1965-03-29

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in drawing your attention and that of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a charming young visitor from Japan, Miss Hiroko Koba.
Miss Koba was selected by a jury of prominent Japanese citizens and the Canadian Ambassador in Japan as Miss Japan-Canada Friendship, and is touring Canada in the interests of promoting trade and friendship between our two countries. On her return to Japan Miss Koba will open the Canadian exhibit at the Tokyo international trade fair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the right hon. Leader of the Opposition raised as a question of privilege the procedure before the Quebec legislature of an address to Her Majesty by the legislature on the subject of the constitutional amendment procedure. The right hon. gentleman then affirmed, and I quote from Hansard:
-addresses to the sovereign, asking for action in the British parliament, cannot, according to constitutional authorities, be made by a province or any of the provinces.
On Thursday I said I would deal with this matter at some length today, because it required to be dealt with at some length. I would like permission to do that, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the matter and the strong reaction it has caused in Quebec.
So far as the right hon. gentleman's statement is concerned, that addresses to the sovereign "cannot, according to constitutional authorities, be made by a province or any of the provinces," I would be interested to know
who are these authorities; because in the study I have been able to make of this matter over the week end I have been unable to find any support for his assertion among any of the best known Canadian constitutional authorities whom I have consulted.
The right hon. gentleman also suggested that if I, as Prime Minister, were to inform the Queen-
-that it is in order that any one province may do this,
-then I would in effect have accepted the theory-
-that there can be sovereign states within this nation.
With due respect, Mr. Speaker, this statement has no foundation in fact and is quite wrong.
In putting forward this view, in criticizing the right of the legislature of Quebec to pass an address to the Sovereign, the right hon. gentleman has already provoked a strong reaction in Quebec, and quite understandably so.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the proposed address by the legislature of Quebec reproduces the text of "an act to provide for the amendment in Canada of the constitution of Canada", the preamble of which refers to the addresses of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada requesting enactment of the act by the parliament of the United Kingdom. The address from Quebec therefore itself recognizes that action by the parliament of the United Kingdom cannot be taken unless and until the parliament of Canada has approved and submitted an address to Her Majesty.
Second, such an address can only properly be sent to the Sovereign through the Governor General. I have been assured by the Quebec authorities that this is precisely the procedure which they intend to follow, and which has been followed in the past. The Governor General, in this as in any other matter, acts on the advise of his responsible federal ministers.
Third, since this action requested in the address by the legislature of Quebec is the same as that which may be requested in an address by the parliament of Canada, it would be appropriate to advise the crown, in

Question of Privilege
forwarding it to London, in the event that it is sent forward to the Governor General through the lieutenant governor of Quebec and through the Governor General to London, that it should be acknowledged as the expression of the view of the legislature of Quebec about a matter on which action could be taken only on the basis of a decision by the parliament of Canada on the address to be placed before it.
Finally, there is ample precedent for an address to the crown from a province on constitutional matters. For example, in 1870 the house of assembly of Nova Scotia approved an address concerning Canadian confederation and the position of the province in it. In 1879 it asked, in another address to the Queen, for an amendment to the British North America Act respecting the composition of the legislative council of Nova Scotia. In 1894 Nova Scotia passed yet another address to the Queen, praying "that Your Majesty's government may be graciously pleased to recommend to the imperial parliament" an amendment to the British North America Act providing this time for the abolition of the legislative council of Nova Scotia. In 1888 the legislative assembly of New Brunswick endorsed resolutions approved by the interprovincial conference of the previous year, with an address to the lieutenant governor to convey the resolutions to Her Majesty "humbly praying Her Majesty to graciously cause her parliament to be moved to amend" the British North America Act accordingly.
Provincial addresses dealing with other than constitutional matters have also been made from time to time. For example, in 1876 the legislative assembly of British Columbia addressed a petition to the Queen respecting an alleged breach by Canada of her railway engagements with the province. In 1880 the legislative council and house of assembly of Prince Edward Island adopted a lengthy address to the Queen respecting the claim of the province for compensation for the use of its fisheries by citizens of the United States under the treaty of Washington of 1871.
Provinces have also on a number of occasions petitioned the British government direct on constitutional matters, as an alternative to an address to the sovereign. Thus in 1888 the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Manitoba endorsed the resolutions approved by the interprovincial conference of 1887 proposing various readjustments of the constitution, and requested that they be forwarded through the Governor General to the secretary of state for the colonies. Similarly,

in 1907 the legislative assembly of British Columbia approved a resolution protesting against the financial settlement which was the subject of the constitutional amendment of that year, and requested that it be transmitted through the Governor General to the secretary of state for the colonies.
The precedents mentioned above will more than suffice to show that the legislature of Quebec is acting with constitutional propriety in the procedure it has chosen to adopt.
There is therefore, Mr. Speaker, no question of privilege, in my view, in the matter raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, nor is there any substance in his contentions. The net effect of his intervention has been merely to add, unfortunately, to the difficulties that face us in trying to resolve our current constitutional problems in a way that will strengthen, not weaken, confederation.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not read the authorities very carefully, if he has read them at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have read the addresses.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact the statement he read indicated that he had not made any study of the subject but had simply been provided with a brief. I therefore intend to refer to some of the cases of which he has spoken.
I begin by pointing out that there is no case in Canadian history where a provincial legislature has proceeded in this way. I am going to read once more the motion which is before the legislature of Quebec:
Quebec parliament act-Motion-
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To the Queen's most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec, in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be made before the parliament of the United Kingdom, to be expressed as follows:
I point out that the resolution is one which is directed to the Sovereign, praying that the Sovereign will do those things which are set out therein. In other words the Sovereign is being asked by a resolution passed by the legislature of one province alone to make a most sweeping amendment affecting the dominion and every province therein.
I would point out that there is no case, as I said the other day, where a provincial

legislature has ever before passed a resolution dealing with matters under the jurisdiction of other provinces or the dominion in the terms expressly set out by me a few moments ago. As a matter of fact there have been addresses, as is generally known, passed by legislatures in respect of matters within the jurisdiction of the legislatures, and I will refer to them at some length.
Reference was made by the Prime Minister to the petition sent to the Queen in 1876 by British Columbia on the Pacific railway question. In 1881 there was a petition to the Queen on the same question, dealing with a matter within the territorial jurisdiction of British Columbia, to be forwarded to Amor De Cosmos, special agent of the province in London, to present to Her Majesty's government. This was actually presented to the secretary of state for the colonies.
Reference was also made to Nova Scotia, where in 1868 an address was presented asking for the repeal of the British North America Act in so far as it affected Nova Scotia. Again I emphasize that any address that was passed by any province at any time had to do particularly with those things which came within the jurisdiction of the province. In that case the lieutenant governor was to forward it to the foot of the throne.
In 1879 the legislative council had refused to consent to its own abolition, so the assembly passed an address to the Queen asking for an amendment to the British North America Act to empower the lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia-I again emphasize this-to add nine members to the legislative council. This address was to be sent to the Governor General, for him to forward to the foot of the throne; and it was followed by an address to the lieutenant governor informing him of the assembly's action.
In 1881 there was a motion to address the Queen, but a negativing amendment was passed. That was followed by an address in 1894 which arose out of a further abortive attempt to abolish the legislative council. In every case the address covered only matters within the jurisdiction of the province concerned. I may also refer to what took place in 1880 in Prince Edward Island in regard to fisheries.
It is interesting to note what happened after Mercier's interprovincial conference of 1887, which was the first conference at which the provinces met the dominion. Five provinces at that time asked for amendments to the British North America Act, but not one of them did so in the form of an address to
Question of Privilege
the crown or to the Queen. They all adopted identical sets of resolutions, being those passed by the conference itself, but then proceeded in different ways.
On May 26 and 28, 1888 Quebec made an address to the lieutenant governor to be transmitted by him to the Governor General and the secretary of state of Canada. Ontario followed the same procedure. Nova Scotia followed the procedure of adopting an address to the lieutenant governor to be transmitted through the Governor General to the secretary of state for the colonies. New Brunswick passed an address to the lieutenant governor to be conveyed to Her Majesty, humbly praying Her Majesty to graciously cause her parliament to be moved to amend the British North America Act in respect of the matters set out in the resolution. Manitoba passed an address to the lieutenant governor to communicate to the Governor General and the secretary of state the concurrence of the assembly in resolutions. In none of these cases did a provincial legislature pass an address to the Queen asking for amendments to the British North America Act applying to the whole country.
Perhaps the examples I have given will indicate the difficulty involved in reading general statements without examining the authorities to realize that there is a vast difference. The Nova Scotia addresses asking for amendments dealt with proposals affecting only Nova Scotia.
It is also of great importance when listening to the Prime Minister quoting what happened in 1878 and 1884 to note that those were times when we had a democratic government in Canada which was representative and responsible; quite a different situation from that of today.
There has not been one case in the last 70 years during which tremendous constitutional changes have taken place as the result of any kind of address from any province, which certainly would indicate that the changing constitutional development no longer recognizes the right of a province to even petition the crown by an address in respect of matters coming specifically within the jurisdiction of the province. Even if we were to assume that an address dealing with one province was proper in those times, there is nothing at all to indicate that it would be proper now, and no constitutional authority has taken that stand. This was a sheer facile way of speaking on the part of the Prime Minister. No constitutional authority takes the same stand.

Question of Privilege
I simply point out to him that nothing of the kind has happened in 70 years, yet in 1965 we have resolutions from various provinces to the effect that the basis of the formula for the repatriation of the constitution and also for amending the constitution, as agreed to at a dominion-provincial conference, is acceptable. The fact that there has been no case of this kind in 70 years would indicate how unprecedented is this action of the legislature of the province of Quebec. The address from the legislature of the province of Quebec does not say anything about parliament or any other legislature asking for anything, but simply says that the Quebec assembly humbly prays that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be made before the parliament of the United Kingdom, to be expressed as follows.
Sir, what the Prime Minister has done is simply to produce a red herring by dealing with a number of cases that have no reference to the terms of the present attempt at an address on the part of the province of Quebec. What has taken place, therefore, is in keeping with the kind of theory that this government plays hot and cold with, namely that there can be states within this nation. Naturally, finding there is criticism of that stand in that it is a complete denial of the whole basis of confederation, the Prime Minister comes along and plays that old Liberal tune; "When you do not agree with what a Liberal government does then you are causing disorder." In other words peace, order and good government in this nation consist in saying that Liberal governments have a monopoly in their desire for national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear,


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, the applause from the government benches indicates they have accepted that spurious argument and believe it to be a fact. The Prime Minister tried to cover up by saying, as he has to do, of course -because after all what the premier of Quebec says in connection with pensions and the like-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Miss LaMarsh:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. lady says
"shame".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I sure do.


John George Diefenbaker: She should be the last to speak on that subject. All I say in that connection is that they tried to cover up their tracks and the Prime Minister has endeav-

oured to fall into the same position as the premier of Quebec did on Friday.
I must admit that when I read that I was going to be brought before the bar for daring to speak in the House of Commons of Canada I was frightened. I had to ask the nature of the bar. It is an old shibboleth of Liberalism, Mr. Speaker, that when they are in difficulty they speak about unity. Yet in a period of two years this government has done more to chisel away unity by the attitude displayed again today by the Prime Minister than any government since 1867.
This course being taken by the legislature of Quebec is wrong constitutionally. The Prime Minister tried to defend it because he has to, but he was not able to produce one solitary case in Canadian history when a legislature had a petition addressed to the sovereign to bring about changes that would affect not only the province of Quebec but other provinces. It was irregular; it is irregular. All I have to say through you, sir, to the premier of Quebec is that while I am very frightened I shall be saying outside the house what I have said here.
We have not yet come to a point in Canada where the premier of any province, when he disagrees with views expressed in parliament, can say that punishment will come. I do not know what the punishment would be. I think it was provided under Edward I that in a case where disorder was caused the person would be dragged to Tyburn, there to be submitted to cruel and unnatural punishment. Beyond that I am not particularly affected by the outburst of the premier of Quebec, which indicates there was reason and responsibility and constitutional fact in what I brought before the house; and having done so, to be met by that old argument that when you don't agree with anything these people do you are-


Mr. Graffley:: Anti-Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: -anti-Quebec. That is their story.


William Heward Grafftey: The same old cry.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad that came from the hon. gentleman. This kind of thing does not tend to that unity of which the Prime Minister prates but to which he contributes by doing so much to undermine it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the Opposition one question. It arises out of

an incident which took place at a time when both he and I were in the house. Is it not a fact that in 1943, when the parliament of Canada petitioned the crown to amend the British North America Act to postpone the redistribution then due until after the war, the legislature of Quebec petitioned the crown asking that that amendment not be passed? Was this not a case of a provincial legislature making a request to the crown with respect to something that affected all of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: I am very glad the hon. gentleman brought that up, because those people who today occupy the treasury benches damned Duplessis for that. They said it was quite wrong, quite unjust and quite improper, and his answer was "This has to do with our fair distributive share under the constitution. In other words, we are entitled to 65 seats in the parliament of Canada. This will interfere with that fair share, and therefore is a matter strictly within the jurisdiction and right of the province of Quebec."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the constitutional point, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will let me say a word in reply to what the right hon. gentleman has said. He has criticized the legislature of Quebec because, in his words, it is attempting to do something in an address to the crown that has never been done in our history-those were the words he used-in that it is purporting to pass an address which concerns more than the province of Quebec. According to him that has never been done before in our history.
I was going to mention the precedent referred to by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. That has now been done, but does the right hon. gentleman believe for a minute that an address to Her Majesty by the legislature of Nova Scotia, even though it was as far back as 1870, asking for Nova Scotia to be released from confederation was not a matter that concerned the whole of confederation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And would the right hon. gentleman believe that an address to the British parliament in 1907, direct from the legislative assembly of that province, against the financial settlement which was the subject of a constitutional amendment of that year, did not concern the whole of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: No, it just concerned Nova Scotia.
Question of Privilege


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it has been done before, and the right hon. gentleman in attempting to single out Quebec for special mention at this time-


Mr. Monteith:: There you go again.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. That last statement is another of those smear designs-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Starr:: A government smear.


John George Diefenbaker: -and it is hardly in keeping with the position of one who is Prime Minister to raise an argument so untruthful and so unjustified.

On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of privilege just for the purpose of keeping the record straight. Earlier when I asked the Leader of the Opposition if he recalled the occasion in 1943 when the legislature of Quebec petitioned the crown, he replied that he did, and that the federal government of that day condemned Duplessis for this action.
I was puzzled by this comment; therefore I have been checking the Parliamentary Guide. I find that Mr. Duplessis was not premier in 1943. Hon. J. A. Godbout was premier of Quebec, heading a Liberal administration, from November 9, 1939 until August 29, 1944. I am not seeking to reopen the argument, but I just thought the record should be kept straight.



MR. CAMERON, NANAIMO-COWICHAN-THE ISLANDS-CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OF LETTER FROM UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege affecting not the rights and privileges of legislatures but the rights and privileges of that rather forgotten creature, the ordinary citizen. This affects not only every member of parliament but every Canadian citizen.
I have in my hand a letter I received this morning from the office of the President of the United Arab Republic, and it is clearly marked so. It was addressed to me at the House of Commons. To my surprise, and later to my dismay when I thought of the matter, I found also on the envelope this stamp; "National revenue of Canada-customs and excise-May 27, 1965-cleared by customs."

Question of Privilege
I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a flat envelope which obviously could have contained no dutiable goods, and it raises some very serious questions in one's mind. The first is, is mail coming into Canada subject to censorship? If so, by what authority and, if so, by what criterion do the post office authorities turn it over to the customs and revenue department?
I am not concerned about it being addressed to a member of parliament; if I were a private citizen I would feel just as disturbed by this incident as I am now. I am going to turn this envelope over to the Minister of National Revenue with its contents, which he is welcome to read. I may further say it is a reply to a letter I wrote to President Nasser after I returned last year from my visit as a guest of the Arabian authorities, and I am at a complete loss to understand what authority the customs department has and, second, by what criterion do letters now come to be cleared by customs.
I am going to send this envelope over to the Minister of National Revenue. I hope he will consult his colleague the Postmaster General, and I hope tomorrow, between them, they will be able to come up with a reasonable explanation that will reassure Canadians that their mail is not liable to censorship, and they need not have the anxieties that citizens of a police state endure.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would be most pleased to look into the matter raised by the hon. member, but I should not let it go a moment beyond now without assuring him that mail coming into Canada is not subject to censorship by my department.


Colin Cameron: I will add something to that, Mr. Speaker. I cannot say positively that that letter was opened, but if the minister would examine the flap he will see there are very good grounds for suspicion that it was steamed open and very carelessly closed again. Further, how could his department mark it "cleared" unless they examined it?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, with permission of the house I should like to answer the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands after having consulted with the officials of my department.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have permission?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: I am informed that first class mail coming into Canada is sorted at the post office, and items which might conceivably contain commercial importations are turned over to the customs officers. If customs, on examining the outside of the item, decide no further examination is required, it is stamped and returned to the Post Office Department. If further examination is required, then the addressee is asked to come to customs where an examination is held in the addressee's presence and in the presence of a post office official. First class mail is never opened by my department except in the presence of the addressee.
In the case of items other than first class mail, such as parcels etc., these are turned over to the customs officers by the post office. Our customs officers then open them to see if the contents are in accord with the declaration. If this is the case they are marked "free" and mailed on to the address. If duty is due and payable, a card is sent to the addressee giving him a choice of picking it up and paying the duty or having it delivered through the post office and paying the duty when it is delivered to him. In the latter case I am referring to mail other than first class mail. First class mail is never opened by my department except in the presence of the addressee.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, this does not answer my question of privilege at all. By no stretch of the imagination could this envelope have been considered to contain dutiable matter. If it could, every letter which comes through the mail would be in that category. It was a perfectly flat envelope obviously containing nothing which would be of interest to the customs branch, and I am not at all satisfied with the answer which the minister has given me.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, may I just repeat the last part of my statement, that first class mail is never opened except in the presence of the addressee. I have in front of me the envelope, which, in my opinion might very well contain some item which is dutiable; it is quite a heavy envelope. Therefore it was turned over by the Post Office Department to my department. They decided that no further examination was required other than looking at the outside of the envelope, and it was

Game and Fish Laws INDIAN AFFAIRS
stamped and sent on to my hon. friend without being opened.


Colin Cameron: May I ask the minister whether every flat envelope sent by first class mail is referred to his department? Can he tell me of any possible thing which might be in the envelope which would be dutiable?


Edgar John Benson: May I say in answer to this question that this is not the case; only envelopes which are such that they could contain dutiable material are referred to my department.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, which arises out of the question of privilege raised earlier in the day by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Did the envelope submitted to his department and which was mailed to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, contain any blueprints and, in the event that it did, would the blueprints then be dutiable?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am completely unaware of its contents. We did not open the envelope, as I mentioned earlier, and would not open it except in the presence of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



FINANCE


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and French of a report by the tariff board on reference 123, which covers radio, television and related products. I am tabling also a transcript of the evidence presented at the public hearings held by the board.
This report contains recommendations regarding radio and television equipment, phonographs, radio communication and navigation equipment as well as electron tubes, transistors and other components, parts and materials used in their production. I assure hon. members that these recommendations will be carefully considered by the government. May I urge interested parties who wish to comment on this report to do so promptly.



