and 234 are acceptable to the government. I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these motions be made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Inquiries of the Ministry


PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 233-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all communications received by the Prime Minister, dated since April 8, 1963, with reference to the pensions of federal civil servants already retired, and for a copy of the replies of the Prime Minister thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 234-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all communications received by the Prime Minister, dated since April 8, 1963, with reference to the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, and for a copy of the replies of the Prime Minister thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he or the Canadian government had any knowledge in advance of the intention of the United States armed forces in Viet Nam to use gas? Was this information brought to the attention of the government and, if not, is it considered a proper course to be followed, especially when action such as this threatens peace, and national forces engaged in preserving freedom are able to proceed in such an unusual way on the simple say so of the commanding officers in the area?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada was not advised of the intention to use this particular type of warfare. I have noticed in the press that the President of the United States himself was not aware of the intention to use an instrument that has been used on other occasions. However, I prefer not to say anything to indicate that I or the government subscribe to imprudent uses that can create a psychological disturbance and be misunderstood.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has the Canadian government informed the administration of the United States of the feelings that have been expressed by the minister in answer to my question?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that we have directly informed the government of the United States but I have talked to our ambassador who, I know,

will pass on the views I expressed just a few moments ago, that while the particular instrument was not one calculated to have a greater effect than the use of firing instruments, it would not be wise in the face of world public opinion to resort to measures that would create emotional disturbance or be misunderstood, particularly in that section of the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a supplementary question, the minister mentioned that this instrument, as he calls it, had been used on other occasions. What other occasions?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, tear gas, as my hon. friend knows, is used not only by military forces but by political-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You people use poison gas.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I made that observation, because no one knows better than some hon. gentlemen opposite how ineffective tear gas in the House of Commons can sometimes be.


Mr. Graff  ley:@: You are making us cry without it.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It has been used on a number of occasions, but I do not believe that I am called upon to detail the incidents involving its use; I do not have the particulars here. It is used by police forces; it is used by military forces. It was used in Viet Nam six weeks ago. It was used in the Korean war, and I believe it was used in Cyprus in 1958.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A further supplementary question.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: But I would not want my references to this to imply that I justify its use in the particular situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it only tear gas which has been used on this occasion?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It was a form of tear gas.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs two question. First of all, is he aware that all of the authorities who have described this gas have described it not only as tear gas but as a mixture of tear gas and nauseous gas, causing vomiting and a good many other physiological disturbances? It cannot be described simply

as tear gas. I just ask whether the minister is aware of that fact?
Second, according to London dispatches the Prime Minister of Great Britain yesterday in the house of commons said that it was the intention of his government to question the United States government, first of all regarding the use of napalm and non-lethal gas, and second, regarding the remark of General Maxwell Taylor, which was taken to indicate that the United States intends to wage war without any limit in North Viet Nam. I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government intends to make similar inquiries of the government of the United States both with reference to the remark of General Maxwell Taylor and also with reference to the public reaction in Canada to the atrocities that undoubtedly arise out of the use of this non-lethal gas.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I have already said all 1 propose to say on the question of gas. Canada is not a combatant in Viet Nam. I have expressed the government's view as to the use of this form of warfare.
With regard to the more important part of my hon. friend's question, namely the implications for the government of the reported statement of Ambassador Maxwell Taylor, if this statement represents the policy of the government of the United States, then of course we would be anxious to make our views known. But I assume that the statement made by the President of the United States that the United States is not seeking any wider war still stands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question. In view of the fact that the President was not consulted about the gas, is it equally possible that he is not being consulted about the extent of the war in North Viet Nam, and therefore would it not be advisable for the Canadian government to make some inquiries regarding the implication of the remark of General Maxwell Taylor?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I have already said that we would do that very thing. However, I will say this, that knowing the responsibilities of the President of the United States we will all appreciate that he is following these events with a sense of responsibility that one would expect of one who holds that high office.
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
LUCIEN RIVARD-REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO RECAPTURE On the orders of the day:


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, returning again to the home front, and having been reminded by a statement of the house leader of the proximity to the end of the fiscal year, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not there is any likelihood of there being a claimant to the $15,000 that has been offered as a reward, or is the government in the same position as the Quebec police officials in that they are engaged in the Rivard manhunt which is a dead trail?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker I would prefer to say that our position in this matter is very much like that stated by the attorney general of Quebec on television last Sunday evening-"We hope".


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: What a hope. AGRICULTURE
QUEBEC-ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture is absent I will put my question to his parliamentary secretary or to the Prime Minister.
The Quebec minister of agriculture has requested help for the farmers in some areas of the province who have suffered from the bad weather. Can the Prime Minister tell us if we will soon hear about that request so that farmers in the Saguenay and Abitibi regions will know what to expect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Agriculture to do his best to speed up the reply to that letter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: On
behalf of the united front of Kootenay West, and knowing of the responsibilities of the federal government for commercial and sport fisheries in Canada, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of

Inquiries of the Ministry the concern of rod and gun club associations, chambers of commerce, farmers associations and other groups-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, almost daily, but he is still courteous enough to send me a copy of his elongated questions, and I do think that this one would be much more effective if it were placed on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Could I have a go at this at ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The point of my interruption was to save the time of the house. There is quite a preamble to this question, but important as it is I do not see that element of pressing urgency which is required under the rules.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, with respect to your decision, this is a matter of great concern to the constituency I represent and I have been asked to raise it here. This matter is of concern to many organizations, and I shall not repeat the names of all the organizations; but will you permit me to ask the Minister of Fisheries this question. It has to do with the policy announced by B.C. Hydro with respect to clearing the basins of the Columbia river. Would the minister inform the house whether he is aware of this situation, and what action does the federal government intend to take to make certain that the fish population of these waters is conserved?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest, with due humility and all respect, that this is still a question for the order paper.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of Premier Lesage's announced intention to go ahead with a medicare program in the province of Quebec, has the hon. lady in any way had to alter her intentions regarding a national medicare plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. Did Premier Lesage consult the federal government before he announced his intentions

yesterday; and do these developments mean that a national medicare plan based on the Hall report recommendations is now out of the question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In light of the views expressed in the house today regarding Professor Sibley, will the government consider dropping the requirement that the professor submit himself to a tribunal and let him come back to Winnipeg and make his speech, in accordance with the rules of common sense?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: And reasonableness.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, arrangements have been made for the inquiry. There is a situation which has given rise to a doubt in the minds of officials of the department, and I think that in the interests of all concerned the inquiry should proceed.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the decision been made, as widely rumoured among civil servants in Ottawa, to locate the administrative headquarters of the Canada pension plan at Elliot Lake?
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I or my department are responsible for rumours among civil servants.


Some hon. Members:: "No".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: But hon. members are quite correct; the answer is no.


Mr. Rapp:: If not, in view of the concern of many government employees affected by the possibility of having to move from Ottawa, would the minister not consider having it established here in Ottawa?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member say, would I consider not having it established in Ottawa?


Reynold Rapp: No. If the headquarters are not going to be established in Elliot Lake, in view of the concern of many government employees affected by the possibility of having to move from Ottawa, would the minister not now agree that the pension plan should be administered from Ottawa?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I said frequently during the pension plan debate that the administration will be largely from regional offices, with the central administration being here. There has not been any public suggestion for quite some time that it should be otherwise.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister will assure the house and those very many university students and administrations who are deeply concerned about the lack of adequate and equitable financial support to universities, that a substantial increase in federal grants will be forthcoming in the next budget.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the university students I hear from are delighted with the support they have received from the government through the student loans plan.


William Heward Grafftey: They have never had it so good.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Over 30,000 students have taken advantage of it. Anything in addition to this program should be announced in the ordinary way.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the scholarships?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I would like to ask him whether consideration is being given to changing the basis on which capital grants are made to universities so that the inequitable situation with respect to universities in the maritime provinces will not continue to exist. In the maritime provinces we have the situation that, on the average, university tuition fees are, I think, the highest in Canada, although this region is the lowest income region in the country.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, we are receiving a lot of very helpful suggestions about this and other ways of assisting the universities all across Canada. I have not anything definite to say at this time, but when a policy has been agreed on it will be announced.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCE ON FRENCH PROPOSALS On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to a question put to me last Friday by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) in connection with a conference at Princeton, New Jersey. I believe that the conference referred to by the hon. member may be the meeting of the American bankers' association which was held in Princeton from March 17 to 19. I understand that during the course of the meeting a panel on international monetary issues may have been organized. The hon. member will understand that the meeting was privately sponsored and that the Canadian government was not officially invited to attend. I might add that no officials of the Department of Finance or of the Bank of Canada did in fact go to Princeton.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Industry. It arises out of a news story in the Windsor Star of Saturday, March 20, in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs is reported to have rejected as not true rumours that office workers at Chrysler and Ford are likely to be thrown out of work through the operation of the new Canada-U.S. auto deal. In view of the large number of people who are very concerned about this matter, can the Minister of Industry give us a similar assurance, namely that office work at Chrysler and Ford will not be reduced as a result of this pact?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate for me to give assurances on behalf of private industry. I can say that I have been in touch with the Chrysler corporation, who did give me an assurance that there would not be a reduction in office workers at their plant in Windsor.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. Notwithstanding his assurances from the Chrysler company, can the minister assure the house that in the event that these dislocations take place the government is prepared to introduce a strong program of adjustment assistance and retraining for the members of the unions involved, so they may adequately proceed through any dislocations that may result from this program?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the concern of the government with this problem of dislocation has been much in our minds where it occurs. In this connection, the Minister of Labour last week spent the morning with members of the united auto workers union outlining to them the very extensive programs that are now in existence and are being administered by the Department of Labour, just to cope with these problems.