STUDY BY INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE OF GAME AND FISH LAWS

Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hunting and fishing rights of Indians is a most complicated matter, as most hon. members know. Several decisions of the courts and questions asked in this house within the past year have raised questions as to what steps the government should take to safeguard the hunting and fishing rights of our Indians.
Unfortunately over the years some inconsistencies have developed in the application of game and fishing laws to Indians in different parts of Canada. While the government of Canada has endeavoured to protect the rights of the Indians, seemingly it has not done so in all instances. Regulations have been introduced which on closer study indicate that some of the rights of, and assurances given to, the Indians may not have been adequately safeguarded.
The recent conviction of Michael Sikyea, an Indian living in the Northwest Territories, for killing one wild duck during a closed season contrary to regulations made under the Migratory Birds Convention Act illustrates the problem clearly. The court of appeal of the Northwest Territories referred to the regulations as a "breach of faith" and expressed dissatisfaction with the law as it stands.
The government recognises the seriousness of the problem, and I am pleased to announce that it has directed that an inter-departmental committee, composed of officials of the departments of citizenship and immigration, external affairs, fisheries, justice, northern affairs and national resources and the R.C.M. Police, to be chaired by the representative of the justice department, be established to conduct a comparative study of the promises contained in the various Indian treaties and surrenders as related to the laws respecting game and fish.
The committee have been instructed that their study should be directed as follows:
1.	Determining the nature and extent of the discrepancies and inconsistencies which are known to exist.
2.	Suggesting the legislative action required to carry out, in a manner which honour and good conscience dictate, the intention of the government previously announced by the Prime Minister, to do what can be done to see that the commitment originally entered

Game and Fish Laws into on behalf of King George III is maintained, and
3.	Assessing and reporting on the effect of such legislation in terms of fish and game management generally and the continental supply of migratory waterfowl, particularly.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: I am sure it is with dismay that those members of this house who have an interest in the welfare of Indians and Indian rights in this country have heard the announcement just made by the minister. The announcement comes, we know, on the heels of a decision by Mr. Justice T. G. Norris upholding the unanimous decision of the British Columbia judges relating to a case involving an Indian in British Columbia who shot a deer out of season.
The cause of our dismay is the announcement by the minister that yet another interdepartmental committee is to be set up. The Indian people of this country, like the Eskimos, have a right to ask this government when they can expect some action.
In the speech from the throne made to the twenty sixth parliament we were assured that an Indian claims commission would be set up, a commission which would meet with the Indian people and come to some conclusion about settling the questions raised by these old treaties which are in conflict with laws passed by this parliament. The former minister of citizenship and immigration, who is now the Minister of Justice, indicated, when he was gathering that invaluable experience of his, that the Indian claims commission legislation would be passed by parliament or, at least introduced into parliament before the end of that session. Since that time a parade of ministers of citizenship and immigration has said the same thing, that the Indian claims commission legislation is on the verge of being presented but is being delayed while approval from Indian bands is awaited.
It is not enough for the government to set up an interdepartmental committee to study this matter. What the Indian people of this country want, and what they have an absolute legal right to get, is an assurance that they can trap and fish for food at any time of the year on unoccupied crown land. Until such time as the government gets on with its Indian claims commission legislation the Indians are justified in believing that this government has betrayed them, has given them nothing but words. They have been used


to this kind of treatment from the white man for more than TOO years now.
There is one further reason why members of this house should be dismayed. I would have hoped that the government had learned its lesson by this time. Going through the list setting out who is to serve on this advisory committee, I notice that no Indian people are to be included in these discussions concerning their welfare. I do not know how often we have to beat this government over the head. We had to fight over the right of the Quebec Eskimos to be represented when matters affecting their own welfare were under discussion; we had to fight for the right of our Indian people to be represented at federal-provincial conferences on Indian welfare. The minister's announcement does nothing to reassure the house or the Indian people that this government is fit to safeguard their well-being.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: I know I will get accused of making comments about poor, defenceless civil servants from a privileged position. Well, I am prepared to make them outside, because by and large the people in senior positions who deal in Indian affairs are useless clods. The government should not be referring anything of this magnitude and importance to them for study.
The hon. gentleman mentioned there was to be an examination of the treaty rights and the so-called rights which were to be preserved by a proclamation of King George III. Hon. members opposite may concern themselves with treaty rights, but instead of concerning themselves with the empty words in those treaties they should be prepared to sit down and discuss all these problems openly with the Indian people, not in the secret conclave of some interdepartmental committee. It should never be forgotten that those treaties were written by white men in the English language and explained to people who could not read or write English, and that what was contained in those treaties in no way represents the promises which were made at that time.
Thus, if members opposite want to deal with the treaties and concern themselves with the rights of the Indian people they should be prepared to sit down man to man and negotiate those treaties on a mutual basis. They should also recognize a factor which many people seem to have forgotten. It is that there are large groups in Canada who are not covered by treaties but who claim hereditary and usufructuary rights. Something should be done to recognize those rights openly and honestly, as gentlemen, and no attempt should be made to bury the problem in an interdepartmental study.
Game and Fish Laws [Translation]


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we are all interested in any statement made in this house by a minister to the effect that attention will be paid to our Indians. But, unfortunately, much time elapses before we obtain concrete results between the words and the deeds.
Would it not be preferable to hand to the provinces the jurisdiction over Indians and Eskimos, so the federal government would no longer deal with those matters, because, according to the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who is highly interested in matters relating to Indians, and also those made by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rhe-aume), it seems that the federal government was not very successful with its past policy respecting Canadian Indians and Eskimos.
After examination we realize that much improvement can be made in the living conditions, and particularly in the housing conditions of those persons, and that those improvements are very slow in being effected, to the extent that those people are inclined to become discouraged.
I once met a person who lived in an Indian community; evidently he was a missionary. He was astounded at the delay of our various governments in applying policies which they had advocated with a view to meeting the requests of various Indian organizations and tribes.
We may rejoice at the decision taken by the minister, and I hope that we will benefit therefrom as soon as possible.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, it can be said that the statement we have just heard represents a further delay in the solution of the Indian and Eskimo problems in Canada.
These past few years we have been getting used to the setting up of such committees. We are no longer getting legislation, but committees, which are continually being appointed. And it is claimed through this new inter-departmental committee, the fundamental rights granted to the Indians by King George III will be reasserted.
We are proceeding swiftly toward the emancipation of Canada and, at the same time, toward the recognition of the Indians' rights.
During the last few years we have tried to reconsider the rights of the Indians. We have given them the right to take part in elections, we have taken a few steps forward. I wonder if this interdenominational committee is not a step backward.

Game and Fish Laws
As early as a year or two ago we were aware of discussions between the province of Quebec and the federal authorities with a view to handing over to this province jurisdiction, in the field of education, over Eskimos in northern Quebec territories.
I wonder whether the action announced today is not a means designed to prevent negotiations which would enable the provinces to assume their responsibilities in this field of the security and respect of the rights of Indians, since they seem ready to do so, whereas the federal government has never assumed its responsibilities in that regard?
I wonder whether this inter-departmental committee is not another means to delay even longer the logical result of the acceptance of responsibilities by governments with regard to those Canadian citizens.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think it should be made clear for the benefit of all hon. members of the house that the hon. member for Northwest Territories has befuddled the issue by referring to something entirely different from what was mentioned in my earlier statement. In the earlier statement I referred to a special situation that now exists. I said nothing whatever about an Indian claims commission. If the hon. member had been in the house when I made that statement-


William Heward Grafftey: You are patently out of order.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I believe the house is entitled to this explanation. As I have said Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been in the house some three weeks ago he would have heard me say, in answer to a question that was put by an hon. member, that an Indian claims commission bill would be laid before the house early in the next session. I referred to the history of the bill in question.
The hon. member for Northwest Territories stated that in a speech-


William Heward Grafftey: Order.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am replying.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; it seems the Chair will have to keep one hon. member in order. In view of the fact that there appears to have been a misinterpretation it seems to me a minister, who is new in his position, should be entitled to make a correction but not a long, argumentative statement, which I presume he is not going to make.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is not argumentative. The hon. member for Northwest Territories stated that I was trying to confuse things and that

the government had no intention of proceeding with a promise that was made in the speech from the throne in 1963. He referred to a statement made by my predecessor, the present Minister of Justice when he was minister of citizenship and immigration, who stated that before the end of the year 1963 an Indian claims bill would be introduced into this house. Such a bill was introduced in 1963 and distributed. The views of Indian bands in all parts of Canada were then invited.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Two years ago.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It was not two years ago. These views only came in during 1964. Shortly after the house reopened in the middle of February of this year, I announced that representations had been received from the Indian bands, that a new bill had been drafted and would be laid before this house early in the next session. I think that is an entirely different set of facts from the proposition that has been put before the house by the hon. member for Northwest Territories.
In the meantime there is a very difficult situation which has arisen as the result of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and a more recent decision of Mr. Justice Norris of the court of appeal of British Columbia. An Indian claims inquiry will last a minimum of five years and probably 15 or more years. If we cannot do something for the rights of Indians in the field of game laws in the meantime, we would be very derelict in our duty. This is the purpose behind the establishment of this interdepartmental committee at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not have an Indian on that committee?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In reply to the right hon. gentleman I would say that in almost every document filed by Indian bands it was made clear that the Indians themselves have asked that they be represented on an Indian claims commission. This legislation has not yet been laid before the house, and the government's views in that respect will be made clear when the bill is introduced. I can assure you however, Mr. Speaker, that the representations made by the Indians along these lines will certainly receive serious consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: I know it is not altogether proper, but may I be allowed to ask the minister this: Why is there not going to be an Indian on this interdepartmental committee? I feel there should be an Indian on

that committee. They are the ones who understand the difficulty of their position in connection with hunting.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There is nothing in this resolution to say that there will not be an Indian on the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Will there be?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is an interdepartmental committee. There are Indians in my department, many of whom have great ability. Their qualifications will be considered along with others when we are making these appointments.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of his statement today. Can the minister advise us if his reference to the fact that possible breaches of Indian treaties will be included in the reference to the interdepartmental committee means that additional possible breaches of Indian treaties will not be within the terms of reference of the Indian claims commission?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, not having the draft of the proposed bill before me I cannot answer that question, and I do not think I should answer it in any event until the bill is before the house. So far as the matter that was dealt with in my statement to the house earlier today is concerned, the purpose of setting up the committee is purely and simply to deal with what I consider to be an emergency situation arising out of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and the more recent decision of Mr. Justice Norris which I think calls for quick action. We are setting up this committee to study this particular problem as a matter of urgency.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In anticipation that legislation may be required, can the minister assure the house that before any such legislation is in its final form it will be referred to a parliamentary committee?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will take the hon. member's suggestion under advisement, Mr. Speaker.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and it refers to the court decision to
Game and Fish Laws which he referred earlier this afternoon. In the reports of that decision it was also stated that the province of British Columbia will in all probability appeal the decision of Mr. Justice Norris to the Supreme Court of Canada. Can the minister tell us whether his department is prepared to help with the legal costs involved in fighting this appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of the two Indian residents of my constituency who are concerned?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will take the suggestion under advisement, Mr. Speaker.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give the house categorical assurance in a straight yes or no fashion that the Indian people will be represented on the committee that is going to look into the whole question of treaty rights?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman could not have been in the house earlier this afternoon when I replied to a similar question asked by the leader of his party.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was in the house, and the minister said there was nothing to prevent it. I want the minister to say yes or no in that straightforward manner of his.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I gave what I thought was a very straightforward answer. I said that we had Indians on the staff of the Indian affairs branch of the department and that their qualifications for this committee would be considered along with those of others.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to resolve the situation, which I am sure the minister wants to do, will he give consideration to inviting representation on this committee from the Indian and Eskimo association of Canada, which would be a source of independent expression of opinion?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as this is an interdepartmental committee I do not see how you can invite outsiders. You can bring them in for advice but I do not see how you can make them members of the committee.



CANADIAN FLAG


Mr. Maurice Rinfret (St. James) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-149, respecting the flag day of Canada.
Questions

He said:

Mr. Speaker, on February 15, 1965, the Canadian people expressed their patriotism at the time of the proclamation of a national flag for Canada.
In this bill it is proposed that parliament should designate February 15 of each year as Canada flag day and the government is urged to take the necessary measures so as to mark this event with special celebrations.
On this occasion the Canadian people should be asked to celebrate this historic day with appropriate ceremonies worthy of the Canadian flag.

On February 15, 1965, Canadians of all provinces and all groups were proud to rally around the new maple leaf flag. In this bill it is proposed that on February 15 of each year this historical event be recalled to all Canadians, identifying them under a national flag as citizens of a united country, Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr, Malheson: During the last 30 hangings performed in Canada of which there exists autoptical record, in
how many cases was death caused by (a) a fracture dislocation of the cervical vertebrae causing fatal damage to the upper spinal cord (b) strangulation where death is due to asphyxia (c) decapitation (d) heart failure or other cause?
Answer: In the last 30 hangings of which there exists autoptical record, the reports are to the following effect: 11 persons, examined and found dead; seven persons, fracture dislocation of the cervical vertebrae; four persons, il est mort par strangulation; three persons, fracture de la colonne vertebrale; one person, fractured neck; one person, fracture de la colonne cervicale; one person, fracture dislocation of spine and severance of spinal cord; one person, dislocation of the cervical vertebrae with severance of the spinal cord; one person, fracture and dislocation of the cervical spine.


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Malheson: To what extent, if at all, has each of the recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on capital punishment dated June 27, 1956, been implemented?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: The summary of recommendations of the committee, as prepared by the committee, is set out in the left hand column below and in the right hand column is set out the extent to which each such recommendation has been implemented:
(1)	Retention of capital punishment as mandatory penalty for murder (para 63).
(2)	Retention of capital punishment for treason and piracy (para 65).
(3)	No change in definition of murder (para 69).
(4)	No degree of murder (para 70 and 71).
1.	Implemented by retention of capital punishment for all murder until 1961 in which year murder was classified as capital and non-capital and capital punishment was retained for capital murder only.
2.	Implemented entirely.
3.	The definition of murder has remained unchanged although as noted above murder was reclassified as capital and non-capital in 1961.
4.	As above noted murder was reclassified as capital and non-capital in 1961.
(5)	No special provision for women (para 5. Implemented completely. 75).
[Mr. Rlnfret.l

(6)	Abolition of capital punishment for offenders under 18 and restriction for offenders under 21 (para 76).
(7)	Full disclosure of crown's case to accused (para 79).
(8)	Provision of competent counsel and assistance in producing evidence (para 80).
(9)	Mandatory plea of not guilty in capital cases (para 81).
(10)	Automatic appeal to provincial court of appeal in all capital cases (para 83).
(11)	Appeal as of right by a convicted person to Supreme Court of Canada (para 84).
(12)	Centralized places of execution in each province (para 88).
(13)	Abolition of hanging-replacement by electrocution with alternative of the gas chamber (paras 91-94).


VALUE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AS DETERRENT
Mr. Matheson: What statistical or other scientific evidence is available bearing on the value, or otherwise, of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A considerable number of studies and compilations have been made, dealing in whole or in part with this subject, including the following: 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); "The Death Penalty" by Thorsten Sellin, a report for the model penal code project of the American Law Institute, 1959; home office studies in the causes of delinquency and the treatment of offenders four murder (United Kingdom) 1961; capital
Questions
6.	Capital punishment for murderers under 18 was abolished in 1961. As to the recommendation that "except in extraordinary cases, the present practice of commuting most death sentences passed on persons under 21 years be continued", of the persons under 21 years of age sentenced to death for murder since December 31, 1955, 1 has been executed and 16 have had their sentences commuted.
7.	Not implemented by amendment to the Criminal Code as recommended.
8.	This recommendation was made for the consideration of the provincial authorities, within whose responsibilities the matter comes. It is understood that the recommendation has been substantially implemented, either before or after the date of the report.
9.	Completely implemented.
10.	Completely implemented.
11.	Completely implemented.
12.	This recommendation was made for the consideration of the provincial authorities, within whose competence the matter lies. It is understood that five provinces have centralized places of execution.
13.	Not implemented.
punishment, United Nations publication ST/ SOA/SD/9; 62.IV.2 1962


TIME REQUIRED TO CAUSE DEATH BY HANGING
Mr. Matheson: In each of the last 25 executions of which we have record, what is the exact length of time that intervened between the springing of the trap and the cessation of the heartbeat?
Answer: In 19 cases time interval not given, coroner's inquest reports: In one case trap sprung at 12:15 a.m. and he was pronounced dead at 12:30 a.m. In one case trap sprung at 12:34 a.m. and he was pronounced dead 10 minutes later.
Newspaper reports: In one case trap sprung at 12:15 a.m. and he was pronounced dead at 12:20 a.m. In one case trap sprung at 12:40 a.m. and he was pronounced dead at 12:55 a.m. In one case trap sprung at 12:08 a.m. and he was pronounced dead 11 minutes

Questions
later. In one case trap sprung at 12:07 a.m. and he was pronounced dead 11 minutes later.


COUNTRIES ABOLISHING DEATH PENALTY
Mr. Maiheson: What information, if any, has the Canadian government respecting the nations, or law districts, which have abolished the death penalty and in each case when?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The latest information in the possession of the Canadian government respecting the nations or law districts which have abolished the death penalty is that contained in a book entitled "Capital Punishment" published by the department of economic and social affairs of the United Nations, New York, 1962, identified as ST/SOA/SD/9. The relevant passages are as follows:
"B. General list of countries and territories in which the death penalty exists, and in which it does not exist.1
7.	First, one must draw what might be termed the geographical map of the death penalty, showing which countries and territories apply it and which have abolished it. Even this poses some problems of interpretation.
8.	The countries and territories which have kept
the death penalty are, in alphabetical order, the following:	Afghanistan, Australia (except two
states), Burma, Canada, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chile, China, (Taiwan), Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, El Salvador, France, Gambia, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Japan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Federation of Malaya, Mauritius, Mexico (four states out of 29-i.e. (the states of Morelos, Oaxaca, San Luis Potosi and Tabasco), Morocco, Netherlands New Guinea, Nigeria, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia (Northern), Somalia (Central and Southern), Spain, Republic of South Africa, Sudan, Surinam, Tanganyika, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, United Arab Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America (in principle, 42 states out of 50, the district of Columbia and the federal system), Republic of Viet Nam, western Pacific islands,2 Yugoslavia, Zanzibar.
9.	The countries and territories which have abolished the death penalty are divided into three categories: first, those in which the death penalty
vrhe designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimination of its frontiers.
2In view of the similarity of their legislation, the Fiji islands, the British Solomon islands and the Gilbert and Ellis islands are grouped throughout the report under the general heading of western Pacific islands, except where statistical data are given.

has been abolished by an express constitutional or legislative provision (abolitionist de jure); second those whose positive law (penal code or special statutes) makes provision for the death penalty and where sentences of death are passed but in which such sentences are never carried out by virtue of an established custom (abolitionist de facto); third, those in which the death penalty is laid down only for offences committed in certain exceptional circumstances and in which capital punishment has, in fact, virtually disappeared (almost completely abolitionist).
10. Abolitionist de jure3 *-Argentina	(1922), Australia (Queensland), Austria* (1945), Brazil (1889), Colombia (1910), Costa Rica (1882), Denmark (1930), Dominican Republic (1924), Ecuador (1897), Federal Republic of Germany (1949), Finland (1949), Greenland (1954), Iceland (1940), Italy (1944), Mexico (25 states out of 29 and the federal territory (Constitution, 1931)), Norway (1905), Netherlands (1870), Netherlands Antilles (1957), New Zealand (1961), Portugal (1867), Republic of San Marino (1865), Sweden (1921), Switzerland (1937), United States of America (six states: Alaska (1957), Delaware (1958), Hawaii (1957), Maine (1887), Minnesota (1911), Wisconsin (1853)), Uruguay (1907), Venezuela (1863).
11.	Abolitionist de facto.-Belgium (1867), Liechtenstein (1798), Luxembourg, Vatican City State5.
12.	Almost completely abolitionist.-Australia; New South Wales, where the death penalty is abolished for murder but not for treason or piracy; it is not, however, applied in fact. United States of America: Michigan (1847), North Dakota (1915), Rhode Island (1852); these three states have abolished the death penalty, except in the state of Michigan, for treason, in the state of North Dakota for treason (for which the death sentence is mandatory) and murder in the first degree committed by a prisoner already serving a sentence for murder in the first degree, and in the state of Rhode Island, for murder committed by a prisoner under sentence of life imprisonment. Nicaragua: the death penalty is applicable only if the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances."