Reid Scott: I am not satisfied with that answer, Mr. Speaker, and give notice of my intention to raise this question in the adjournment debate.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister, in view of the recent decision of the Wells inquiry, in a position to state whether he will discuss with the United States measures to stop hate literature emanating from the United States?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad, in consultation with my colleague who is concerned with this question in Canada, to give very sympathetic consideration to doing that very thing.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of a continuing dispute between the association of radio and television employees of Canada, known as ARTEC, and radio and television station CKX at Brandon, Manitoba,


arising out of the unwillingness of the management to abide by a unanimous report of a board established by the minister. Will he use his good offices to try to help get this dispute settled?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this particular dispute. I did have a discussion just the day before yesterday with officers of the department with respect to any measures that might be taken to assist in the solution of this dispute. In view of the hon. member's question I will be glad to give further consideration to the matter.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Cameron (High Park) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, last night I concluded my remarks by quoting the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), who said that we are justified in fearing an increasing interference of the state in the private and economic life of a nation, which would reduce the initiative of the peoples and of the citizens.
When I consider the accumulated funds which will be made available to the government I also agree with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) who in 1963 also expressed her fears about those accumulated funds in the hands of the government, which might eventually be accumulated in such a way as to become dangerous for the interests of the human person or of individuals or of private enterprise. She expressed that fear on several occasions. I am one of those who also share her fears. The plan we are now discussing, Bill No. C-136, is not merely a new factor, it is the result of a new pattern of political thought which the various parties in this house have been developing for a few years.
I remember that in 1962-63, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare feared the setting up of those pension funds, this accumulation of funds, we in Quebec precisely heard those famous slogans: "Masters

in our own house", "The key to liberation." We also spoke of a policy of greatness, of the responsibility resting on the leaders of the state of Quebec, and at the same time, to say that one is a leftist was becoming more and more the thing to do. We had some from the far left in provincial politics and even in the provincial administration. Others, perhaps not of the extreme right-have definitely shown their lack of confidence in private enterprise and in the respect due the individual in order to counteract at that time, I believe, the trend of the political, economical and social life in the province of Quebec.
But a lot has happened since 1962, since the introduction of the first pension plan in the house, in 1963. There are still some leftists in the province of Quebec; there are those who were leftists but who are less convinced now; there are also those who, today, claim to be left of centre, as Mr. Jean Lesage stated. Some claim to be rightists, but not of the extreme right, like Mr. Emilien La-france, Quebec family and welfare minister, and many other ministers. Therefore, the Quebec legislators are divided as far as political thinking is concerned.
After consideration of the motions for first and second readings of Bill No. C-136 and its reference to an all-party committee, it seems that all those who were called upon to scrutinize this piece of legislation have already been convinced of this political attitude: The state must increasingly grow in importance and huge capital must increasingly be made available to the state.
But, I said and I repeat that what was true yesterday is also true today. In support of my apprehensions and of the apprehensions of some of my fellow citizens of the province of Quebec in respect of these pension plans, either under Bill No. C-136 or under the bill to be passed by the Quebec legislature within 30 days after the passing of Bill No. C-136 and which seem to centre more and more around compulsory mobilization of savings, I will quote a few excerpts from an article published in the newspaper Le Front Ouvrier on December 17, 1949, under the heading:
Are we on the road to slavery?
Dealing specifically with the major social security aspects of pension plans, the article had this to say:
We have a question for the industrialists, the capitalists and the present masters of the economy. We shall not beat around the bush. Bluntly, here it is:
Is the logical and irrevocable end of the capitalist system the reintroduction of labour slavery
Canada Pension Plan
under the domination of the state representing capitalists only? Is that the goal of our capitalists? What steps will they take to prevent our falling into servitude?
Naturally, we shall wait for their reply but it is action we want at this stage.
At that time, the then minister of labour, Mr. Mitchell, had just said:
In Canada, it is the government which will set up a pension scheme for the workers.
Does industry share this opinion? Will it allow the state to head for socialization because it would rather have the workers reduced to slavery by the state instead of having them participate in management?
And let not industry, no more than Hon. Mr. Mitchell, suggest that social security cannot be provided by private enterprise because its permanence is not guaranteed. Our readers will find in opposite columns a practical means (there are also others) to ensure the workers' security without subjecting them to the state and without half the cost of this social insurance being used to pay handsomely a whole army of officials, who will not produce anything and who will finally live off the labour of the workers.
The purpose of Bill No. C-136, or of the bill which the Quebec legislature intends to pass within 30 days after the passage of this bill, is to establish in this country a state capitalism under which many bureaucrats, inspectors, auditors and even policemen will confiscate pay books in private enterprise. Are we not establishing such a system?
Yesterday at the beginning of my remarks I said that after a long and difficult period of gestation we were about to attend the birth of a democratic monster, and I believe that is the direction we are giving the economy of our country.
I also said that this problem was important and far reaching since it was stated that Bill No. C-136 was the most important social security measure, and it is, after all, compulsory contributory social insurance.
I will now quote views that I endorse.
The pension fund is not a cure-all, either with regard to social security or with regard to the independent economic growth of a nation. The universal pension fund Mr. Lesage is talking about is not a make-believe paradise able like a drug to solve by magic all problems.
It is a way to organize the economy and social security.
With regard to that method, I deplore the fact that the committee which studied that bill did not take into account the large volume of evidence supplied by experts in economic, actuarial and investment matters.
I realize that some may think that I am defending the insurance companies here, because on February 15, 1965, the finance minister had this to say:

Canada Pension Plan
The national pension plan, said he, is probably the most important social security measure ever introduced in this country. The principle of this bill was unanimously approved last fall and a joint committee considered it thoroughly.
Certain circles which have been strongly opposed to it in the past two years have suddenly changed their opinion and said they would support the bill if certain major amendments were made.
Further on, he said:
It would be disastrous if the national pension plan was not adopted at this stage because of lobbying by organizations which have been against it from the start.
I admit that in the beginning opposition was mainly voiced by those who had a good knowledge of actuarial practices, economic consequences, administration of private pension plans. And that is probably the start of the opposition to this concentration of power which, as I said, is dangerous in the hands of the state, because this accumulation of funds will be used as at present and, for all practical purposes, it is only a financial instrument in the hands of governments.
We are told that insurance companies were the only lobbying organizations. I will quote here from a brief submitted by the executive board of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Not only representatives of insurance companies were involved; there were also representatives of industry and business, people who speak for the public and practically all the classes of society. Here is what they said about this cumulative fund on page 11, paragraph 5 of their brief:
Consideration should be given to the effects of the establishment of an important retirement fund on the capital available for the productive sector of the economy.
The following dangers are to be feared following the setting up of a national plan:
1.	The compulsory contribution of savings will put investment capital at the disposal of the government, and the latter will not have to rely on the regular money markets for its financial needs.
This means that the Quebec government must, within 30 days of the passage of Bill No. C-136, pass a law to that effect, and instead of going to the American brokers to borrow the necessary capital, instead of going to the usual money market, it will be able to use these very funds.
Hon. Gerin-Lajoie stated on July 3, 1963, as reported in La Presse:
There are reports that the minister of youth, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, is already considering the establishment of a school credit office which would draw its funds from Mr. Lesage's pension fund. This office would make loans or would, in turn, allow the school boards to borrow from the fund

for school construction purposes, at "conditions of reimbursement within their means".
And we know that three quarters of the school boards in the province of Quebec were, until recently, showing perennial deficits, because the increase of the compulsory tax forced the government of the province of Quebec to deny them any grants. They had to revise generally the rates of school taxes in the province of Quebec.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: Order. The hon. member for Beauce seems to me to be straying far from the matter before the committee for discussion. I fail to see how the affairs of a school board in the province of Quebec are relevant to the present discussion and I would ask the hon. member to confine himself to what is before the committee at this time.


Gérard Perron: I believe I can easily relate the pension plan to what I said when I dealt with the use of funds which will be accumulated under this bill. When reference was made to the Quebec bill, we often heard the following words: comparable, adaptable, parallel, identical. Moreover, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare is willing to recognize the fact, we are going to pass a measure considered and worked out by the socialists for the left wingers of the province of Quebec. I believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will admit that this bill will bear economic after effects as regards the province of Quebec. When this fund will be channelled through the pension plan, the Quebec plan, which will have to be comparable with Bill No. C-136, will have the same repercussions.
On this matter, I will also quote other excerpts from the memorandum submitted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, paragraph 2, page 11:
2.	The sources of private capital would decrease, and there would result therefrom a transfer of financial duties from the private to the public sector.
Under this bill, $6 to $7 billion of capital will be drained off during the next 20 years, and also between $4 and $5 billion in compulsory savings under the retirement fund of the province of Quebec.
This means that from $10 to $11 billion will be drained off and handed over to various departments at various administrative levels, or to crown agencies. In other words, as I said a while ago, out of those accumulated

funds, the province of Quebec will be able to build bridges and roads, and the accumulated funds under the provisions of Bill No. C-136 will also be used by the other provinces.


Donald Cameron: Order. Will the hon. member take his seat. I am still quite convinced that what the hon. member is saying is not relevant to the matters before the committee. For a short time he came back and referred to things properly before the committee, but now he is straying off again. I know that the hon. member for Beauce is well informed about the Canada pension plan bill and I would ask him to confine his remarks to what is before the committee at this time. I know that is quite easy for him to do and I would ask him to please comply with my ruling.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, the nine other provinces will also be able, under Bill No. C-136, to use part of the 45 per cent which can be accumulated by the governments of those nine other provinces that will come under this proposed legislation.
Here are a few more fears expressed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:
3.	The investment decisions left in the hands of government agents will undoubtedly come under political pressures unrelated to economic requirements.
To stay within the limits of Bill C-136, how do we know that the government of New Brunswick, through an authorized agent or corporation, will not use part of those funds for such and such a project, while this Bill No. C-136 is being presented to us today as a vast program of social security?
How do we know that social security will not be increasingly resorted to in order to accumulate funds? How do we know that the capital saved will not prevent private enterprise from making investments that not only would enable it to survive but would prevent it from being completely crushed by a dictatorial regime such as the Minister of National Health and Welfare feared in July 1963?
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce goes on to say:
The capitalization of a fund on the scale contemplated under a plan of national scope would be a form of compulsory savings established by the state, the effects of which will be felt more heavily by those people with the lowest income.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is has been proved on several occasions that it is precisely 20220-8074
Canada Pension Plan
those who do not earn enough who lack the bare minimum. In fact, according to a statement by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), it was found that there is extreme poverty in the rural areas of the country and some figures were even given showing that 200,000 or 300,000 families lack the necessities of life, because their income is below standards considered as a vital minimum.
After earning their first $600 in salary these people will have to contribute a part of their income as savings for the accumulation of a state fund under Bill No. C-136 or under the measure which the province of Quebec proposes to pass. In fact, those funds will be used to set up a slave system under state capitalism. And I continue to quote the complaints expressed by the executive council of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:
The setting up of a reserve fund without any accounting relation between the amount collected and the benefits paid would create a capital reserve without any special affectation which would be assailed from all sides by multiple requests.
The increased expenses, resulting from the implementing of the projected plan, will exert a pressure which will weaken our competitive position on the domestic as well as on the foreign markets. The contributions will certainly raise the prices of goods and services involving a high percentage of manpower.
Mr. Chairman, I will give a single example only of the possible consequences in certain areas of the Canadian industry.
In the pulp and paper industry, or in the lumber industry in Canada, where 50 percent of the companies' over-all expenses represent labour wages, the consequences will certainly be more serious than in the case of companies engaged in finance, wholesale, trade etc., because in industries where automation is increasing, the salaries represent a dwindling percentage of the over-all expenses. Consequently, some sectors of the Canadian industry will feel it more.
Mr. Chairman, I have the impression that some will say that the arguments coming from this side of the house must not be taken seriously. However, to support my views I will quote the words of an expert in economic matters who is certainly well known in Canada at the present time. They come from a speech delivered by Mr. William Hood, professor of economics, recently appointed adviser to the Bank of Canada, before the members of the Canadian political science association and the Canadian association of law professors. I quote:
The transfer of capital from the private to the public sector will slow down the accumulation

Canada Pension Plan
of capital reserves in the private sector. I am worried because a decrease in savings in the private sector will slow down the massive accumulation of private capital and will therefore endanger that sector's ability to undertake vast projects essential to the development of productivity.
Mr. Chairman, these are the remarks I wanted to make at this stage of the business of the house, considering the funds that are going to be built up after this Bill No. C-136 has been passed. I hope that those who have not already done so, will take the time to read the committee proceedings and the various briefs that have been presented. They will find some serious warnings concerning the repercussions that will be felt throughout Canada in the economic, political and social fields.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is shaking her head, meaning that there will not be any serious repercussions. In this regard, I would suggest that she look up the committee reports of proceedings, where she will find that the deputy ministers of finance have expressed the opinion they could not say for sure what will be the consequences of the compulsory monopolizing of the low wage earner's savings under Bill No. C-136.
In my opinion, there will be serious consequences and I still maintain that we are now working up a method of directing the economic and social life of the Canadian people.
I ask my colleagues who could not attend the committee meetings during the recess, to read the proceedings on the various briefs submitted and especially to look into them fully. They will realize then that it is not so urgent to pass Bill No. C-136.


Donald Cameron: When we went into committee, I overlooked informing the committee that we were studying clause 1 of the bill. I should like to ask now, shall clause 1 carry?


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, up to this point I have not spoken about the Canada pension plan. In fact, there has been little opportunity to discuss its over-all implications because under the new procedure arrangement we have bypassed statements at the resolution stage and on the first clause until after the clauses have been studied in detail, and after the committee has done its work. I agree that this is one of the most far reaching pieces of legislation we have had before parliament for a very long time,
[Mr. Perron.)
and therefore it is something that certainly ought to be considered from every aspect. Perhaps there never has been more complex legislation before this parliament. At this time I am concerned about the over-all impact of this act as we have come to understand its intricacies. Likewise I am concerned about the developing resentment which I find across the country as the public have a better opportunity to understand what it really means to them.
At the outset, I would say there is a place in Canada for a contributory pension plan that is completely portable under which Canadians could invest their savings, and apart from any universal welfare plan. It has been a very unfortunate situation in so far as the wage earners in Canada are concerned that there has not been portability of past or present pension plans. As a result there has been a great injustice worked upon our working people. If there could have been such a portability arrangement, the justification for this plan would not be present.
It is a rather tragic state of affairs, however, that the Canada pension plan has been tied to the over-all welfare structure. It now relates to old age assistance, veterans and disability pensions, widows' pensions and so on. In view of this fact, this legislation has become unnecessarily complex. I believe the people of Canada are going to resent what this bill holds in store for them. I am convinced it is certainly not going to be to the political advantage of the Liberal party because I believe people are going to feel the whole thing has been misrepresented to them, once they understand what returns there will be for them.
When I say this, I am convinced that up to this time the general public have not realized what this plan means. This is true also of most of the members in the house, especially before they had an opportunity of studying it in the special committee. In other words, in my opinion, all that would have been necessary would have been a contributory savings plan. Again I say that if private pension plans had been portable, this plan would not have been necessary at all. I say that the old age pension, war disability, widows and other types of pensions should have been left separate, except for the lowering of the minimum age to 65, and making provision to bring pensions up to a point more compatible with the cost of living. Perhaps the strongest argument for this lies in the fact that so many Canadians are com-