ORGANIZATION OF BLUEBERRY GROUNDS, QUEBEC
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Did the province of Quebec submit any drainage projects during the past three years and, if not, will the Minister of Forestry suggest to the
3The date of abolition is given in each case. In cases where the death penalty was reintroduced after having been previously abolished, the date given is that of the final abolition, which is reflected in the existing law.
'Except in the event of the proclamation of a state of emergency.
5To these countries which are certainly abolitionist de facto could be added, to some extent at least, those in which an experiment in abolition appears to be in progress, the last executions having been carried out on the dates indicated below. The exact scope of these experiments is, however, debatable. Australia:	(Victoria 1951).
United States of America: (Massachusetts (1947), New Hampshire (1939), New Jersey (1956)). Guatemala (1956). In the principality of Monaco, the death penalty is provided for in the penal code of 1874, but no sentence of death has ever been passed under that statute.

minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec the preparation of such plans?
2.	Did the minister accept plans for blueberry patches on crown lands and. if so, why was priority not given to improving the blueberry patches at present located on agricultural lands?
3.	For what reasons was it not decided to first improve existing private blueberry patches and to assist blueberry co-operatives before developing crown lands?
4.	In the present plan of organization of blueberry grounds, as submitted by a provincial group, is the minister ensuring that the province as a whole will benefit rather than certain private interests?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) N/A.
2.	Yes, the responsibility for initiating project proposals lies with the provinces.
3.	It is the prerogative of the province to make such decisions.
4.	The actual location of the projects is determined by the province, and it is the purpose of ARDA to assist communities to improve income and employment opportunities in all areas.


INITIATION OF ARDA PROJECTS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Must all ARDA projects be suggested or agreed to by the provinces?
2.	Is it possible for the federal government to carry out any rural development plan without the permission and approval of the provinces?
3.	Is the administration of ARDA plans entrusted solely to the provincial governments?


Maurice Sauvé: 1.	The responsibility for initiating and carrying out the majority of project proposals lies with the provinces, the exception being federal research programs.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to question 1.


INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS OVER $100,000
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	During the past 12 months, how many income tax cases involving departmental assessments, amounting to $100,000 or more, have been considered?
2.	How many of these involved corporations and how many involved individuals?
3.	Were there any cases where a corporation was subjected to a claim for unpaid corporation taxes?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Our latest available statistics relate to the 1962 calendar year and are provided on the basis of income declared rather than taxes paid. We can report that in the 1962 calendar year 3,540 assessments were issued individuals and corporations with income of $100,000 or more.
Questions
2.	452 of these cases were individuals and 3,088 were corporations.
3.	Each year there are many cases where unpaid taxes are claimed from corporations.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 65-205
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has the Civil Service Commission of Canada cancelled competition 65-205 "Language teacher (s), English and/or French, Canadian coastguard college, Sydney, N.S.", and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: I have been given the following answer by the civil service commission;
1.	Yes, the civil service commission cancelled competition 65-205 on March 4, 1965.
2.	Reasons, the positions were classified as technical officer 8, whereas the commission has a class identified as language officer to provide for all language teachers in the civil service.
3.	The civil service commission is presently recruiting language officers by means of competition 64-708-3 for vacancies in all departments including those in the Canadian coastguard college.


R.C.M.P. RETIREMENTS
Mr. Cowan: 1.	Would the Minister of Justice advise how many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been granted a pension under the terms of section 27, paragraph 2 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act (a) what are the names of those granted such a pension (b) how many years were they members of the force?
2.	How many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been compulsorily retired from the force to promote efficiency, as was the case with Chief Superintendent Rend Jean Belec and Sub-Inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras, both recently retired?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Four members of the force have been granted a pension under the terms of section 27, paragraph 2 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act. Their names and service with the force are as follows: Douglas Gilbert Kells, 22 years, 69 days; Donald Sylvester Joseph Carroll, 27 years, 209 days; George Herbert Lawson MacKinnon, 13 years, 207 days; James Francis Meraw, 21 years, 9 days.
2.	Since the coming into force, on June 10, 1954, of the section of the act dealing with compulsory discharge "to promote efficiency", 18 members of the force have been so discharged.

Questions


AVAILABILITY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS FILES TO AUTHOR
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Prime Minister make any arrangements for Mr. Terence Robertson to use the flies and records of the Department of External Affairs in order to prepare a book which was later published, entitled "Crisis: The Inside Story of the Suez Conspiracy" and, if so, at what times and in what ways were these arrangements worked out and what instructions were given to personnel in the Department of External Affairs?
2.	Has the Prime Minister's office or the Department of External Affairs considered making any comment or reply to the London Observer with regard to a book review by Professor A. J. P. Tayloi of Mr. Robertson's book in which certain opinions are expressed about the source of Mr. Robertson's information?
3.	Was the treatment of Mr. Robertson in relation to the use of the files and records unusual, and, if so, does it create a precedent which is to be followed?
4.	Does the Department of External Affairs believe that its files and records should be open to serious scholars and, if so, what is its definition of a serious scholar and is Mr. Robertson an example of such?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: 1. The Prime Minister requested the Department of External Affairs to co-operate with Mr. Robertson as stated in parts 4 and 6 of the reply to starred question No. 2,578 given in the House of Commons on February 24, 1965.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by replies to parts 5 and 6 of the answer to starred question No. 2,578.
4.	See parts 2 and 6 to the answer to question No. 2,578.



QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS, HOUSE OF COMMONS

['1. No.\n2. The trans-Canada highway agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia stipulates that Canada shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of a contract which does not include such a term.\n3 (a) and (b). The Minister of Public Works has received certification from the provincial minister that the work has been completed in accordance with the terms of the contracts.\n4.\tThe Minister of Public Works will conduct an inspection of the work done and an audit of the claims submitted, and will satisfy himself that the terms of the contracts and of the agreement are complied with.']
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 
[u'The following table indicates the answers to (a), (b), and (c):\nYear\tSession No.\tParliament No.\tNo. of sittings\tNo. of written questions\tStarred questions since 1910-11\tNo. of motions for papers1867-8\t1st\t83\t169\t1661869\t"\t49\t79\t-\t971870\t\n3rd\t"\t62\t61\t-\t1031871\t\n4th\t<\xab\t43\t69\t-\t041872\t\n5th\t\xab<\t46\t142\t-\t1091873\t\n1st\t2nd\t59\t168\t-\t1081873\t\n2nd\t"\t11\t17\t-\t121874\t3rd\t42\t129\t-\t1471875\tu\t48\t138\t-\t1001876\t\n3rd\t"\t46\t119\t-\t1561877\t\n4th\t\xab(\t59\t101\t-\t2791878\t\n5th\t"\t67\t115\t-\t2301879\t\n1st\t4th\t64\t149\t-\t3031880\t\n2nd\tM\t57\t135\t-\t2851880-1\t\n3rd\t<<\t65\t145\t-\t3391882\t\n4th\tU\t68\t159\t-\t3471883\t\n1st\t5th\t73\t157\t-\t2751884\t\n2nd\tM\t67\t223\t-\t3111885\t\n3rd\tU\t119\t516\t-\t3801886\t\n4th\ttt\t65\t277\t-\t215MARCH 29, 1965\tQuestions\t12983Year\tSession No.\tParliament No. of No. sittings\tNo. of written questions\tStarred questions since 1910-11\tNo. of motions for papers1887\t6th\t49\t247\t-\t1611888\t.. 2nd\t"\t61\t191\t-\t1341889\t.. 3rd\t"\t65\t274\t-\t1361890\t.. 4th\t"\t80\t284\t-\t1651891\t.. 1st\t7th\t102\t465\t1711892\t.. 2nd\t"\t87\t203\t-\t1341893\t.. 3rd\tIt\t47\t230\t-\t1121894\t"\t87\t362\t-\t1781895\t. . 5th\t"\t65\t369\t-\t1501896\t.. 6th\tft\t70\t337\t-\t1101896\t.. 1st\t8th\t34\t235\t771897\t.. 2nd\t"\t65\t418\t-\t1211898\ttt\t86\t460\t-\t1431899\t.. 4th\t"\t102\t628\t-\t1841900\t.. 5th\tft\t115\t865\t-\t1581901\t.. 1st\t9th\t73\t399\t851902\t.. 2nd\t63\t275\t-\t801903\t.. 3rd\t"\t155\t460\t-\t921904\tit\t103\t406\t-\t1021905\t.. 1st\t10th\t129\t377\t1191906\t"\t88\t623\t-\t1021906-7\t.. 3rd\t"\t95\t703\t-\t1911907-8\t"\t148\t1234\t-\t3131909\t11th\t84\t773\t1801909-10\t.. 2nd\t"\t102\t735\t-\t167*1910-11\t.. 3rd\tit\t117\t836\t181\t1721911-12\t.. 1st\t12th\t75\t645\t84\t2261912-13\tit\t111\t1138\t292\t8651914\t.. 3rd\t"\t103\t1126\t284\t4491914\t.. 4th\t"\t5\t1\t0\t11915\t.. 5th\t"\t51\t670\t81\t2021916\t.. 6th\t"\t88\t707\t82\t2091917\t.. 7th\t"\t135\t763\t95\t1901918\t.. 1st\t13th\t47\t478\t144\t601919\t.. 2nd\t"\t93\t707\t84\t1021919\t.. 3rd\ttt\t50\t216\t57\t341920\tit\t86\t762\t146\t911921\t.. 5th\tit\t79\t404\t92\t581922\t.. 1st\t14th\t75\t468\t13\t851923\t98\t483\t5\t1171924\ttt\t95\t642\t4\t1531925\t.. 4th\tIt\t98\t580\t3\t881926\t15th\t111\t511\t1\t1311926-7\t16th\t54\t238\t2\t701928\t"\t92\t440\t4\t1561929\ttt\t83\t396\t(No starred\t1471930\t"\t62\t355\tquestions\t831930\t17th\t11\t38\tfrom\t41931\tIt\t96\t882\t1929 to 1955\t3191932\t"\t78\t529\tinclusive)\t2741932-3\t.. 4th\t"\t119\t646\t-\t2651934\ttt\t104\t524\t-\t2661935\t.. 6th\t"\t97\t646\t-\t2251936\t.. 1st\t18th\t91\t483\t1181937\t.. 2nd\t"\t62\t459\t-\t861938\t.. 3rd\ttt\t102\t543\t-\t1371939\t.. 4th\t"\t103\t562\t-\t1001939\t.. 5th\tit\t5\t0\t-\t01940\t\n20220-815i\t1\t0\t0\nQuestions', u'Year\tSession No.\tParliament No.\tNo. of sittings\tNo. of written questions\tStarred questions since 1910-11\tNo. of motions for papers1940\t\n1st\t19th\t61\t342\t_\t531940-2\t\n2nd\t"\t105\t694\t-\t1371942-3\t\n3rd\t"\t124\t991\t-\t1381943-4\t\n4th\tii\t120\t1023\t-\t1431944-5\t\n5th\tii\t136\t998\t-\t1311945\t6th\tit\t19\t165\t-\t151945\t\n1st\t20th\t76\t662\t-\t731946\t\n2nd\ta\t118\t822\t-\t711947\t\n3rd\ta\t115\t1036\t-\t971947-8\t\n4th\tit\t119\t643\t-\t491949\t\n5th\t"\t59\t620\t-\t731949\t\n1st\t21st\t64\t335\t-\t291950\t\n2nd\tit\t90\t589\t-\t01950-1\t\n3rd\tit\t17\t43\t-\t11951\t4th\t"\t115\t497\t-\t581951\t\n5th\t\xab<\t56\t284\t-\t161952\t\n6th\t"\t87\t440\t-\t01952-3\t\n7th\ta\t108\t777\t-\t01953-4\t\n1st\t22nd\t139\t799\t-\t01955 \t\n2nd\t"\t140\t664\t-\t0*1956\t\n3rd\t"\t152\t657\t68\t991956 \t\n4th\t\xab\t5\t2\t0\t01957\t\n5th\ttt\t71\t320\t40\t321957 8\t\n1st\t23rd\t78\t437\t73\t521Q58 \t\n1st\t24th\t93\t239\t40\t381959\t\n2nd\t"\t127\t638\t116\t1321Q60\t\n3rd\tit\t146\t644\t208\t1371960-1\t\n4th\tit\t174\t785\t485\t1641962\t\n5th\t"\t65\t463\t242\t561962 3\t\n1st\t25th\t72\t1467\t326\t781963\t\n1st\t26th\t117\t1906\t206\t203\nStarred questions for oral answer started in 1910-11. Limit of three per member started in 1956.\n(d)\t3,038 questions have appeared on the order paper, and 2,916 have been answered.\n(e)\t315 starred questions have appeared on the order paper and 306 have been answered.\n(f)\t301 orders for returns have been passed and 275 have been tabled.\nCANNED MEAT DELIVERIES TO W. J. LAFAVE & SONS']
Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Records indicate that in or about March 1963 the agricultural stabilization board received representations to the effect that certain quantities of canned meat had been delivered to W. J. Lafave and Sons Limited of Mount Royal, Quebec.
2.	At or about that time the agricultural stabilization board instituted an audit of all transactions between the agricultural stabilization board and W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited. This audit was suspended when it was found that records maintained by W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited were in the custody of a court in Montreal. On or about 1 March

1965 verbal notification was received from the firm of W. J. Lafave & Sons that the court had released these records and arrangements have been made to continue the investigation.
3.	None as yet. In the opinion of the board adequate protection is afforded the government's interest in that the agricultural stabilization board holds a substantial deposit from the contractor and the terms of the agreement provide for financial compensation should luncheon meat be sold other than into export.
4.	See (2) and (3) above.



Mr. Scoli: 1.	Were allegations brought to the attention of the agricultural stabilization board on or about the 6th day of October, 1962, that one of its employees, one Bolduc, had sought or received moneys from the said W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited, or anyone employed by them?
2.	As a result of any such allegation, what enquiries were made and what action was taken?
3.	Was the said Bolduc convicted in or about the months of February or March 1963?
4.	Of what offence was he convicted?
5.	Was the conviction as a result of investigation made by or on behalf of the agricultural stabilization board or as a result of admissions or confessions made by the said Bolduc?
6.	Was the charge of which he pleaded guilty in any way connected with any allegations in respect of his dealings with W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited?
7.	As a result of the investigations made at or about the time of the conviction of the said Bolduc were prosecutions against any other person or persons involved, recommended (a) to the agricultural stabilization board (b) to the Department of Agriculture?
8.	By whom were such recommendations made and what was the substance of such recommendations?
9.	What action was taken in respect to any such
recommendations?


Harry William Hays: 1. Yes, but such allegations were verbal and there is no record of the date on which they were made.
2.	Persons making the allegations were asked to provide more information. Later the agricultural stabilization board received representations to the effect that agricultural stabilization board hams were being sold in the Ottawa area. This matter was immediately brought to the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation.
3.	Yes.
4.	Theft.
5.	During the investigation by the R.C.M. Police a written confession was received from Bolduc.
Questions
6.	No.
7.	No.
8.	Not applicable.
9.	Not applicable.
INVESTIGATION INTO CANNED MEAT DELIVERED TO W. J. LAFAVE & SONS


Mr. Scott: 1.	Was the agricultural stabilization board informed in or about the month of October 1962 of allegations that cases of canned meat (approximately 835) had been delivered to W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited of Mount Royal, Quebec in or about the month of September 1962, in breach of an agreement between the board and the said company?
2.	What investigations were made by or on behalf of the board in respect to these allegations and what in substance were the findings made in respect thereto?
3.	Was an investigation made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in respect to allegations as to the delivery of canned meat to W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited?
4.	When was such investigation made?
5.	Did the R.C.M.P. report to (a) the agricultural stabilization board (b) the Minister of Agriculture
(c)	the Minister of Justice?
6.	What is the substance of any report made by the R.C.M.P. as the result of their investigation of the said allegations?
7.	Has the agricultural stabilization board continued since October 1962 to have any transaction with W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited either under the agreement made in or about the month of September, 1962 or otherwise, and what is the nature of such transactions?


Harry William Hays: 1. There is no record that such an allegation was made at that time. However, in March 1963 an allegation of that nature was made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
2.	At or about that time the agricultural stabilization board instituted an audit of all transactions between the agricultural stabilization board and W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited. This audit was suspended when it was found that records maintained by W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited were in the custody of a court in Montreal. On or about 1 March 1965 verbal notification was received from the firm of W. J. Lafave & Sons Limited that the court had released these records, and arrangements have been made to continue the investigation.
3.	None as yet. In the opinion of the board adequate protection is afforded the government's interest in that the agricultural stabilization board holds a substantial deposit from the contractor and the terms of the agreement provide for financial compensation should luncheon meat be sold other than into export.

Questions
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not applicable.
7.	Yes. The agricultural stabilization board has made sales of canned pork luncheon meat and canned hams under the terms of the original agreement.


EMPLOYMENT ON TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie): 1.	Is there any provision in the agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of political affiliation in employment, on trans-Canada highway projects and, if so, what are the terms thereof?
2.	What, if any, is the responsibility of the federal government for the enforcement of any such provision?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes. The third agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Nova Scotia dated November 29, 1960, as supplemented by the agreement dated February 20, 1964, provides in section 4 that the government of Canada "shall not be liable to make any payment" in respect of a contract let by the province of Nova Scotia "unless it is a term of that contract that the contractor and any subcontractor of the contractor will, in respect of the construction to be carried out under that contract, (i) employ only residents of Canada, and (ii) in employing persons, refrain from discriminating against any person by reason of his race, religious views or political affiliations."
2. Under this provision the Minister of Public Works may refuse to make payments to the province.


TERMS OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY AGREEMENT, N.S.
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	Did the trans-Canada highway contracts with Martell's Construction Company, Tidewater Construction Company, and Warren Maritimes Ltd. for construction work on the trans-Canada highways in Nova Scotia contain a term prohibiting discrimination against any person by reason of his political affiliation?
2.	Is such a term required by the trans-Canada highway agreement between Nova Scotia and Canada?
3.	Has the government received the certification
by the provincial minister required by section 4	(g) of the trans-Canada highway agreement
that all work done in Nova Scotia in each of the following two years was done in accordance with section 4(e) (ii) of the agreement: (a) 1963 (b) 1964?
4.	What steps does the Minister of Public Works propose to take to satisfy himself, as required

by section 4(g) of the agreement, that the work done in Nova Scotia in respect of which payment has been or is to be made by Canada has been completed in accordance with the terms of the contracts and the agreement?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. No.
2. The trans-Canada highway agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia stipulates that Canada shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of a contract which does not include such a term.
3 (a) and (b). The Minister of Public Works has received certification from the provincial minister that the work has been completed in accordance with the terms of the contracts.
4.	The Minister of Public Works will conduct an inspection of the work done and an audit of the claims submitted, and will satisfy himself that the terms of the contracts and of the agreement are complied with.



PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED IN PENITENTIARY WORKSHOPS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,940
Mr. Matheson:: 1.	What variety of products were manufactured in 1964 in penitentiary industrial workshops and to whom were these supplied?
2.	If expanded sales outlets were available would these industrial workshops be prepared to increase the variety and volume of manufactured products?
3.	What effect would a substantially enlarged industrial program have on the inmate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. In 1964 the penitentiary industrial workshops manufactured brooms and brushes, clothing and footwear for the penitentiary service. A wide variety of articles of metal, wood and textile materials were produced. These included furnishings for the institutions, e.g. furniture, shelving and housekeeping articles. Printing and bookbinding is done. Quarries produced crushed rock for the road systems of the penitentiaries. The penitentiary service utilizes approximately one half of the annual production of the shops. In addition to the penitentiary service, customers are federal departments and agencies, provincial and municipal governments, and non-profit organizations and associations, as authorized by penitentiary service regulations.
2. Subject to the demands of the main inmate training program, which is designed to produce good citizens, present penitentiary workshops have production capacity exceeding the annual output and the existing shops could substantially increase both the per capita output and the variety of products if

additional sales outlets are available and there are sufficient incentives to motivate inmate workers to put forth their best efforts. Moreover, there will be a natural increase in the size of the work force as penitentiary populations increase each year and new institutions are built and occupied. This calls for additional shop facilities and an increasing volume of sales orders will be required to train and employ the manpower available.
3.	It is the aim of the service to develop and prescribe for each inmate a program of correctional training which will redirect his criminal impulses and train him constructively for life as a free citizen. The industrial program is one element in this plan of training in skills and attitudes which are acceptable in life outside prison. In so far as the industrial program fits in with the ultimate training objective, and in motivating inmates to put forth maximum effort, an increase in the scope of the industrial program provides an improved opportunity to inmate workers to acquire saleable skills and work habits which will benefit them after release.



ST. HYACINTHE, QUE.-COMPLAINT RESPECTING DESIGNATED AREAS

Mr. Ricard: Has the municipal board of St. Hyacinthe complained to the federal government that the policy at present followed by the federal government in designating the economically underdeveloped areas places the municipality of St. Hyacinthe in an unfavourable position with respect to the establishment of new industries within the limits of the said city?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



ACCESS TO WORKROOM IN POST OFFICE

Mr. Laprise: Is a workroom in a city post office open to the public, that is, to the members of the mail conveying staff, the members of their families, and their passengers?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: Workrooms in post offices are not open to the public. Regulations provide in this connection that persons other than postal workers on duty must not be admitted in the workroom of a post office unless accompanied by a responsible employee designated for that purpose. Such exemptions are necessary to allow the carrying out of maintenance and repair work or approved official visits. Certain parts of a post office are open to rural mail carriers, mail service contractors and persons
Questions
sworn as their assistants. Members of the family of postal workers, of mail service contractors, of employees of those contractors or other persons are denied access to the workroom of a post office unless they have been sworn in as assistants.



FREE MILK IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Pigeon: Has the federal Department of Agriculture the intention of arriving at an agreement with the provincial departments of agriculture throughout Canada in order to provide that milk in its natural state be distributed free of charge in the schools and, if not, for what reasons does it not intend to do so?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the institution of a school milk program is a matter of government policy and as such would be announced in the normal manner.



PAROLE STATISTICS

Mr. Matheson: 1.	How many persons of Canada's federal prison population were eligible for parole in 1964?
2.	Of these how many applied for parole?
3.	In 1964, how many paroles from federal penitentiaries were granted?
4.	How many parole officers did the parole board employ on January 1, 1965
5.	How many parolees can one parole officer supervise effectively?
6.	Does the cost of maintaining an offender on parole compare to the cost of maintaining him in federal prison?
7.	What percentage of the parolees who have been granted parole by the parole board have been returned to prison during the parole period?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. 5,050.
2.	3,230.
3.	664.
4.	In January 1965 the board had 29 parole officers in its ten field offices across Canada, and 16 at headquarters. The principal responsibility exercised by the parole officers is that of interviewing applicants in the institutions and briefing them in preparation for parole. The largest portion of direct parole supervision is carried out by private after care agencies and provincial probation officers acting in co-operation with the board.
5.	A parole officer should be able to effectively supervise 40 parolees, but not more than 50. Much depends on the type of cases involved and the exact type of supervision required. A caseload of about 40 would be reasonable.
6.	It costs about $2,700 to keep a man in prison for a year. This does not include the

Questions
cost of maintaining his wife and family, who usually must be maintained at government expense and which cost could amount to a further $2,000.
It would cost about $10,000 a year to engage a parole officer and if he supervised 40 paroles, the cost would be about $250 for each parolee. Besides this, the parolee could be working and supporting his dependants, if any, and contributing to the economy of the country.
7.	In the first 74 months of its operation the board granted parole to 12,727 inmates. During this period 1,296 inmates were returned to prison during their parole period. Therefore, on the average for the first six years and two months, about 90 per cent have completed their periods on parole without misbehaving or committing further offences, and about 10 per cent have been returned to prison.



TENDERS FOR POST OFFICES, LUNENBURG COUNTY, N.S.

Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were public tenders called for the post offices at Blockhouse. Petite Rivifere, Rose Bay and Barss Corner, Lunenburg county, Nova Scotia and, if so, what are the names and addresses of the companies tendering on this work and the amount of their bids?
2.	What is the name of the company awarded the contract in each of the above areas?
3.	Was the contract always awarded to the lowest bidder and, if not, what is the reason for discrimination by the department among the contractors?
4.	Has the Department of Public Works considered the granting of extras to these contracts?
5.	What is the dollar value of these additions?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Yes. Blockhouse: Bluenose Construction Ltd., Lakeside, N.S., $14,733; Elmer W. Dorey, Blockhouse, N.S., $14,780; Liverpool Lumber Co. Ltd., Liverpool, N.S., $16,975; Nauss Bros. Ltd., Bridgewater, N.S., $17,172; Acadia Construction Ltd., Bridgewater, N.S., $20,726.
Petite Riviere bridge: Bluenose Construction Ltd., Lakeside, N.S., $15,233; Liverpool Lumber Co. Ltd., Liverpool, N.S., $16,695; E. K. Potter Ltd., Plympton, N.S., $16,900; Acadia Construction Ltd., Bridgewater, N.S., $21,165.
Rose Bay: Bluenose Construction Ltd., Lakeside, N.S., $15,233; E. K. Potter Ltd., Plympton, N.S., $16,900; Liverpool Lumber Co. Ltd., Liverpool, N.S., $17,485; Nauss Bros. Ltd., Bridgewater, N.S., $17,700; Acadia Construction Ltd., Bridgewater, N.S., $22,740.
Barss Corner: Acadia Construction Ltd., Bridgewater, N.S., $23,190.

2.	Blockhouse-Bluenose Construction Ltd., Lakeside, N.S. Petite Riviere bridge, Liverpool Lumber Co. Ltd., Liverpool, N.S. Rose Bay, E. K. Potter Ltd., Plympton, N.S. Barss Corner, project cancelled due to excessive price quoted.
3.	Petite Riviere bridge and Rose Bay: The lowest bidder withdrew voluntarily and there was no discrimination.
4.	The necessity for granting extras cannot be determined at this stage.
5.	Answered by part 4.



EXPANSION OF PENAL INSTITUTION, SPRINGHILL, N.S.

Mr. Coates: 1.	Has there been a decision to increase the size of the young offenders penal institution presently under construction in the Springhill area?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the expansion in question?
3.	Will new tenders be called to effect the expansion in question or will this be carried out by the prime contractor of the institution now under construction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES, QUEBEC

Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	In the province of Quebec, what was, in 1964
(a)	the number of families who received family allowances (b) the number of children on whose behalf family allowances were paid (c) the average number of eligible children per family
(d)	the average family allowances paid per family
(e)	the average family allowance paid per child
(f)	the total amount paid in the province of Quebec?
2.	In Canada, what was, in 1964 (a) the total paid in family allowances (b) the average paid per child?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. In the province of Quebec, as at December 31, 1964: (a) 777,900 families were in receipt of family allowances; (b) allowances were paid on behalf of 2,032,207 children; (c) the average number of eligible children per family was 2.61; (d) the average allowance paid per family was $17.61 per month; (e) the average allowance paid per child was $6.75 per month; (f) the total amount paid in the province of Quebec for the calendar year 1964 was $163,485,862.
2. In Canada, in the calendar year 1964: (a) the total expenditure for family allowances was $543,858,942; (b) the average paid per child was $6.70 per month.



FARM LOAN APPLICATIONS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC COUNTIES, QUE.

Mr. Laiulippe: 1. In 1964, how many applications for farm loans were rejected (a) in the county of Frontenac
(b)	in the county of Compton?
2. In 1964, how many applications for farm loans were approved, and in what amounts (a) in of Compton (d) in the county of Frontenac?


Harry William Hays: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistical records are kept by fiscal years and for 1964-65 to March 22, 1965, the answer is: 1. (a) For the municipal county of Frontenac, 6, (b) for the municipal county of Compton, 4.
2. (a) For the municipal county of Compton, 18 loans for $196,600;	(b) for the
municipal county of Frontenac, nine loans for $91,800.



TOURIST REVENUE, QUEBEC

Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What revenue was received from the tourist
trade during 1964	(a) in Canada (b) in the
province of Quebec (c) in the county of Compton (d) in the county of Frontenac?
2.	During the same year, what was the revenue per capita from the tourist trade (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec (c) in the county of Compton (d) in the county of Frontenac?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): 1. Preliminary estimates of receipts from travel in Canada by residents of other countries show revenue of $661 million in 1964. Data on the percentage earned by the province of Quebec are not available and there is no basis from the sources used to identify the revenue in counties or other subdivisions of provinces.
2. Using July 1 estimates of the population in Canada the revenue would be approximately $34 per capita in Canada.



INCOME OF LABOURERS, QUEBEC

Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What was the average income of labourers to the province of Quebec to 1964?
2.	What was the average income of labourers to the constituency of Compton-Frontenac to 1964?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2.	Average	income of
labourers in the province of Quebec and in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac are not available for 1964.
According to the 1961 census of Canada the average earned income of labourers was:
Male Female Province of Quebec	$	2,038	$ 1,410Compton county	2,589	1,545Frontenac county	2,037	1,159
Questions



C.M.H.C. LOANS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Laiulippe: In 1964, in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac, how many loans did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approve and what was the total amount of such loans?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: N.H.A. loans approved in the municipal counties of Compton and Frontenac, 1964.
Loans	Units	Amount $
Approved lenders -				
C.M.H.C. 13	13	148,478Loans for municipal sewage treatment projects 1	n/a	56,607ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF FEDERAL	BUILD-



INGS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Laiulippe: What is the annual administrative cost of federal buildings in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: For fiscal year 1963-64, $39,179.02.



OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS, QUEBEC AND CANADA

Mr. Laiulippe: How many persons received old age security during 1964 and what was the total amount paid (a) in Canada (b) to the province of Quebec?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. As at December 31, 1964, 990,652 persons were in receipt of the old age security pension.
The total expenditure for old age security in the calendar year 1964 was: (a) in Canada, $880,804,251; (b) in the province of Quebec, $188,349,618.



INCOME OF LAWYERS

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	What was, in 1962, for each province to Canada, the average income for lawyers?
2.	For the year 1962, in each province, how many lawyers declared having received an income of (a) $5,000 to $10,000 (b) $10,000 to $15,000
(c)	$15,000 to $20,000 (d) $20,000 to $25,000 (e) $25,000 to $30,000 (f) $30,000 to $50,000 (g) $50,000 to $100,000 (h) over $100,000?


Edgar John Benson: 1. For 1962 the average income for lawyers in private practice from all sources, after deducting expenses of practice, for each province was as follows:	Newfoundland,
$16,609; Prince Edward Island, $13,500; Nova Scotia, $12,859; New Brunswick, $14,242;

Questions
Quebec, $14,246; Ontario, $17,176; Manitoba, 2. For 1962 the number of lawyers in each $13,248; Saskatchewan, $12,830; Alberta, province reporting income in the various $15,375; British Columbia, $13,951.	ranges was as follows:
	(a)
Newfoundland	-
Prince Edward Island	1
Nova Scotia	89
New Brunswick	30
Quebec	671
Ontario	800
Manitoba	132
Saskatchewan	109
Alberta	130
British Columbia	189



INCOME OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Mr. Marcoux: 1.	What was, in 1962, for each province in Canada, the average income for consulting engineers?
2.	For the year 1962, in each province, how many
consulting engineers declared having received an income of (a)	$5,000 to $10,000 (b)	$10,000 to
$15,000 (c) $15,000 to $20,000 (d) $20,000 to $25,000 (e) $25,000 to $30,000	(f) $30,000 to $50,000 (g)
$50,000 to $100,000 (h) over $100,000?


Edgar John Benson: 1. No figures are available on the incomes of consulting engineers; this group is combined for statistical purposes with architects. The average income in 1962 of consulting engineers and architects for each province is given in answer to question No. 2,998.
2. Not available for consulting engineers separately. The figures for consulting en-neers and architects were given in answer to question No. 2,998.



FARM INCOME, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Latulippe: What was the average income of farmers in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac in 1964?


Mitchell William Sharp: No estimates are available for areas smaller than the provinces.



FAMILY ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS. B.C.

Mr. Mather: In British Columbia, what was the total amount, in dollars, paid in family allowances in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1959-60, $40,040,763; 1960-61,	$41,500,031;	1961-62,	$42,754,083;
1962-63, $43,900,728; 1963-64, $44,784,989.

(b)	(C)	(d) (e) to (h)	14	13	8	97	4	(c) to (h) grouped	34	21	11	2431	15	5	9456	208	117	263625	520	276	559105	43	25	4762	33	31	16146	82	37	68201	132	53	83INCREASED SUPPORT LEVELS FOR MILK AND CREAM


Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1. Has the	Minister of	Agriculture	received a
resolution from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, calling on the federal government to implement substantial increases in price support levels for milk and cream other than milk for fluid consumption?
2. Is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to announce government policy in this matter prior to April 1, 1965?


Harry William Hays: 1. Yes, such a request has been received from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
2. It is intended to announce the government's policy in this regard before April 1, 1965.



RESOLUTIONS FROM P.E.I. FISHERIES FEDERATION

Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Has the Minister of Fisheries recently received a resolution from the Prince Edward Island fisheries federation, requesting that the federal Department of Fisheries in future pay for samples of lobster in all cases where reinspection indicates the pack to be of good quality and proper weights in the first place?
2.	What decision has been taken with regard to this request?
3.	Has the Minister of Fisheries received a resolution from the Prince Edward Island fisheries federation, requesting that Prince Edward Island be established as a separate inspection district?
4.	What decision has been taken with regard to this request?
5.	Has the Minister of Fisheries received a resolution from the Prince Edward Island fisheries federation, requesting the minister to take the necessary steps to have a thorough investigation initiated immediately into the effects of dragging operations in the areas adjacent to Prince Edward Island within which lobster fishing is carried on; and, to prohibit dragging operations in these areas during the period of the investigation?

6.	What decision has been taken with regard to this request?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes.
2.	Commencing this year all routine inspections of canned lobster will be conducted at the canneries. Only in doubtful cases will there be need to withdraw samples for laboratory examination. In view of this change of procedure and need for overall uniformity, exemption for lobster samples is not regarded as justifiable.
3.	Yes.
4.	Prince Edward Island was recently established as a sub-district under a senior inspection officer. All field inspection matters are under this officer's jurisdiction who, for administrative efficiency, reports through the district officer at Shediac, N.B.
5.	Yes.
6.	Investigation has been carried out in response to numerous representations received. There is no evidence to date to substantiate the contentions made. Investigation will continue to be carried on.



LAND FOR INDIAN SCHOOL, ST. MARC DE FIGUERY, QUE.

Mr. Laprise: 1.	What is the size of the parcel of land on which the Indian residential school at St. Marc de Figuery, P.Q. is built?
2.	From whom was this land purchased?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. 418 acres more or less.
2. Mr. Clement Blais.



HOUSING ACT LOAN APPLICATIONS, LA SARRE, QUE.

Mr. Laprise: Under the National Housing Act (a) how many applications for loans were approved (b) what was the total amount of loans granted for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964 for the construction of dwellings in the town of La Sarre, Chapleau county?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: N.H.A. loans approved in the town of La Sarre:
Approved Lenders	C.M.H.C.
Year Loans Units Amount Loans Units Amount
1962	-	-	-	1	1	$ 9,5691963	-	-	-	3	3	35,1751964	-	-	-	3	3	39,509
20220-816J
Questions



&quot;PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN CANADA-OUTLOOK 1965&quot;

Mr. Nugent: With reference to the government statement "Private and Public Investment in Canada-Outlook 1965", which was tabled on March 18 by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (a) what assurance can the government give that the prospective capital expenditure of $12.3 billions will be covered by funds available in Canada during 1965 (b) what proportion of the total is it estimated will be borrowed (i) in the United States (ii) in other countries (c) what cost of borrowing does the government have in mind in the reference on page 10 of this report to the importance of cost and availability of funds?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) The level of savings in Canada will probably rise with the further growth of economic activity but some net inflow of funds from foreign sources will likely occur as has been the case in past years, (b) The survey of investment intentions upon which the statement is based is designed to obtain information on anticipated capital outlays but not on likely sources of funds for such outlays, (c) No specific cost of borrowing is implied.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRIDGE COSTS, N.B.