pletely omitted from this Canada pension plan. Also this plan is absolutely unfair to the self-employed. Certainly, the compulsory features of the plan are not acceptable to many when applied to such an item as pensions.
In fact the self-employed will get a rude shock when they see what they are in for. I agree with other speakers who have said that it will amount to nothing more than another income tax. In fact it is a regressive tax, taxing most heavily those who can least afford it.
Some very useful information has been published by various newspapers across the country, and I wish to refer to one of a series of articles carried by the Winnipeg Tribune of recent date, particularly in reference to the topic I have mentioned, that the pension plan would be much more satisfactory if it had not related to old age security or welfare in general. This article says:
It is apparent that no large body of opinion today opposes the principle that everybody in old age should receive adequate financial benefits. At present the two main sources for this security stem from private investment and the old age security program. The first, unfortunately, doesn't cover everyone, and the second is inadequate. C.P.P. is an attempt to marry them in a shotgun wedding. ..
After ten years only one third of Canada's retirement age people will be receiving C.P.P. benefits averaging $45 a month, and there will be 1.2 million receiving only O.A.S. After 20 years there will be perhaps a million without C.P.P. benefits at all. In the far distant future C.P.P. on its present basis will exclude almost half of the retired population from any worth-while benefits. As a social measure it is totally inadequate. A further extension of O.A.S. would be far more equitable for the retired Canadian, and encouragement for extension of private plans, such as in Ontario, would be more rewarding to all wage earners.
This is a very significant fact. For example, a young person who is 20 years of age and is self-employed, will pay $8,100 by the time he is 65. In addition to that there will be a much larger sum of accumulated interest- that is, if he earns enough net income in order to pay the maximum contribution to the Canada pension plan. At 65 he begins to draw benefit, and if he lives until 70, drawing something over $100 a month, he will draw a total of $6,120. Even if he lives only a few years longer than present day normal expectancy of life in Canada, he will never have a chance to draw the total of his contributions, and certainly not that which should be rightfully his in accumulated interest.
Canada Pension Plan
I am the first to admit that this plan will be of great benefit to myself and to others in my age grouping who are able to pay the maximum contributions. Anyone with $5,000 a year net earnings will contribute $1,350 over 15 years as a wage earner, and it will take him only 13 months to get that money back. Thus it is a good deal for practically all members in this chamber. Those of us who are past 40 years will receive much more than we actually contribute, even though we only live to the normal life expectancy.
But I am thinking about our children and those young people who are in their twenties. It is a very poor investment for them. We will skim the cream off the milk that the younger generation will have to provide. This is one of the great inequities in the plan, and the government and the minister cannot get away from that fact.
Again I refer briefly to the editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune of March 20 under the heading, "Short Changing the Young":
Every high wage earner over 45 stands to gain something out of C.P.P. Those over 45 in the $5,000 wage bracket will receive pensions of 500 to 1,000 per cent on their premium investment. They are the fortunate drones but after them the benefits will be watered down, so that when the time comes for today's young bees to retire the pattern will be completely reversed and they will be confronted with percentage losses of even greater magnitude than the drones profits.
A young worker bee of 20 today making annual investments of $158.40 (the same as C.P.P.) in a joint program with his employer could get $2,370 in his annual pension on a private annuity-rated plan. He will get only $1,250 from C.P.P.
This represents one of the great inadequacies of the plan and is something we should all be concerned about. If this is a fact, and I am convinced it is, then we are deceiving the people of Canada by telling them this is for their benefit. I am concerned about some of the statements which the minister made with regard to the plan because I think they completely misrepresented the plan as formulated.
On July 18, 1963 the minister said that "the purpose of the government's proposed legislation was to ensure that as soon as possible, in a fair and practical way, all Canadians would be able to retire in security and with dignity." That will not be the case and has never been a possibility in connection with this plan, because the plan does not cover all Canadians. In fact it covers best those who need it least, and it leaves a sizeable proportion, something like 30 per cent, who will receive no benefits because they will not be eligible.

Canada Pension Plan
On September 9, 1963, again talking about the Canada pension plan, the minister said "its purpose was to make it possible for all Canadians to retire in security and with dignity." This plan does not do that, and to tie it in with welfare is completely confusing the issue. It may have its value as a contributory savings plan. However, I doubt that, because it gives a poor financial return. But certainly as a welfare measure it is completely inadequate, and to say it will provide all that is necessary for retirement in security is absolutely wrong. By saying that, we are presenting it to the Canadian people as something which it is not.
It is a compulsory, contributory savings plan, nothing more and nothing less. As such it has some value because it offers complete portability, something we have not been able to obtain by any other means. But as a welfare measure it is a tragedy that it has been presented to the Canadian people as an adequate pension provision.
I support the government in its decision to lower to 65 the minimum age requirements for old age assistance. That was good, but it did not go far enough. Since 1958 we in the Social Credit party have advocated that if we are to make pensions in any way commensurate with the cost of living, old age assistance should be $100 a month. At that time, and it was only seven years ago, this was away out on the fringe of things and we were laughed at.
Yet at this time it is something that the majority of members agree is a necessity. It is no longer branded as unrealistic, fanatical, nonsensical; it is something which we agree today is necessary.
Therefore I would have thought that the government would have brought in a program along with the lowering of the minimum age requirement, a similar program working in reverse order, where each year until 1970 they would have increased the benefits of the Old Age Assistance Act so that by that time the pension would be $100 a month.
I realize that we do not get money from some secret source. This type of money must be supplied by the taxpayer-contributor. It would have been a very realistic approach to a problem that I believe all of us in this house agree is a necessity to meet, namely, to increase next year old age pensions from $75 to $80, the year after that from $80 to $85, so that by the time we reach January 1, 1971, it would give every senior citizen over 65 $100 a month. This would have taken care of our old age welfare in a respectable and