Mr. Flemming (Vicforia-: Carleton):
With reference to the reply to question 2,830 indicating the cost of the Hartland bridge, Meduxnekeag river viaduct and Bull creek bridge on the trans-Canada highway (a) do costs of each bridge as shown represent totals or the federal government's portion of same (b) what percentage of the cost of the bridges does the federal contribution represent?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: (a) The cost of the Hartland bridge, Meduxnekeag river viaduct and Bull creek bridge quoted in the reply to question 2,830 represents total cost, (b) The federal contribution represents 90 per cent of the total cost.



SKIDWAY CONSTRUCTION. ST. CATHERINES, N.S.

Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were public tenders called for the construe-tion of a skidway at St. Catherines, Queens county, Nova Scotia, in the fall of 1964?
2.	If so, how many contractors bid on this work and what is the amount of each tender?
3.	What is the name of the successful bidder and the total amount paid for this work?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. No. Public tenders were called for repairs to skidway at St. Catherines River in the summer of 1964.

Inquiries of the Ministry
2.	Two. Russell Harnish, Port Medway, N.S., $5,540. Mosher and Rawding Ltd., Liverpool, N.S., $5,928.
3.	Russell Harnish, Port Medway, N.S. Total amount paid, $5,820.20.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Smallwood: 1.	Since January 1, 1962, what amount has been collected by the government. In each quarterly period, of (a) personal income tax (b) corporation income tax (c) sales tax?
2.	Since January 1, 1962, what has been the total tax revenue, in each quarterly period, collected by the government?
Return tabled.
INCOME OF ARCHITECTS Question 2,998-Mr. Marcoux:
1.	For the year 1962, what, by province, was the average Income of architects in Canada?
2.	How many architects, by province, reported for 1962, income of (a) $5,000 to $10,000 (b) $10,000 to $15,000 (c) $15,000 to $20,000 (d) $20,000 to $25,000 (e) $25,000 to $30,000 (f) $30,000 to $50,000 (g) $50,000 to $100,000 (h) over $100,000?
Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether any representations have been made by Canada to the United States in connection with the use of gas in North Viet Nam; and what answer has been received in response to the request for that information which was made by Canada?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no protests as such have been made to the government of the United States, but we did have passed on to our ambassador, with instructions that he bring this to the attention of the state department, expressions of opinion made by members of this house, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with regard to what I suggest might have been an unwise use at the time of that particular instrument.


John George Diefenbaker: In answer to these expressions of opinion, to use the hon. gentleman's words, what was the reaction of the

United States in connection with use of this gas, which psychologically is subject to serious misinterpretation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there has been no official reply from the United States, but our attention was directed to the statement made by Mr. Rusk on Thursday last as to the reasons for such use and as to the nature of the gases used.


NATO-REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF CANADIAN POLICY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the recent announcement that he is planning a European trip during the Easter recess, at which time he intends to visit most of the NATO countries, and in light of a public statement made two weeks ago that Canada's role in NATO must be related only to the defence of North America, which obviously would necessitate a complete review of Canada-NATO policy, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he is considering providing this house with a full opportunity to debate this matter of extreme importance, so intimately related to Canadian defence and foreign affairs policies, before Easter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, over the week end I regretfully had to come to the conclusion that I should cancel my plans for this trip to which the hon. member has referred, because of the parliamentary situation here which may prevent us from taking any Easter recess at all.


CHILE-OFFER OF ASSISTANCE FOLLOWING EARTHQUAKE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in reference to the destructive and tragic earthquake which occurred in Chile. Can he advise whether the government contemplates any measure of assistance to the people of this great and friendly nation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I
express the view of all parties in the house when I say that we have noted with great sorrow the tremendous damage caused to the people of Chile as the result of the earthquake of yesterday. We have had no news whether any Canadians were affected by the

earthquake, but our embassy in Santiago has been instructed to let us know it any Canadians have been involved. The Prime Minister sent to the president of Chile the following message:
I have been greatly distressed to learn of the loss of life and destruction caused by the recent earthquake in Chile. On behalf of the Canadian government, I wish to convey to you and to the people of Chile our deep sympathy in the tragedy which you have suffered.
I might add that we are seeking the advice of our embassy in Santiago with regard to whether and in what way emergency assistance or relief could be given by Canada.


EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the recent increases in university students' fees is likely to have an adverse effect on university registration this fall, at a time when we are most anxious to have more highly trained personnel in Canada, has the government given any consideration to increasing university grants on condition that this money would be used to return university student fees to their former level?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows the question of education is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. But how the federal government can increase the assistance it has given to education, and can add to the assistance already given during the last year, is a matter now actively under consideration.
Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):
Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the present formula for assistance to universities does discriminate against these institutions in Nova Scotia, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would give consideration to making special grants immediately to these universities in my province; because at the moment the province of Nova Scotia receives the lowest per capita grants of any province in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question was asked of the Minister of Finance last Friday. All I can add is to say that we are very much aware of the complaint not
Inquiries of the Ministry only of Nova Scotia but certain other provinces as to the method of distributing the grants, and that is a matter which is part of the consideration we are now giving.


Mr. Coates:: A supplementary question.


Mr. Bell:: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I can foresee, at least I think I can, that there will be quite a few sup-plementaries on this question of education as it concerns the eastern part of Canada. Are they all pressing and urgent? The hon. member for Cumberland.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he might refer this matter as it affects the Atlantic area to the Atlantic development board for consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether that would be a practical proposition, but I will be glad to give it consideration. I would call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that this formula has been in effect now for over six years.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Who has replaced Mr. Taylor on your staff, sir, as co-ordinator in this area of national concern?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Taylor was not on my staff; he was on the staff of the privy council especially charged with this particular field of government interest.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Who has replaced him?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure who has taken his place, but I shall be pleased to find out.


Thomas Miller Bell: In connection with this whole matter, Mr. Speaker, in so far as we have responsibility will the Prime Minister investigate the suggestion that certain Nova Scotia universities are discriminating against New Brunswick students, for whom they have some responsibility; and I refer specifically to the Dal-housie University medical school?


APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS BY STUDENTS IN OTHER PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister inform the house whether he anticipates any amendment to the student loans legislation so that applicants

Inquiries of the Ministry will not be required to return to their home provinces to make applications for loans?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department are meeting today in Ottawa with officials of the provinces in connection with this legislation, and I would prefer not to answer the hon. member's question until I can deal with the whole subject.
inquiry of the ministry
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Justice?
With all this talk about repatriation these days, can the minister tell us whether his department has stopped all efforts to repatriate Hall Banks before Canadian justice?


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General, but in his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary will provide an answer. Will the Postmaster General reconsider the decision to close the marine post office at Port Colborne and allow it to remain open for the convenience of Ontario great lakes sailors who will otherwise be denied close contact with their families?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secretary jo Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending me a copy of his question. This is the answer. The decision to close the Port Colborne marine post office was taken in close co-operation with the St. Lawrence seaway authority. With the renovation of the Welland canal system, and with the aim of the authority to speed up traffic, ships will no longer be permitted to stop to transact business within the canal, nor will crew members be permitted to go ashore. With these points in mind, it would no longer be practical to operate a post office on the canal system at Port Colborne.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Forestry. Is that minister, who is responsible for ARDA, planning to renegotiate the contracts with provincial governments, changing the regulations; and if so, due to the rapidly advancing season, can he inform the house when these proposed changes will be put into effect?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, as no doubt hon. members realize, there was a provincial-federal conference held in Montreal at the end of November, at which time discussions were held in respect of a new agreement which will take effect as of April 1, 1965. The provinces will this week have the complete text of the agreement as proposed and agreed upon by the two levels of government.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, will these new regulations be in effect on April 1, or will we have to wait another six months before they come into effect?


Maurice Sauvé: The new agreements are to come into effect on April 1, 1965. I am sure all the provinces are well aware of the content of these agreements, because they participated actively in negotiations for approximately six months.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Does the minister mean April 1, 1965?


REQUEST FOR SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM TO TRAIN FARM WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the serious shortage of qualified farm labour arising out of the lack of unemployment insurance benefits for this type of labour, will the minister consider the advisability of an agricultural scholarship program to train people to be fit for agricultural jobs?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether this matter comes under my ministerial responsibility.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State does not seem to be interested in the matter of scholarships, per-

haps the Prime Minister would like to answer the question I asked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into the matter, but my first reaction is one of doubt whether it is desirable to single out any particular occupation for this kind of scholarships as opposed to the general scheme of scholarships.


RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF FEED GRAIN AGENCIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. In view of the fact that the committee on agriculture has made a recommendation that a feed grain agency for eastern Canada be set up, as well as one for British Columbia, could the minister give the house any idea when some action will be taken, or at least when a decision will be made on this very important matter?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, this is government policy and will be announced in due course.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
LOMOND, ALTA.-REPORTED SHORTAGE OF BOX CARS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Approximately 25 farmers in the Lomond, Alberta area have written asking for immediate action to relieve a box car shortage at that centre. These letters have been placed in the hands of the minister, and I am wondering what action his department has taken in this regard.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the Canadian wheat board regarding the situation at Lomond, and I understand that an inspector will be visiting this point this week and will report to me fully on the situation.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. Prime Minister reports directly to the house on questions
Inquiries of the Ministry relating to federal-provincial relations I should like to ask him whether, in so far as the provincial legislatures are concerned, apart from being asked to approve a resolution based on the formula for repatriating the constitution, they are also being asked to approve the additional rider that a draft should be submitted to a joint Commons-Senate committee which would hold public hearings in respect of an amending formula, his government is favourably disposed to submitting such a draft to a joint parliamentary committee which could hold public hearings?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we in the federal government do not presume to advise provincial governments on matters of provincial procedure. The procedure to be followed by the federal government will have to be determined by the federal government and parliament.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that in a resolution passed by various provincial legislatures there is a request for approval of the establishment of such a joint Senate and Commons committee, and for public hearings, will the right hon. Prime Minister inform the house whether his government is favourably disposed to the establishment of such a committee and the holding of public hearings in respect of an amending formula?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a matter for the federal government to decide, and I can only repeat that if we ventured to advise provincial governments as what procedure they should adopt in respect of this matter they might take exception. We will have to decide the proper procedure to be followed by the federal government.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask one more brief supplementary question. Has Premier Lesage informed the government when he intends to ask for passage of the amending formula legislation before the Quebec house, and does the Prime Minister know whether Quebec is going to ask for public hearings? Has Premier Lesage informed the federal government of his intention in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, he has not informed me in this regard, but I will look into the matter to find out whether any of my colleagues have been in touch with him about this matter. I repeat that this is a matter for provincial legislation.

Inquiries of the Ministry
TRADE	UNITED NATIONS


SUGGESTED NOVA SCOTIA MISSION TO BERMUDA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister's department organize a trade mission of Nova Scotia exporters and businessmen to Bermuda so they might be in a position to fully utilize the air communication between Halifax and Bermuda, which will be of the Vanguard class and able to handle a great deal of traffic?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to give consideration to that suggestion.


GATT-CONSIDERATION OF CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question posed on Friday by the hon. member for Wellington South, who inquired as to whether Canada has received any protests from members of GATT concerning Canada's participation in the Canada-United States automotive agreement. At that time I undertook to obtain the information on this subject which he required.
As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed out, a GATT committee has examined the provisions of the Canada-United States agreement in the light of the GATT agreement. The main conclusion of the committee was that the United States, depending upon the legislative action which it proposes to take, might find it necessary to seek a waiver from its obligations under the GATT at some future date.
During the course of its inquiries certain members of the committee asked whether in our opinion the Canadian position was wholly in accordance with our GATT obligations. Our representatives made it clear that the action Canada would take to implement the agreement would be fully in accordance with the provisions of the GATT agreement. The members of the GATT have now received the report of the committee and have decided that no further action needs to be taken.


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN BIRTH CONTROL ACTIVITIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada received representations from the United Nations to participate in its activities in supplying birth control information and other help to member states? If so, what was the nature of the representations and what was the nature of the government's response?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has made known that consideration is being given to establishing a joint agency for the Blood and Piegan reserves at Lethbridge. Will the minister defer action until the opinions of the Indian councils of the two reserves have been adequately ascertained?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me right I wrote the hon. gentleman within the last 72 hours telling him that the opinions of the bands had been sought and their views have been carefully investigated, and that decision had been taken after careful consideration.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My information is that the band councils are against it.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chaiterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the minister been able to get an answer from the C.B.C. with regard to the non-playing of "God Save the Queen" at the opening of programs?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the C.B.C. that there is no new policy involved in this matter. With a number of stations across Canada now operating 24 hours a day under the emergency broadcasting plan, an attempt has been made to establish a standard procedure for all stations to follow. "O Canada" is played each morning at the commencement of the regular announced service, and at the end of the day when signing off the announced service both "O Canada" and "God Save the Queen" are played before the emergency broadcasting pattern of programming begins. The Creston station is one of the unattended low power radio stations, of which there are over 100 in number, which the C.B.C. operates throughout the 24 hours.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question. Would it involve additional difficulty to play both "God Save the Queen" and "O Canada"? In addition, in the Vancouver area they have dropped playing "O Canada" within the last week. Could the minister say whether they should stop playing "God Save the Queen"?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be pleased to look into this additional information.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West on March 25. The question was whether last November the Department of National Defence was contemplating the possible transfer of D.N.D. schools to provincial educational authorities.
The answer is as follows. The then associate minister wrote the provincial ministers of education in November, 1963 to inquire whether arrangements similar to those which were made with the province of British Columbia in 1959 could be made with them. No such agreements with other provinces have been made, but the matter is still the subject of discussion.


MEAFORD, ONT.-LAND EXPROPRIATION TO EXTEND TANK RANGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Defence. Does the minister anticipate the expropriation of adjacent properties for the extension of the Meaford tank range?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, there is no current plan which would involve acquisition of additional land at this place.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It is based on a Canadian Press photograph in this morning's press, a copy of which I sent him. It shows the new Canadian flag being used as an awning over a meat market in a small Ontario town. If there is no legislation on the statute books at the present time, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to prohibit desecration of the national flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago my hon. friend was good enough to send me this picture, and notice that he was going to ask a question based on it. I can only say there has never been any necessity in the past-and I speak subject to correction-for legislation to be passed governing the use of the flag, but I think the matter should be considered in the light of this particular incident and some others that have been brought to my attention. We will be giving consideration to it, Mr. Speaker.


BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether the government has received the report of the advisory committee on broadcasting and, if not, is he in a position to say when that report is expected?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received the report, and in the light of a recent conversation I had with Mr. Fowler I do not expect to receive it before the month of May.

Inquiries of the Ministry COMBINES


VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF NEWSPAPER SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. The minister will remember that several years ago there was a report by the restrictive trade practices commission in connection with Pacific Press in Vancouver, and that the report set out certain requirements. I want to ask the minister whether he has seen the complaints expressed by the new Vancouver paper, the Vancouver Times, about what it suggests are foul practices it has encountered from its competitors and whether, in the light of those statements and the previous report, the combines investigation branch could take another look at the press situation in Vancouver?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: will see to that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Justice inform the house when he is going to make his decision as to the tabling of the report from the trustee in bankruptcy to the superintendent of bankruptcy, which I have been asking for since December 18 of last year?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the correspondence the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) had been kind enough to send me. And it is on the basis of this answer that I give the following answer to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).

Under section 9(8) of the Bankruptcy Act the only persons entitled to inspect or obtain copies of estate documents in the hands of the trustee are "the superintendent, the bankrupt or any creditor or their agents," and there is nothing in the act providing for the disclosure of such information in the hands of the superintendent. I therefore have to advise that in my opinion it would not be proper for me to make public such statements or information.
[Mr. Lamontagne.l


Erik Nielsen: May I ask this supplementary question, which the minister may take as notice if he cannot answer it now. Will he inform the house whether any charges have been laid against any person or persons as a result of this report which was submitted by the trustee to the superintendent in this case?


Guy Favreau: I shall be pleased to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether he is aware of the fact that a copy of this report has been current in Ottawa for some time, and has been in the hands of some of the members of the press gallery? In the light of that, would the minister be prepared to reconsider his decision and make a copy available to members of the house?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the answer of the Minister of Justice a moment ago. Do I understand he would be prepared to consider further whether or not he would table the report to the superintendent of bankruptcy?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that a copy of the report referred to was in the hands of a member of the press, but it does not change my position and I do not believe that it gives me the right to make the document public myself.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the third reading 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.
Mr. R. W. Priliie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the case for increasing the old age security pension from $75 to $100 a month has been made previously, both in the joint committee and in this house, and for just a few minutes I wish to elaborate on that case.
One of the motions passed by the joint committee of the Senate and this house reads as follows-and I am quoting from page 2055 of the committee report:
The level of combined benefits available under the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security

Act should be adequate for those people for whom such benefits will be the only source of income after retirement.
That motion was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and seconded by myself, and it was approved by a vote of 15 to 5. It refers of course to the future, when the Canada pension plan will be in full operation. Our concern, now, is for those for whom the pension constitutes the principal or, indeed, the only source of income. We have to make sure that the income of these people is adequate. I maintain that $75 a month is clearly not adequate. It is true that many persons manage to get by on such an amount, but I suggest they do so only because they pay very low rents, perhaps in substandard accommodation, or because relatives help them. As long ago as 1956 the Montreal council of social agencies stated that an old age pensioner required at least $70.82 monthly to feed, clothe and shelter himself at current Montreal prices. Now, nine years later with the cost of living increased and an improvement in the standard of living expected by most Canadians, it is abundantly clear that $75 is not sufficient. I cannot say exactly what the figure should be. I recall that one of the groups which made representations before the committee-the Canadian council of social workers, I believe- suggested that a study should be made so as to ascertain the amount an old age pensioner needs. In the meantime I do not think we would err if we were to strike a figure of $100 a month. Indeed, I think such a figure would be a conservative one. Studies could then be carried out to determine what the proper income level should be.
We need to think particularly of those people whose only source of income is the old age security pension. I realize that the pension is a universal one and that everyone in the appropriate age category receives it. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned the fact that they would both become eligible for an old age security pension soon. That is quite true. However, persons in their income category are required to pay most of the money back in the form of taxation, so we should not be giving anyone too much.
At the final meeting of the pension plan committee the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved, and I seconded, the following resolution to be found on page 2057 of the committee report. It reads:
The committee also recommends that consideration be given to the amending of part IV of Bill
Canada Pension Plan
C-136 to provide for an increase in the pension paid under the Old Age Security Act to $100 a month and for the lowering of the eligible age for the full pension under the Old Age Security Act to age 65.
It is only the first part of the motion which is relevant here. Others have suggested that an increase in present old age pensions be paid out of Canada pension plan funds. In order to bring this about they propose that the building up period of the Canada pension plan be extended from ten years to 20 years. We reject that proposal. We want to keep the contributory earnings related plan entirely separate from the old age security fund.
By passing the motion which I shall put in a very few minutes we could achieve this result. The motion does not set any particular terms. Indeed it would be out of order if it were to do so. But when the committee reconsiders this question it should give serious attention to this proposal of $100 a month. Too often in the past increases in the old age security pension have been made at election time and used as vote getting gimmicks during election campaigns. This is a poor way to deal with questions directly concerning the welfare of our people. I suggest this is a good time at which to increase the pension. The Prime Minister told us the other day that there is no election in sight, and I believe him. Now is the time, then, for the government to put into effect the increase we are suggesting, namely an increase to $100 a month.
I therefore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Danforth (Mr. Scott):
That Bill C-136 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the basic amount of the old age security pension set out in clause 120 of the said bill.