legitimate way. This has not been done. Actually, what has been done is to confuse the welfare picture with a contributory savings plan, and I regret this very much. However, that is the fact of the matter.
If I may refer briefly to the over-all welfare picture, it is customary for Canadians, particularly Canada's politicians, to regard Canada's welfare expenditure as below that of other countries. If you would permit me, Mr. Chairman, as this matter is involved with the Canada pension plan, I should like to bring out the point that this is not the case. Canada today is contributing a larger proportion of its national income to welfare than most countries in the world. It is often said in this house and on the public platform that Sweden is an example to be held up as the way welfare responsibility is adequately met. On the other hand, I find that Sweden does not spend nearly as much of her national income on welfare and health as does Canada. In this regard I refer to all forms of welfare, including pensions, family allowances, hospitals and medicare, unemployment insurance and any other cost transfer made from government to individuals and householders.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Do not forget the veterans.


Robert Norman Thompson: In August of last year the Financial Post carried some interesting statistics. For example, Japan spends 5.2 per cent of its total net income on welfare. The United States spends 6.9 per cent, Australia 7.9 per cent, Britain 8.1 per cent, Denmark 9 per cent, Sweden 9.9 per cent. However, in 1963 Canada spent 11.6 per cent; and in this past year, 1963-64, Canada spent 12.5 per cent of her net national income on welfare. Only two major countries in the world spend more than this: West Germany, with about 15 per cent; and France, with approximately 16 per cent. I am not saying that in face of the statistics we are meeting our responsibilities as far as legitimate welfare is concerned in this country, but I am indicating that we are spending a sizeable amount of money on welfare out of our total national income. But we confuse the picture if we add into this a compulsory contributory savings plan such as the one we are talking about.
My concern in all of this is that we are committing ourselves to welfare programs that are distorting the true priority picture as it should be, and at the same time we are tying a weight of taxation around our necks- because this is where this money must come from under our present system-which will be difficult to bear. In fact, I think it is es-

sential that we put welfare in its proper priority.
As far as I am concerned as a parent, I believe the number one priority in welfare refers to the education of my children. I believe that the number two priority refers to the health and care of my children and my dependants. The number three priority is that we find provision for the future, and provision for those who are unable to take care of themselves, as the next logical priority. 1 think most Canadians will agree with me on this. But by committing ourselves to the type of welfare program that this is, we are placing our priorities in reverse order, and because of this I am concerned whether we are going to be able to meet the other necessary elements of welfare when they come before us.
I was reading the other day a brief from the Canadian school trustees association which was submitted to the royal commission on taxation, where it states, in terms of constant dollars education costs will rise from $1.7 billion in 1961 to $3.3 billion in 1971 and $4.4 billion in 1975. Then I read in the Hall commission report that as far as a national health plan is concerned it is estimated that within ten years we will be spending a minimum of $10 billion on a national health program, should it be instituted, and the cost will more likely be nearly $12 billion. Combine this with the fact that we will be spending in this pension plan a total amount of money estimated to be $7 billion to $8 billion in the next ten years. Add all this together and we find an obligation ahead of us, as far as welfare is concerned, which is going to be double that which it is now.
I believe that because we are being forced into a program such as this, as we have at the present time, we will be in serious difficulty in Canada in meeting what I believe is our first priority, that of adequate education and educational facilities; and second, those obligations which relate to the general health and welfare of the nation. Therefore I regard this legislation in this respect as a very dangerous piece of legislation-first because it deceives us as to what it actually is, and second, because it commits us to something which is going to be far more costly, yes and far less profitable, than we are anticipating.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would again ask your indulgence to make a few remarks which relate to the over-all pension plan as it comes into this field of welfare. I have to mention the welfare program because this
Canada Pension Plan
Canada pension plan does relate to welfare, even though I think it would have been far more advisable if it had not. I would suggest to the minister that one of her first obligations to this house, and also to the Canadian people as far as health and welfare is concerned, is that she should take three or four important steps to avoid our getting further into the situation into which we are rapidly being propelled by this pension plan, assuming that it is going to pass-because I think that at this time the majority of the members of this house are in favour of it.
The first step is that areas of priority must be laid down whereby the most urgent welfare needs are met first. The need for priorities has been emphasized by many different sources. I think it is necessary for us to spell out over the next ten years what are the legitimate areas of welfare, and their urgency. Second, I think complex problems such as costs-we have heard a great deal said about the cost of this pension plan- must be laid before us for what they represent in order that we can understand how these priorities will be met. Third, I think there must be provision made for adequate integration of the private pension plans which we have at the present time, with a view to integrating them into the Canada pension plan, and at the same time providing portability for these plans so that we do not lose the investment that is represented in them. Then fourth, it is essential that we project the long range cost of welfare so that we can fit these priorities into what will be a legitimate share of the net national earnings of our people, which will be devoted to the general welfare program that we regard as essential, particularly recognizing that we have a greater area of responsibility today in this field than we have ever had before.
If the government had done this before, I am convinced we would never be in the position that we are in the house at this time, namely on the verge of accepting a plan that does not actually represent what it has been purported to be. It is confusing the welfare situation. We will not be taking care of our senior citizens, nor those unable to provide for themselves, in an adequate way. We would never have found ourselves at the point of almost being forced to accept something that within ourselves we know is not right; and I am sure many members on the government side feel this way about it as well.
I will not continue my remarks further at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I believed it