Mr. Olson:: Before you reach a decision on this motion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the question of whether or not it is in order.
This amendment to the motion for the third reading of this bill is essentially the same as the one which was put forward on Friday last and which was ruled out of order, the decision of the Chair being sustained by the house. The amendment reads:
That Bill C-136 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the basic amount of the old age security pension set out in clause 120 of the said bill.
In the first place, I think it is well established that we are not permitted to do indirectly in this house what cannot be done

Canada Pension Plan directly. While the amendment does not spell out the amount of the increase in the old age security pension which the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond advocates, he certainly made reference to it in the arguments he used in support of the amendment.
In the second place, I contend that this amendment seeks to alter the expenditure of money with respect to old age security pensions. Either it does that, or it does nothing at all. Again, I think it is a well established principle when considering the validity of motions that either they must seek to do something or they are out of order. If the amendment to this motion is to do anything positive, it is intended to ask the committee to change the amount as set out in clause 120 of Bill C-136. Either that, or it is nothing. There is no point in referring this bill back to the committee unless the committee is intended to do something with clause 120. Without going into all the citations which could be quoted preventing a private member from moving a motion or an amendment to a motion which would change the balance of ways and means, I think I should draw Your Honour's attention to one or two rulings. For example, citation 249 of Beauchesne's fourth edition says:
No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian Commons receiving the authority of the crown, through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money.
I am sure no one will disagree that this is a principle well established in the practice of this house.
I should also like to direct to your notice, Mr. Speaker, a ruling which was made on July 11, 1963, when a question of the same kind was before the House of Commons. At that time the Speaker of the house drew attention to a ruling which was made by Mr. Speaker Casgrain on February 21, 1936. There were a number of things that he said, and I will quote some of them. Mr. Speaker Casgrain decided that a bill providing for the transfer of a government service from one department to another involves the custody of public moneys and cannot be introduced by a private member. I believe that applies to the question of whether or not it is appropriate for a private member to move an amendment to spend money either out of the consolidated revenue fund or out of the Canada pension plan fund.
Now, the hon. member stated he is not asking that there be an increase in the amount of money paid out of the Canada pension plan. However, I noticed that in the same


citation Mr. Speaker Casgrain had this to say, and I quote:
-the circumstances under which an expenditure is to be made are indivisible from that expenditure.
I think this is a case, Mr. Speaker, which lends support to the point I made a few minutes ago that an hon. member cannot attempt to do indirectly what he is prevented from doing directly. We have gone through this performance a number of times in this house when attempts have been made, either on third reading or at other stages, by private members to circumvent the prerogative of the crown by moving amendments that would have the effect of increasing the expenditure out of the consolidated revenue fund. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take into consideration all of these representations that have been made, and that have been supported on division, to the effect that a member is not permitted to move this kind of amendment.
I can foresee what is going to happen if Your Honour accepts this kind of motion. Then we are going to be faced with the inference that those members who vote against it are, in fact, against the raising of the old age pension from $75 to $100 per month.


Mr. Orlikow:: And they are.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The fact is that we have rules laid down in this house, and they are very clear. I am not going to refer to all of them. They are to the effect that a private member does not have this right or privilege.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this amendment fails in one other respect, too, and that is the fact that since there is to be an expenditure out of the consolidated revenue fund, a clear statement must accompany such motion or amendment indicating how much it is going to cost. For example, citation 246, paragraph (3) says that the guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. Of course this amendment does none of these things.
It fails in one other respect also, Mr. Speaker, and that is that any motion putting a charge on the public funds of this country must be preceded by a resolution. Of course a private member has no right to move such a resolution. In this case obviously it is not

present. I would respectfully suggest, therefore, that as I said at the outset if this amendment does anything it is a motion to change the amount of the expenditure payable under the Old Age Security Act from $75 per month to $100. If it is not, it is not anything. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest it is out of order.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to add too much to what has been said by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). Undoubtedly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is going to get into the discussion. I would say, in paraphrase of his words on Friday afternoon when Your Honour was considering another amendment, this is very cleverly worded. While the amendment of the other day dealt with something under the first three portions of the bill, which I have indicated on numerous occasions I do not feel is a money bill, this amendment deals entirely with part IV, which is definitely part of a money bill in the true sense of the word under the Old Age Security Act.
I would put it to Your Honour that while it is true the house may be vague in its amendments, yet this amendment is a complete nullity. Certainly the speakers from the party of the proposer of this amendment, and he himself, have indicated that the purpose of this is to discuss an increase in the old age security pension that will be payable. Certainly there would be no point in discussing a reduction. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat has said, one cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. I put it to Your Honour therefore that this amendment is highly dubious in so far as its regularity is concerned, in that all it asks is that the committee reconsider that basic amount of the old age security payment. However the committee cannot do anything to it, except perhaps to reduce the amount; yet the hon. member who has proposed this, has spoken only about an increase. He is only interested in an increase. I would very much doubt if this amendment is in order. I will not go into the other aspects that have been discussed or which may be discussed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) began his remarks by saying that this amendment was, in effect, the same as the amendment which was proposed on Friday and which the Chair ruled out of order. I should like to point out there is one respect in which there is a vast difference between the two amendments. The
Canada Pension Plan
amendment proposed on Friday suggested that moneys be taken out of the Canada pension plan fund to pay old age security recipients and others, and this was in clear violation of the provisions of the resolution preceding the bill. The amendment that is now before you makes no such suggestion at all. The amendment that is now before you deals only with part IV of the bill, and more particularly with clause 120. I suggest that on that account it is quite different from the amendment proposed on Friday.
I should like to point out also that in the amendment on Friday there was virtually an instruction to the government to bring before a committee of the whole house a specific proposal including the precise amounts that were named. This amendment that is now proposed is not worded in that way at all. It does not make a specific proposal to the government. As a matter of fact, it does not even make a specific proposal to the committee of the whole. It is to the effect that the committee of the whole may reconsider one of the clauses, namely clause 120.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) as well, emphasized a point that a private member cannot move a motion that involves the expenditure of money. There is nobody in this house who does not realize that that is one of the basic rules of procedure of the House of Commons. No private member can move a motion that involves the expenditure of money. I submit that the motion now before the Chair, moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), does not involve the expenditure of money. It does not even suggest what shall be done. The hon. member suggested in his speech what we think ought to be done, but what is before the house is a motion which would merely refer the bill back to the committee and give the committee of the whole the opportunity to reconsider the clause referred to and to decide at that point what to do. Let it be quite clear that if the government were unwilling at that point to present a royal recommendation for increasing expenditure, we would not be able to proceed any further; but I submit that if the house by a majority vote were to ask for this reference back, that would be a pretty clear indication to the government that the house did want action of this sort to be taken.
A point which was repeated several times by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canada Pension Plan
Olson) was that it is a clear rule in this house that you cannot do indirectly what you are not able to do directly. That is a rule which is not stated in the books but it is frequently invoked. But may I also point out that this is precisely what private members do time and time again, particularly in the matter of private members' notices of motions which are put on the order paper. There is hardly a motion that a private member puts on the order paper which does not call for increased expenditure of some sort. A private member cannot move for the expenditure of money, so what does he do? He moves that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to making such and such an expenditure. Does the hon. member for Medicine Hat say that those motions are out of order or that they are improper? No doubt he has moved motions like that himself.
I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that when the address or the budget is before us amendments are moved by all parties in opposition asking for changes which involve the expenditure of money. I am sure that my hon. friend has moved such an amendment or been party to one. I am referring to amendments which delete all the words after the word "that" and put in its place an expression to the effect that in the opinion of this house such and such should be done. As long as it is a statement of opinion that something should be done, it has been recognized over the years that that is not a violation of the principle that a private member cannot move something which involves the expenditure of money.
In effect, this amendment does precisely what a private member's notice of motion does. It does precisely what an amendment to the address or to the budget does. It expresses an opinion that we ought to go back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering the amount of the old age security pension.
The only other thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the kind of amendment which my colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has moved is provided for in citation 415 of Beauchesne's fourth edition; and I may also say that there are many precedents which are almost exactly in the terms of this amendment. Let me read portions of citation 415:
(1) When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.

Then there is paragraph (2):
Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation; in the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration, but in the former case the committee can only consider the clause or amendments or instructions referred to them.
In this case, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has moved an amendment that has a limitation spelled out in it. The limitation is that reconsideration be given at this point simply to clause 120. Paragraph (3) reads:
A bill may be recommitted, amended in committee, reported, considered on report and read a third time at the one sitting by simple order of the house.
There is a prohibition in the fourth paragraph of citation 415, which I read the other day, to the effect that an amendment to refer a bill back to the committee of the whole when the house is at third reading stage must not tend to change the principle approved on second reading. The other day I contended that that prohibition stood in the way of Friday's amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) because it did tend to change the principle of the Canada pension plan, from the plan that paid benefits to contributors to a plan which would pay benefits to non-contributors. This amendment, however, suggests no change in the principle approved on second reading. That principle, when it was passed on second reading, included part IV, which involved making certain changes in the Old Age Security Act. We have contended throughout the piece that those changes should include an increase of the amount to $100 a month as well as one or two other matters.
We had the same story, Mr. Speaker, in the special joint committee. My hon. friend from Medicine Hat was not a member of that committee but one of his colleagues was. In that committee we could not move an amendment to the bill itself to change the figure to $100 a month, but we were free to move that the committee recommend to the house that the amount be increased, and we so moved. My motion to that effect was in order but it was defeated by a majority of that committee.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear to me that what we are doing is simply asking the house to express an opinion, and it will be up to the committee of the whole, if the amendment carries, to deal with it. It will be up to the government to decide whether or not it is going to carry out the wish of the house, if the house so expresses itself, and I submit that this is clearly in

line with many precedents which are on the records of this House of Commons.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal very briefly with this point and to support the contention that the amendment moved by the hon. member is out of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) argued that this amendment made no specific proposal to the committee of the whole. The amendment asks for reconsideration of clause 120 of the bill, namely reconsideration of the basic amount of the old age security pension.
It is clear that there are several ways in which amendments can be made to a bill on third reading. One is to refer the bill back to a select committee. Another is to give it a three or a six months hoist. Another is to move a reasoned amendment. This amendment falls into none of these categories; it relies on a further method, namely referring part of the bill back to the committee of the whole.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that citation 415 of Beauchesne makes it perfectly clear that a motion of this kind must refer the bill back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in a particular. I suggest that the very virtue which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre found in his amendment destroys it, because a reference back must provide for a specific amendment to a clause of a bill. It is not sufficient to ask that the bill be reconsidered. If the hon. member refers to all the citations in Beauchesne he will find that in dealing with third readings of bills and in dealing with a reference back to the committee of the whole there are specific amendments to specific clauses. There has been no precedent brought forward by the hon. member which would suggest that a general reconsideration of this type is valid; the citation states quite clearly "for the purpose of amending it in any particular". Reconsidering the basic amount of the pension is very general, very philosophical. It is not amending the bill in any particular, which is a requirement of citation 415.
I suggest to Your Honour that you consider the amendment from another point of view. This amendment involves an instruction to the committee of the whole, and it is clear from the ruling made on Friday and the discussions which took place in the house that amendments of this kind are in effect instructions to the committee.
Canada Pension Plan
I should like to refer to citation 220 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which suggests that this amendment may be defective in another way.
Citation 220(2) reads in part:
" 'The principles which guide a limit in the system of instructions on going into committee may be thus stated: First, an instruction must empower the committee to do something which the committee is not otherwise empowered to do.-' "
Surely what the committee has done, and had full power to do, is consider the basic amount of the old age security pension. In support of the statement regarding the inadmissibility of this instruction, I should like to refer to May's seventeenth edition at page 544 which deals with instructions to committees. At that page under the heading "Inadmissible Instructions" is stated, in the second example under the subheading "Superfluous":
An instruction is superfluous and therefore out of order if it seeks to confer upon the committee power to make amendments in a bill which is already possessed by the committee under the provisions-
The committee of the whole had full opportunity and authority to discuss, and did discuss and decide, the basic amount of the old age security pension. It is my submission that the citation which I read from Beauchesne's fourth edition, supported by May's suggestion, gives a clear indication that this is an inadmissible instruction because it allegedly confers authority on the committee of the whole to do something which it has the authority to do and has in fact done.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the intent of the hon. member is clear. He refrained from making any amendments during the consideration of this point by the committee of the whole. If this amendment was carried presumably we would go back in the committee of the whole to consideration of the basic amount. The hon. member would be unable to move any amendment at that time, just as he was unable to move an amendment during the committee of the whole consideration that has already taken place. The hon. member would be powerless to act and would achieve nothing by his amendment except a general discussion, which can take place on third reading. Therefore, any resort to recommittal is futile and would result in no conclusion, and would not provide a solution.
I suggest that on a common sense ground, and on grounds of logic, the house should not ask the committee to reconsider a matter

Canada Pension Plan
in respect of which no action is possible. If such action were to take place it would require a recommendation by the crown. This requirement prevented the hon. member from making any move on a procedural ground during the considerations of the committee of the whole.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this amendment is out of order because it does not ask the committee to make a specific amendment to a clause or clauses of the bill in a particular, as suggested by Beauchesne; because the instruction itself is out of order in that it is superfluous, because the committee had the power to consider and did consider the basic amount of old age security pensions; and, finally, on the common sense ground, that any exercise of this kind would be futile and purely academic, providing the committee with no opportunity to alter the report which it has made to the house and which is now before the house for approval.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, this second amendment seeks to have the committee of the whole reconsider the amount of the old age pension. It shows that several hon. members are interested in part IV of Bill No. C-136. Before I come back to the motion itself, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would be out of order in pointing out that part TV of the bill is different from the other three. The first three parts of the bill deal mostly with contributory pensions whereas part IV has to do with the reduction of the present age of eligibility for old age pensions and this amendment seeks to increase the present amount of the pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that part IV of Bill No. C-136 should be separated from the other three so that two different votes may be taken, because as I have just pointed out, part IV has nothing to do with the first three parts of the bill.
As far as we are concerned, for instance, if we vote in favour of part IV, we are opposed in principle to the first three parts-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) are very interesting, but in my opinion they are not relevant to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burn-aby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I will end my remarks by asking that those two widely different parts of Bill No. C-136 be separated.
Now I would like to deal with the amendment proper. I heard the arguments put for-

ward by the Minister of Labour, to the effect that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member for Lapointe that at this moment we are not discussing the amendment proper, but the point of order which was raised, namely whether this amendment is in order or not.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was coming to, the propriety of this amendment.
To show that it was unacceptable, it has been claimed that it did not propose anything specific, that it only asked that the whole thing be returned to the committee of the whole, without reference to what was wanted or what change was to be proposed to the committee of the whole.
After hearing what the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) had to say about that, I must admit that if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond were accepted, it would have a very definite meaning, since we all know very well that the idea, in having the bill sent back to the committee of the whole is not to reduce the pension but to increase it.
On the other hand, it is not contrary to the standing order which says that no private member may propose an increase in government spending. As a matter of fact, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam does not as such call for an increase in government expenditures; it simply means that if the bill were returned to the committee of the whole, it would be a clear indication to the government that the house wants a raise in the amount of old age pensions. The government itself would then have the moral obligation of introducing an amendment to boost the basic rate of old age pensions.
That is why I feel this amendment is quite in order. First of all, it does not suggest an increase in government expenditures and, second, it indicates a specific objective, as the government would then have the moral obligation of introducing an amendment in committee of the whole.
During this discussion, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) stated that when such amendments were ruled out of order and when your ruling was appealed, it could lead to believe that those who voted against the Speaker's ruling were against an increase in old age pensions.
When we insist on increased old age pensions as much as we do, knowing that the

standing orders are under the control of the house, we realize that hon. members have a right to appeal against a ruling of the Speaker if they believe that the welfare of the people in general should prevail over certain arguments about the interpretation of the rules of the house.
That is why I feel the hon. member for Medicine Hat was only hedging and members who really want to see the old age pension increased must overlook the point made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat and really ask for that increase. That is what we want to do and we are ready to overlook an interpretation of some rules to insist on a higher old age pension for Canadians 65 and over.
That is why we feel that this amendment is entirely in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has noted with interest the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond and has heard the arguments submitted for or against the acceptability of the amendment. In the course of argument reference was made to the decision of the Chair last Friday. I should like to recall to hon. members that that decision was essentially that the amendment was a direction to the government rather than a direction to the committee. In my opinion there is a rather substantial distinction between the two amendments.
The particular amendment now before us is in very general terms. It may be that it is not specific and is somewhat vague but that is not sufficient to rule it out of order. The Chair is bound to make its decision at this time on the wording of the amendment at its face value as it appears to the Chair, and this amendment does not seem to involve the expenditure of money. It may be that the amendment will result in a reduction of the money to be expended under the terms of the bill rather than an increase.
If the amendment were carried and the bill returned to the committee, it would be necessary then for a motion to be made in committee of the whole and at that time the Chair would have to decide whether or not the financial initiative of the crown was being infringed upon by the motion then made in committee as the result of the bill being sent back to committee of the whole for further consideration. The Minister of Labour referred to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 415, section 1, which reads as follows:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of
Canada Pension Plan
the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
The minister suggests that this means that the amendment must include reference to a particular. That interpretation in my opinion, is much too restrictive and much too limited. I cannot see that the mere fact the citation states that a bill or motion or resolution may be referred back for the purpose of amending it in any particular means that the particular has to be described in the motion of referral back to the committee.
The minister claims that there is no precedent for this type of motion. I submit to him there are quite a few, a number of which have been brought to my attention. Perhaps I might refer briefly to the debates of May 20, 1959, page 3843 of Hansard, at which time a similar point was raised. Mr. Argue, the member for Assiniboia, said:
Mr. Speaker, I would refer the house to Hansard of April 10, 1957, at page 3381, when a similar amendment to another bill was moved in these words:
"That Bill 320 be not now read the third time, but that the said bill be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 2 (e) thereof."
In other words, it was a case of referral for further consideration, which is what this amendment seeks to do. For these reasons I must rule that the amendment is acceptable. I should like to read the amendment. It is moved by Mr. Prittie, seconded by Mr. Scott:
That Bill C-136 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the basic amount of the old age security pension set out in clause 120 of the said bill.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased with your ruling that the amendment is in order. In effect it has the same result as the amendment we moved on Friday in that it provides a vehicle by which the house will again be allowed to consider the possibility of providing to recipients of old age security a more meaningful degree of assistance than is at present available, and from that point of view our attitude is not materially affected.
I want to indicate immediately that I will support the amendment in question and, indeed, will support any amendments forthcoming in the committee which will provide that our old age pensioners will receive a pension of $100 a month immediately. When one goes back to the latter part of 1963 and remembers how difficult it was to secure the increase of $10 which raised old age security to $75 a month, it is rather difficult to imagine

Canada Pension Plan
that the present government will agree to an amount of $100. However, in the circumstances I think we must face the fact that such an amount is in keeping with the facts of life today.
It is my hope that if we go back into committee on the bill we will be able to consider other aspects of the plan as well. In my view there are many problems facing our elder citizens that the plan as now conceived does not fully recognize. I believe that by increasing the amount of old age security we will correct the situation to a degree. Certainly the plan as now proposed has placed our elder citizens in a position where they think today that they are going to be beneficiaries, but the fact is they will realize in a very short period of time that they are not.
I also believe that the business of reducing the age of eligibility for old age security a year at a time until it is finally available at age 65 should be looked into again and, indeed, the age should be dropped to 65 immediately. Let us have none of this business of reducing it one year at a time. In line with the proposal presented by this party in committee, let us make old age security available immediately at age 65 and in the amount of $100 a month. Because of the insistence of the government to carry through with the plan as presently embodied in the bill, we are leading the elderly citizens of this nation down the garden path. During the election campaign they were told of the great benefits which would be made available to them when this plan came into effect, but under the terms of this bill they will be left out, forgotten, and in effect will have to live on what they presently receive, with the exception that their pension will be geared to the cost of living in a very nebulous way, one which resembles the $6 increase given to them in 1957 which was not sufficient to cover the cost of living increases they had to meet during the years prior to 1957.
I do not particularly care what method is adopted, or who proposes an amendment which is found to be in order. What I am concerned with is seeing that we get to the meat of the matter, to show the recipients of old age security, and those who will shortly be recipients, that we are willing to take their special situation into consideration.
I am pleased that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was able to prepare an amendment that was found to be in order, and I am certainly going to support it. I am going to do what I can to assist the elderly citizens of our nation who

are meeting greater and greater difficulties because of the spiralling cost of living, a trend which will continue in the days ahead if the government is not willing to take greater action than it has indicated to date, with regard to those things which determine the cost of living.
When we reach the point where we take a vote on this matter I hope government members will also give consideration to the problems being faced by our elderly citizens. I hope government members will appreciate the fact that these people are not beneficiaries under this plan, will appreciate the fact that there will be real problems in trying to amend the bill once it becomes law, and will see to it that in the bill there is built-in protection for the recipients of old age security.
When this is done we can move forward and give consideration to adopting the bill, because we will know we will have looked after a great many Canadians who, today or in the near future, are or will become recipients of old age security, deserving of the minimum of $100 a month to maintain themselves with respect during the years ahead.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my wholehearted support to the amendment because I realize that the persons it is intended to assist need it very badly, and also because the stated objective of the government is that as soon as possible, and in a fair and practical way, all Canadians will be able to look forward to retiring in security and with dignity.
Before proceeding further, and in case anyone is under a misapprehension, I should like to point out that the purpose of the amendment is to return the bill to the committee, in the hope that the members of this group can persuade the committee to increase the old age security by $25 a month.
We have expressed our support for the principle of this bill. The members of this party who served on the joint parliamentary committee have informed us, after careful study of the bill, that in their opinion it is philosophically, sociologically and actuarially sound, and will thus in time lay the foundation for development of an over-all pension plan for all Canadians. However I am quite sure that experience in the administration and operation of the Canada pension plan will result in amendments, in changing ideas as to what the basis of a pension should be, the type of security we should be providing, and the standard of living it should involve. All these will result in amendments to the legislation in the years ahead, and we support the

bill on the basis that it lays a sound foundation for future amendment and future development.
I must first of all congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) upon their unparalleled demonstration of patience and impatience during the 23 days this measure has been under discussion by the house, and I will give full credit to both ministers for their readiness to answer the multitude of questions posed by members of the opposition. I think we should be fair in that respect.
Before proceeding further I must say how much I appreciated the kind remarks made during the debate by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), with respect to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), for his appreciation of the spirit of British fair play. I might say, Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed to say I was raised in that atmosphere. To me their insistence on the printing of the minutes of the Canada pension plan committee hearings in both official languages was their right under our constitution and practice. Therefore it was on those grounds I supported their motion, on principle. I am quite sure it is fair to say that any delay in the printing of these minutes in the French language was not occasioned by the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member knows that on third reading the scope of debate is even more restricted than it is on second reading. The remarks the hon. member is making now would not be in order on second reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, am I already being restricted? I thought I was speaking to the principle of the bill on third reading. However, I bow to your ruling and will exercise some restraint. I was about to say that the district from which I come was largely settled in the first instance by persons of British stock who bought land for farming, and by French Canadians brought from the Ottawa valley to take part in the lumber industry. For this reason I have a good understanding of the circumstances which develop between the two races. I have enjoyed for nearly 60 years a most pleasant and friendly association with French Canadians both in this house and in my constituency. As a result of that close association in many spheres of public affairs I take a lively interest in the relations between
Canada Pension Plan
ourselves and our fellow Canadians of French extraction. I may say that the kindly reference by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to my British sense of fair play remind me of an incident which took place in the front line at Ypres. I mention this because it may have something to do with the development of unity in Canada.


An hon. Member:: What does it have to do with the amendment?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Our scouts used to return to our lines in the early morning. We had a second in command called Major Turner-Lee formerly of the Indian army, who had been a fruit grower. He could never be persuaded to use a periscope when looking toward the German lines. Members may see in a little while what this has to do with the pension aspect. On one particular morning he was looking over a trench while one of our scouts was coming in. Owing to the irregularity of our lines the scout mistook him for a German. He fired at the major and the bullet went through his steel helmet. The major said: Come in here, you blankety-blank fool; what do you think you are doing? When the scout returned to the trench he naturally expected some reprimand. But the major turned to him and said: "Paddy, get out of my sight. I never thought we had such a wretched shot in our battalion." Standing beside me was a young French Canadian, Peter Gibeau, who subsequently worked for me after the second world war. He turned to me and said: "Herridge, ah oui. British fair play."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I could refer the hon. member to a learned and British author, Lord Campion, who states that debate on third reading is restricted-that discussion on third reading in the House of Commons must be limited to the contents of the bill. Perhaps the hon. member would keep this in mind as he continues his remarks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Having got over the hurdle, I will be quite willing to do so, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that with a combination of the British spirit of fair play, and French impatience, logic and elan we shall in the days ahead build a Canada united in spirit and purpose; and I am sure that is what we are all aiming for.
I support this amendment because this bill does not provide benefits for many Canadians who have the greater need at this time. Resolutions I have received from senior citizens groups together with contents of a voluminous correspondence clearly indicate

Canada Pension Plan
that many Canadians who need assistance at the present time are most disappointed that their need has been overlooked in this measure. I may say that some of the letters I have received were distressing to read.
The Canadian Welfare Association is very interested in this problem, I notice. I wish to quote briefly from the March-April issue of Canadian Welfare for 1965, page 61, as follows:
The council has recognized that a wage related contributory plan by its very nature tends to exclude certain groups of citizens from its protection; those person who are not attached to the labour market-widows with dependant children, the disabled-those who, while in the labour market, have very low or sporadic earnings and hence are unable to benefit very much or at all from the provisions of the plan; and those who are already retired.
The council brief argues that further examination is needed to see whether ways can be found to bring an even wider segment of the Canadian population under the plan. This is particularly important when it is realized that in addition to retirement benefits the plan provides social insurance protection against disability, widowhood and orphanhood.
In advancing the view that coverage be extended to the largest possible number, the council is expressing its conviction that public assistance programs should play a residual role rather than be used to meet the income-maintenance need of a large segment of the population. At the same time, the council recognizes the importance of public assistance in the total system of social security and argues as it did in 1958 that a new federal public assistance act is needed and that much greater attention must be paid to standards in public assistance, both in terms of administration and levels of benefits.
Then the brief goes on to ask: Is $75 enough? It urges that an immediate study should be made in order to determine the correct "floor amount" of old age security pensions, now only $75 month.
I now wish to quote briefly from the publication Commonwealth of March 24. Mr. Lemual Harris, N.D.P. member for Logan recently stated in the Manitoba legislature that the province had no provision for the rural poor. In his words:
They have neither savings nor pensions, and are not covered. Again middle-class prosperity is being underwritten while the poor are ignored.
I think I am qualified to speak for that generation of Canadians which, like myself, had a personal experience of pioneer life from the early days of this century. In fact, I may say I lived in a district where there was not a bathroom within a hundred miles. Those who worked in industry or in services have experienced years of low wages and poor working conditions; fortunately, those conditions have greatly improved since the

second world war. These pioneers who made their living by farming were well acquainted with the axe, the saw, the grub hoe and the walking plough. They also knew the loneliness of a pioneer life lacking communications. These two groups, both urban and rural, were producers. They are the senior producers of our nation and they are overlooked in the measure before us.
On an economic basis, Mr. Speaker, I divide society into two groups-the producers and the parasites. The producers provide knowledge, goods and services for the benefit of the community and the nation. The parasites use their wits to reap a rich harvest from the ignorance and the weaknesses of human nature. Today we speak for the pioneer producers, the people ignored by this bill, the people who laid the foundations for our present development. Their efforts built schools, churches, hospitals and roads throughout Canada which now bring people and communities much closer together.
I am not used to advocating unsound financial policies. I am conservative as far as finance is concerned. I am always opposed to debt. I was taught not to buy anything until I had saved the money with which to pay for it, and that has been my practice. However, I think this amendment does provide an opportunity to review all the expenditures which are now being made in connection with old age assistance, the bonus payments made by the various provinces, blind persons pensions, disability allowances and the various other welfare payments, to see whether it might not be possible to increase the amount now under consideration from $75 as suggested.
I am now going to make a personal suggestion which arises from the fact there is growing gradually an indication that it is not necessary much longer to keep our forces in Europe under NATO. I suggest that if it were possible to bring these forces home we would be able to save a very large amount of money which we could use for this purpose. I have been asked by a number of people to explain the basis upon which members of parliament are paid their retiring allowances. I have given them the following illustration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this is not the appropriate time to reply to these particular inquiries. I remind him again that on third reading the debate is limited to the contents of the bill. If he needs additional evidence in support of what I told him before, perhaps I could refer

the hon. member to Hansard for June 9, 1959, page 4461 from which I quote Mr. Speaker:
In other words, only what is contained in the bill is before the house on third reading...
I think it has been the practice of this house to confine the debate on third reading strictly to the contents of the bill itself.
I ask the hon. member to bear that in mind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I was simply going to make a comparison with the amendment we propose, and 1 was not going into details. I did say that a member of parliament who was elected in 1958 at 24 years of age and was defeated in an election in 1965 would retire at 31 years of age with a pension of $1,598.50 for life. Therefore, if he lived to be 71 years of age he will have drawn $63,940. If he dies, his widow will receive $959.15 for life. We are told that this plan is actuarially sound. I just mention it to indicate what we can do if we put our shoulders to the wheel, as it were, with respect to doing something for these old people. Surely if we can provide a sound actuarial scheme for giving that pension to members of parliament, we can organize our own expenditures in such a way as to provide for the minimum basic needs of the millions of Canadians who will not benefit from this legislation. We simply ask that the matter be referred back to the committee to explore every possible opportunity of making some further increase in the present old age security pension. I am delighted to see that the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) is listening attentively to what I have to say.
In conclusion, I must say that while national pension plans, national medicare and other socially desirable measures are necessary, we must at the same time realize that by these measures we are only laying a foundation for basic material security upon which we can then commence to build a civilization that will provide creative opportunities for our people. We must not forget that man does not live by bread alone. Even today some of our liberal intellectuals and labour leaders continue in the grip of the old spell in the belief that happiness can be found in economic security alone. In still stressing the first and unique importance of economic security, they are showing they do not recognize that this dream to many young people is no longer psychologically valid. They seem to continue to believe that we will automaticaly achieve our inalienable right to perpetual happiness when we are able to enjoy the benefits of complete economic security.
Canada Pension Plan
On the other hand, many people still believe that human dignity and happiness can only be achieved by the recreation of the good old days of self-reliance and competition between individuals and nations. However, we all know those days are gone forever. Human dignity cannot fully exist in the struggle to meet material needs nor can human dignity develop as the result of economic security alone. Genuine human dignity can only be created in a social environment of co-operation where the prime concern with consumption is replaced by the happiness that flows from co-operative creative activity. This approach to this problems means a great deal to many of our younger people across this country. Our people will respond to programs that provide an opportunity to use this cooperative creative activity in working for the development of world peace; in working for an opportunity to meet the material needs of those still destitute in other lands; in working for the participation of our people to meet the problems of our own country, including the problems of automation, unemployment and other related problems.
For this purpose, Mr. Speaker, we must bend every effort toward the building of a united Canada. I am on very sound ground now, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to conclude by quoting from a broadcast made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on April 23, 1963. I should like to conclude by quoting his challenging remarks on that occasion;
The task ahead then is immense but it is not frightening. It is complex beyond simple description but it is not impossible. It will not be an easy time, but it will, I pledge you, be a time to excite the daring, to test the strong and to give new promise to the timid. It will indeed be a time of direction and decision, where our efforts are sustained, our purpose clear and our faith high.
We trust the members of the government, Mr. Speaker, will approach this amendment in the spirit exemplified by the Prime Minister when he spoke on that occasion. Multitudes of Canadians are just waiting for this government to give them an opportunity to serve their country on the basis the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech.


Edgar John Benson: I should like first, Mr. Speaker, to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for congratulating me upon my patience during the long consideration of this bill-or perhaps my impatience. I was not sure which phrase referred to me or if both did. However, at this stage, with this amendment moved, I believe it has become

Canada Pension Plan
obvious to everyone that neither the Conservative party, the New Democratic party nor the Creditistes want to see a wage related pension plan in Canada. I believe this bill has spent as much time in committee as any other bill in recent times. The ideas which have been put forward by the Conservative party in an amendment which was ruled out of order on Friday, and now by the New Democratic party in an amendment which was ruled in order, referred to matters which received long and careful study during the 21 days that this bill was considered in committee of the whole, as well as in the special committee which had 51 sittings to hear evidence. The special committee brought forward recommendations to this house, most of which were adopted by the government.
The amendment of the New Democratic party refers this bill back to committee for reconsideration of a matter which was considered by the committee. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said he could not move an amendment which would achieve his purpose and therefore asked the government to move an amendment to increase the old age security pension to $100 per month. The hon. member did this in committee of the whole, so all he is hoping to achieve by this amendment, apparently, is a further delay in proceedings by referring it back to committee of the whole after we have spent such a long time considering the bill and after the government has spent some time considering this matter. He wants the government to say exactly the same thing as it said when the bill was in committee of the whole when this particular question was raised.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this can be looked upon as anything but delay and filibuster tactics on the part of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edgar John Benson: -the Conservative party and the New Democratic party, who obviously do not want a Canada pension plan. I believe the Creditistes have at least been honest: They have come out and said they do not want the Canada pension plan in its present form. They wasted several days in the committee debate to impress upon everybody that they did not want a Canada pension plan, and stated their reasons, and then we moved into third reading.
I cannot help but think that the official opposition and the New Democratic party sat back and gloated while they wasted the time of the committee, knowing that on a vote the

New Democratic party or the Conservative party would not dare vote against the Canada pension plan. Through the action which has been taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he is obviously trying to kill the Canada pension plan by sending it back to the committee and opening a matter of debate which has already been decided. As indicated by the hon. member of the official opposition who spoke a few minutes ago, when they get back into committee they do not want to talk about the particular subject matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; they want to talk about all the other aspects of the Canada pension plan. In effect, what the official opposition and the New Democratic party are trying to do is to create a merry-go-round which never comes to a stop, so that the people of Canada never get a Canada pension plan.
I could not let this point go past, Mr. Speaker, without once more reiterating a few of the statements which I made when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested, as was his right, in the committee of the whole that the Canada pension plan payment be increased to $100 at age 65. He knew that he could not move this in committee of the whole, but it was discussed. He now wants to go back to the committee of the whole to discuss it again. I pointed out at that time to the members of the committee exactly what would be the estimate of cost to the people of Canada if this were done. Let us not assume that these are costs to the government of Canada; they are costs to the people of Canada. Because the only way the old age security pension can be provided, as indicated both in the bill and in the old age security legislation, is out of taxes raised for that specific purpose. The additional cost to pay $100 a month at age 65 would be, as I mentioned, $810 million. This is almost double the present cost of the old age security pensions in Canada.
Let us just think what that would mean for the taxpayers of this country. It would mean virtually doubling the taxes presently levied on the taxpayers to support the old age security pension. I have made a calculation, for which only I accept responsibility- it has not been checked by the Department of Finance-that on the same basis of taxation-that is, increasing personal income tax to a maximum of $120 and increasing sales tax and corporation income tax-it would cost the average taxpayer earning $4,000 a year $210 per year in additional taxation.