Canada Pension Plan
was essential to again emphasize some of the facts relating to this plan which may or may not have been brought out in the debate, which has already been a very long one. I hesitate to think that the government or any member of this house who plans to support this bill can go out and represent it for what it has been said it is supposed to be. Let us regard it as a compulsory-I do not like the word "compulsory"; I think it is wrong-contributory savings plan that has a worth-while benefit because it is portable. But let us not confuse it with welfare. I have been disturbed as we have gone over the various clauses of the bill to find that the means by which this plan can be altered and changed are so difficult, because I am convinced the plan is soon going to have to be changed because of its complexity and difficulty. In my view we are simply locking around our neck a plan which before too long I think we are going to wish we could change.
So I would say to the members of the government and also to the members of the opposition, many of whom have dealt with different aspects of the plan and have drawn attention to its inadequacies, that we owe it not only to our children-I do not think we owe it to ourselves, because we will come out all right-but to those people who are expecting something better out of the plan than they are going to get, to make very clear what it actually is and not be guilty of misrepresenting it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask a question of the hon. member before he resumes his seat. I wonder whether my hon. friend has had an opportunity to look at the proceedings before the committee, and particularly at page 706, where he will find that he is in error in the quotations he has given with respect to social security expenditures in other countries as percentages of gross national product in 1960. If he has not, may I suggest that he look at page 706, where he will find that the expenditure in Sweden, which he said was less than in Canada, was in fact 12.4 per cent, in the United Kingdom it was 11 per cent, and in Canada 8.9 per cent.
May I also, before resuming my seat, advise my hon. friend that the Financial Post figures which were quoted by him-I am sure it was not his intention to give incorrect figures- included health expenditures in this country, a fact which was pointed out by myself in a letter to the editor of the Financial Post,

which was acknowledged with thanks. My hon. friend may not know that, but I know he would not want to mislead the committee with regard to the figures he has been using.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I have not been misleading the committee in any way at all, because the figures I quoted did not refer to the gross national product; they referred to the net national earnings of this country, which is a far different thing than the gross national product. The gross national product is a very fictitious thing because it includes a great many things that have no relation to the net national earnings of the Canadian people.
Furthermore, I did not misrepresent the figures that were quoted from the Financial Post, because I was speaking of the over-all cost of welfare in Canada and not as it relates just to the federal government. I was very careful to state that I was referring to all forms of welfare where government money was actually paid out to individuals or households, or for the benefit of individuals or households. I believe these statistics are absolutely correct in this regard. I was emphasizing these statistics to show that in the over-all picture, under the federal system which we operate in Canada we are spending more on welfare than most of the major countries in the world; and those statistics are absolutely correct.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question. I noticed his reference to the term "net national income" in regard to the statistics he used. I wonder whether the hon. member would indicate to the committee the source of the statistics he used, or were they his own calculations based upon statistics he obtained?


Robert Norman Thompson: The statistics are not my own calculations, Mr. Chairman. I do not have the exact title of the document that I used, but it was an official report which, by the way, I obtained from the Department of National Health and Welfare. They included the over-all statistics concerning welfare at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. Most of the statistics, as far as the national picture is concerned, were taken from that document. If the hon. member would like the title of the document, it is in my office but I do not know the exact title at the moment. I think it was published in 1958. I have also taken some of the statistics contained in the recent report with regard to the first annual survey of the economic coun-

cil of Canada; and I have taken a few of the minor statistics from the bureau of statistics and some private statistical organization. In no case did I use my own calculations.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask a further question, Mr. Chairman. What was the source of the statistics with reference to the other countries to which the hon. member referred?


Robert Norman Thompson: I quoted from the Financial Post of August, 1964. While these figures, as the minister has indicated, were not just for the federal picture, they related to the over-all picture including health, because health and hospital insurance programs must be included in this particular calculation if you are going to arrive at the over-all picture. It is unfair to compare it with Sweden as a national government and Canada as a national government, because we have allocated, under the British North America Act, which is our constitution, that health, education and other forms of indigent welfare are the responsibility of provincial and local government. Therefore, to give an over-all, national picture you must include governments at the different
Business of the House levels in order to assess what we are spending on welfare as it relates to the national income of the country and the Canadian people.


Mr. Belanger:: Mr. Chairman, I must remind you that it is now six o'clock.

Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the indulgence of the house for a moment I would like to say that the house leaders had a meeting this afternoon and agreed that tomorrow, Thursday, the house would not rise at ten o'clock in the evening but would sit for an extra hour until eleven o'clock. I would ask the unanimous consent of the house in so ordering.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
12763
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 25, 1965