The New Democratic party, which is supposed to be the party in support of labour in this country, now turns around and says: Certainly, we are quite willing to increase the taxes of the average wage earner in this country by $210 a year in order that we may have old age pensions at age 65 of $100 a month. I doubt whether the man earning $4,000 a year in Canada today would be willing to stand for this kind of action. If this is the kind of action proposed by the New Democratic party, I think I would be very pleased to see them vote in favour of this kind of tax increase which would affect every workingman in this country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have before us an amendment which asks that Bill No. C-136 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the basic amount of the old age security pension, as set out in clause 120. I know that Your Honour has ruled this amendment to be in order, but I am very concerned about what we are going to do with Bill No. C-136 if we do get back into committee of the whole house to reconsider clause 120. Because obviously there is no possibility of any private member or any member of this house, other than a minister of the crown, moving an amendment to clause 120 which would in fact increase the basic amount of the old age security pension; and in the debate which we have had thus far the amount suggested is $100 a month. So that leaves the members of this house, if they want to follow the rules which ought to be followed, with only one alternative, one course of action, and that is to use the time allotted for debate to try to impress upon the government that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) should come back to this house with a resolution or amendment which would give effect to this suggested increase.
So, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the objections that were raised as to the propriety of this amendment, I would suggest that at this stage this is the only avenue open to us.
We in this party have long advocated that the basic amount of the old age security pension should be substantially higher than it has been in the past, and is now. I say that because I think that there is a fairly sound argument economically to support the contention that it would be desirable in Canada to have a higher old age security pension. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) has suggested that it is going to cost some-
Canada Pension Plan
thing like $810 million to change the basic amount of the old age security pension at age 65 from $75 to $100 a month.
I should like to remind him that it may well be that there would be an expenditure of this particular amount if the Old Age Security Act were amended accordingly. But I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are other expenditures of the federal government, large expenditures, which would be lessened to a considerable degree if in fact the old age pension was increased. For example, we know that there are a large number of senior citizens who find themselves unable to cope with the cost of living on a mere $75 a month. These people are therefore obliged to seek income from other sources. In many cases this is done by retaining jobs and positions in our economy from which under other circumstances they would have retired.
In addition, during the past number of years there has been a tremendous expenditure through the unemployment insurance commission to provide for the unemployed people in our economy. We know, for example, that in 1957 there were $920 million odd in the unemployment insurance fund which during the following four years was completely dissipated. Over and above that there were other substantial payments or grants or loans made by the federal government to this fund.
It seems to me that if we were to increase the basic amount of the old age security pension it would be possible for some of our senior citizens to retire from jobs which they are now obliged to retain in spite of their advancing years. If this were done it would open up an opportunity for the younger people to take on some of these vacated jobs. I suggest it also follows that there would be a substantial decrease in the amount of money required to sustain the unemployment insurance commission payments. So that the figure of $810 million advanced by the Minister of National Revenue, while that may be the expenditure under the particular act, is not a true reflection of the cost to the federal treasury because there could be savings made in other areas.
There is one other very interesting point that ought to be mentioned, Mr. Speaker. If one reads financial newspapers today he will see opinions advanced almost daily to the effect that one of the main props supporting Canada's buoyant economy is the level of consumer spending. Every single dollar increase in the old age pensioners' income in this country will immediately find its way

Canada Pension Plan
into additional consumer spending and thereby increase the whole level of economic activity which, as we all know, results in an increase in revenue to the government. For that reason, in addition to the others I have advanced, the $810 million figure does not truly represent the balance of cost to the government.
In some respects we have recognized, but only partially, that consumer spending on the part of recipients of the old age security pension would strengthen the prop to the buoyancy of Canada's economy. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has suggested that all things are contained in the amendment; but very clearly they are not. The amendment simply suggests that we refer this back to the committee. I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) can be persuaded to bring forth an amendment to clause 120 which will give effect to some of the things suggested in respect of sending the bill back to the committee. Otherwise there is really no possible benefit which can be achieved by supporting the amendment.
There are several other clauses in Bill C-136 which ought to be reconsidered. I can assure the house that I have long been an advocate of a portable pension plan for Canadians which would allow earned pension benefits, including employer contributions and pension fund earnings, to remain with the individual who earned them even though he changed his job. All Canadians should have the opportunity to participate in a Canada pension plan, whether they belong to a large or small payroll group, or are self-employed. The bill as it now stands does not in my view provide the kind of universal contributory pension plan which would in fact give effect to those things I have mentioned.
There are a number of very complex clauses that deal with what is called an earnings related pension scheme. We have this matter of maximum contributions related to what might be termed net income during certain years, referred to in clause 16. Clause 20 refers to a pension index, and clause 21 refers to an earnings index. As far as I am concerned, income is clearly defined at the present time by the Income Tax Act, and we do not need all this complexity in arriving at what an employee, or any Canadian, may have earned by way of pension benefit. It seems to me that we could have a far more effective and simple bill to meet the needs of Canadians who do not now have access to pension funds, by simply relating the contributions to the

benefits within the scope or limit of both a minimum and maximum, basing the contributions very easily on an option clause. I am not suggesting that it would be possible to have a universal pension plan without adopting some minimum contribution related to earnings, nor am I suggesting that there should not be a maximum. However, we must realize that self-employed individuals particularly have irregular levels of net income. If during the period of years used to establish benefits payable under a Canada pension plan to a self-employed individual he has received a low level of earnings, under the provisions of Bill C-136 he would be prevented from earning maximum benefits under the plan as it now stands.
I suggest that perhaps half of the Bill C-136 could be eliminated by relating the benefits to contributions, leaving some options in so far as the amount of contribution is concerned. I hope there will be some amendments suggested by the minister, even if not this year, which will simplify this plan so that benefits can be directly related to contributions, and so the contributions can be based on an option within limits imposed by a minimum and a maximum.
We need a universal contributory pension plan in Canada. Every Canadian, no matter whom he works for, or whether he is selfemployed, should have the opportunity to earn benefits under such a plan. The plan now before us for consideration is so complex and restrictive as to the amount of contribution that can be made, and as to the benefits that can be earned, that in my opinion it is a long way from being something that could be called a universal contributory pension plan.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) have repeatedly tried to explain this earnings related pension benefit part of the plan. We have had some argument as to whether the plan is actuarially sound, although the minister has continually stated that it is. If the plan is in fact actuarially sound, then there is no valid reason that any Canadian should be prevented from making contributions in excess of 3.6 per cent of net income, if he so chooses, up to a predetermined maximum.
Mr. Speaker, those are a few of the comments I wanted to make before this plan becomes law. Whether or not we reconsider clause 120 is something the house will decide in a few minutes. I hope the minister will be prepared to come forward with an amend-

ment which will give effect to a change in the basic amount of old age security pensions. Whether she does or not, I hope she will give some serious reconsideration to the tremendous complexities of this plan in an attempt to develop something which might be truthfully and properly referred to as a universal contributory pension plan to which all Canadians from all parts of our economic structure will have access, with the opportunity of contracting for the amount of pension benefits they wish to earn.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is necessary to retain some direction in connection with our debates and proceedings, I must say that I hope there will be some action taken with respect to clause 120 if it goes back to the committee. Certainly I must agree that there was a rather extended study of the matter when the bill was in committee of the whole, but supporting this amendment will be nothing but an exercise in futility unless the government comes forward with some kind of an amendment of its own. We know very well that no private member of the house can move such an amendment. Therefore if the bill does go back to the committee we will look forward to receiving notice from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) that the government is prepared to make substantial amendments to clause 120.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to intervene for a few moments because of the remarks that were made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson). Although he did not actually say so, I felt that he was somewhat impatient.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: "Bad-tempered" is the word.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I did not want to be that rude. Throughout the entire consideration of the bill the government has been impatient to move along with it and has taken a dogmatic attitude with regard to not considering any changes suggested by the opposition. It is this attitude which is the reason that we are in the position in which we find ourselves at this time.
We have a very peculiar situation. First of all, and I regret this for the second or third time, the members who sit to our immediate left could have endeavoured to secure a similar result by voting for our amendment; but instead, they voted against our amendment the other day. Now, however, they are proposing something similar by way of an amendment. The hon. member for Medicine 20220-817
Canada Pension Plan
Hat (Mr. Olson) endeavoured to show that the amendment was out of order, but at the same time supported it. He also said it might be an exercise in futility and, as I suggested a few moments ago, I agree.
The government's position in this regard has been altogether too adamant and too dictatorial. They must realize that the move they made in order to make pensions payable at age 65 was agreed to by all members of the house. When the Minister of National Revenue suggests that we are filibustering against a wage related pension plan I would have him understand first and foremost that he is wrong. I will not say that the members of our party will vote 100 per cent in favour of the bill, but their vote will not be far from being unanimous and will indicate where we stand in this regard when the vote is taken.
The Minister of National Revenue also mentioned the heavy burden that would be placed on people earning $4,000 to $5,000 so far as taxes are concerned if the amendment now before us were implemented. I suggest that the situation is a peculiar one. In the bill as it now stands the exemptions are $600 for the employed person and $800 for the self-employed person. I suggest right away that this is one area where the government has been very remiss. If they had only seen fit to set the exemption level at $1,200 or $1,500 across the board they would have been doing something very valuable for the country. But they know that in the field of agriculture particularly their policy is wrong, and that net incomes in some cases are considerably below such a figure. I suggest to the Minister of National Revenue that he should investigate the possibility of raising the exemption level. I heard him make the comment the other evening that this was something toward which we should move and I suggest it is the correct and proper thing to do. The exemption level should be raised considerably.
With circumstances such as they are in Canada today, surely we should not have any great number of Canadians who are in this position. Yet we know this is the case. This is what I was trying to say the other night, and I am glad you are allowing me these few minutes to put these matters on the record, Mr. Speaker, because it is the last time I will have the opportunity to speak. I was amazed to find that a recent survey conducted in an area of the province of Ontario indicated that in some cases net incomes were a minus figure. They were not $600 or $800. These two figures are also rather perplexing because as soon as the self-employed man,

Canada Pension Plan
which I am, makes $801 he is taxable for an additional $201. I believe I am right in my statement. That too is a very peculiar situation.
Let us not be deceived as to the position we find ourselves in this afternoon. I intend to support the amendment, but I am only voting for it because I am in favour of the end result. That is more than the members of the N.D.P. were when our amendment was before the house. Therefore I suggest to the house they must have some other motive for moving this amendment. Maybe they are against a wage related plan. I do not know; but I am not. The area of responsibility about which the Minister of National Revenue spoke falls directly on the shoulders of the government. He mentioned this the other evening when we were discussing this very point. His position is a valid one, but when the government takes the adamant and dictatorial attitude that they will not consider anything emanating from the opposition, how else can we move? If he says we are irresponsible, then he had better find out what the old people of the country are thinking today.
One member to my left made the point that this money would be put into circulation immediately and would increase consumer spending. I believe that to be correct. I do not think any member of the house deals with more welfare cases in his constituency than I do, and I find in each and every case that even such an amount of money is not too much if one has to exist on it. It is an easy thing for members of the government party to shrug off this matter and there is no doubt they are going to vote solidly in a block. You can bet your last nickel on that. The whip will be out and they will have no alternative but to vote against the amendment. In other words, there is not one drop of the milk of human kindness left in the hearts of those members who support the government.
When the statement is made that consumer spending would be increased, that is certainly true. So far as any burden that might be created is concerned it does not matter whether it is covered by the Canada pension plan or by other taxation. The fact is that these people need the money. From correspondence that arrived in my office this morning I can show you that these people need additional funds. Of course, something might be done in the field of old age assistance. I am not familiar with the plans of other provinces but in the province of Ontario there are supplementary benefits for medical

care and so on, but people are not totally covered.
It seems to me that the government is trying to restrict their plan because the next carrot they will hold out will probably be a medicare plan or maybe another $25 at some future time. But if they want to act in a responsible way they will agree to an increase in old age security while we are considering this plan. They will do so while this plan is under discussion. If the minister is prepared to introduce an amendment of that sort he will find that we will support the bill and maybe even pass it this evening. That is my attitude at least, and I am sure I can convince my colleagues to do the same. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this evening are the following: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), British Columbia, power, fish protection in dam construction; the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), labour conditions, assistance to displaced workers in automobile industry; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Canadian National Railways, Toronto, lease of unused spur line for parking purposes.
At six o'clock the house to took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the third reading 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Prittie.
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was indicating some of the reasons why I felt the government was shirk-

ing a certain sense of responsibility by not considering these measures that were placed before it during the committee hearings, and again when the bill was returned to the House of Commons. Now we are on third reading and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) mentioned in his rather heated remarks that it seemed to him that the opposition, on all sides, were against a wage related-


Edgar John Benson: I never get heated.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -against a wage related contributory pension plan, and I had assured him it was not the case so far as members of this party are concerned.
As the minister well knows, this is not the attitude of all Canadians. It has not been the attitude of senior civil servants, and in this context I am thinking of the views expressed by John Kroeker when he took such a position in regard to the Canada pension plan that he saw fit to stand down. Right or wrong, this was a very valuable stand in order to bring to the attention of Canadians what some of the circumstances are.
If I may be permitted I shall refer briefly to what Mr. Kroeker had to say about the plan:
There is no reasonable basis on which this plan can become law. At best, it is well intentioned bungling. At worst, it is a colossal fraud on all Canadians. It is an assumed solution to an assumed problem

 This plan is not the child of
reason and liberty. It is a creature of propaganda and fear.
There are quite a number of other quotations I could use, but this gentleman was going on to point out that on most occasions this sort of thing is used as a political carrot, and indeed that may well be. I just guessed before six o'clock, following the words of the Minister of National Revenue, that this could be a tremendous point at this stage if members of the house would not give in. This is the sort of thing upon which the government might well think it could go to the country, but this is not the case when over a million people are going to be left out of the plan.
I abhor the very thought of the restriction that is placed on many people in my own area, in regard to the income exemption. It indicates these circumstances exist. All the letters which have come into my office, with one exception-and it did not come from my constituency-support the stand this party took in relation to the $100 at age 65.
I only accept the N.D.P. amendment as the worst of the two situations. I understand some of their members have gone across the coun-20220-817i
Canada Pension Plan
try saying they proposed this and nobody else would agree with them, but never once did they agree with our proposal which would give the same end result. Our people first put this proposal in the committee, our people first put it in the House of Commons, and were the first to put it on third reading. I regret to say we did not receive their support on any one occasion, yet I am asking my people to support their amendment this evening. I know they all will not do it. I would like to see this matter reach a vote, but I do not think all our members will agree to it.
To sum up briefly the interjections I have made in this debate, I will say once more that all through the consideration of this bill the government has taken the position that it would not bend to any suggestions put forward by the opposition. I have made very clear what my individual position is, and if this proposal is not carried you can bet your last penny, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a carrot in the next election campaign or, if not, in the one after that.
In concluding my brief remarks all I say is, surely to goodness the reputation of the government is bad enough today. It needs a little building up, and all we are trying to do is support it in that building up, tough as that job may be. We would like to try to create a little better image for the government, if only it had the common sense to accept a reasonable change. We regret our amendment was ruled out, but we put it forward in such a way that it would find agreement with the majority of people in this house. Nobody can tell me those who opposed it will go out on the hustings and say they were 100 per cent against $100 at age 65. But the whip is on. They have got to listen; they have got to heel; they have got to obey. If the government would only listen to some constructive criticism and suggestions from the opposition it would look much better than it does at present.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate. I had felt that the members from this party who sat on the joint committee and studied the Canada pension plan, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), and the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) could express the point of view of our party quite adequately, and for that reason it was my intention to stay out of the debate.

Canada Pension Plan
However, the ill-timed end ill-mannered intervention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) this afternoon-


Edgar John Benson: Ill-mannered?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -constrains me to take part in this debate.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: You mean he has no right to speak?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Because of his childish outburst-


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of National Revenue on a point of order.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, is the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) saying that I have no right to speak in this chamber?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the minister is rising on a point of order, would the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam resume his seat?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar John Benson: What I want to say-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No one denies the right of the minister to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister rose and asked for the floor on a point of order, and the Chair recognized him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thought he had finished.


Edgar John Benson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member does not mean to imply that I have no right to stand up and speak my thoughts on this particular matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was on the point of saying, of course the minister has a perfect right to speak. He has no right, however, to come into the house and accuse the members of this party of filibustering and obstructing, and seeking to kill the Canada pension plan. That is a statement which is completely inaccurate, and if the minister is going to take up the time of the house in making irresponsible attacks like that then, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to reply to him. I do not know whether the minister is trying to run interference for his own legislation or not, but he is certainly going about it the best way that I know.
The minister this afternoon said that the members of this group were filibustering this plan, that we were obstructing.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Accusations that the plan is being delayed come with poor grace from a government which introduced this legislation on July 18, 1963 and has had it on and off the order paper again and again since then because of its own ineptitude and failure to consult with the premier of the province of Quebec and reach some agreement prior to bringing in the legislation. If this legislation has taken nearly two years to go through this house the real fault lies with the incompetence of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) talked about delaying the passage of this legislation I should like to remind you, sir, that it was held up for five days because this government was so inefficient that it did not even have the evidence translated and printed in French.
These are the people who now object to our party introducing a simple amendment dealing with a point which we think is of great importance. These are the people who held up the whole business of passing this legislation for five days because of their failure to carry out the ordinary procedure of translating the evidence. As a matter of fact the amendment which has been produced by my hon. friend from Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) does not deal with the Canada pension plan at all; it deals with the old age security pension, and the fact that the legislation we are now being asked to pass does nothing at all for the hundreds of thousands of people who are at present retired and who will get no benefit whatsoever from the Canada pension plan. The minister said this afternoon we were endeavouring to kill this plan. I should like to point out that this party probably more than any party in Canada popularized the idea of a portable pension plan in this country.
At the convention in 1961 we outlined such a plan in two parts, one part to take care of those who would contribute over the years and who would be entitled to a retirement pension, and the other part to deal with those who had already retired or who would retire before the full benefits of this pension were available to them. While the Canada pension plan will be of some assistance in providing adequate security for those who can benefit from it, it is not designed to help those who have already retired. When the minister is so foolhardy as to suggest we are trying to kill the pension plan I would say to him that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. MARCH 29, 1965
Knowles) probably knows as much about this plan as anybody on the other side, if not more, and has worked harder than anybody in this house to get this legislation passed.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. *Winkler) has just said that we failed to support the Conservative amendment. The reason has been made clear. We refused to do so because in our opinion it would undermine the Canada pension plan. As we made clear in the convention of 1961 setting out our ideas, we thought the Canada pension plan should stand on its own feet, that it should be designed to help those who contribute to it and therefore assistance to those unable to benefit under the plan should come by way of old age security legislation.
I can understand the Minister of National Revenue being in a temper this afternoon. Whenever the Liberals fail to get their own way, whenever members of the house are not prepared to rush in and vote for anything the government puts before them they are accused of filibustering and obstruction. The fact is members opposite do not want it drawn to the attention of the people of Canada just how shabbily they are treating the old people of this country. This government ought to be ashamed of the treatment it is meting out to the old people of Canada who have to live on nothing else but their old age pensions. A pension of $75 a month with the cost of living where it is today, having risen by more than one third since 1949, is completely inadequate to maintain even a minimum standard of decency for these older people. That is why the government wants this rushed through.


An hon. Member:: Twenty three days?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They do not want anyone to talk about the fact that they have neglected the old age pensioners. The Liberal record on welfare and health is so phony they do not want attention drawn to it. They want everyone to stand up and sing paeans of praise for this legislation. They would like to forget that before the election their party was promising a portable pension plan which on a premium of li per cent would pay one third of the average income which participants had received, with a maximum pension of $167 a month, plus the old age security pension. That is what they were promising-$167 a month on a payment of a premium of 1^ per cent. Now they are bringing before this house legislation providing for a premium of 1.8 per cent and a maximum pension of $104 a month. This is why hon. members opposite
Canada Pension Plan
would like this business swept under the rug as quickly as possible. This is why the Minister of National Revenue wants as little debate as possible and why he hurls accusations of obstruction and filibuster.


An hon. Member:: Twenty three days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Members opposite would like the Canadian people to forget the promises they made prior to the election, promises which were more generous.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Since the hon. member is suggesting that the amount is so meagre, perhaps he would be good enough to tell the house why it is that his amendment has to do with only one part of the bill, a part which has nothing to do with the benefits under the Canada pension plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can easily answer that. We have already made all the protests we can in connection with the Canada pension plan. We are prepared to move further amendments if the hon. lady wishes. We have said repeatedly that we think 25 per cent of the average earnings of the participants is too low; it is certainly lower than Liberal promises prior to the election. But if we can get the legislation on the statute books there is at least hope that the percentage may be increased. But the one group which has not been dealt with at all is the group consisting of old age pensioners who have already retired or who will not be eligible for benefits. That is why this amendment has been moved.
The Minister of National Revenue has once again built his whole case on the statement that we cannot afford to raise the old age security pension to, let us say, $100 a month. This is the song we have heard from the minister again and again. He will be known as "we-can't-afford-it Benson" if he keeps this up for long. The minister does not say, of course, that we cannot afford to spend $1,550 million a year on defence. A return which has been made to the house shows that since the end of the war we have spent $22.5 billion on defence. The minister does not suggest we cannot afford that. But he says we cannot afford to raise the pensions of those 65 and over to $100 a month.
He goes on to give some strange reasons. He says it would mean the taxation of the workers. It is rather characteristic of the pattern of thinking of a Liberal government that whenever they think about taxes, they think about taxes on workers. That was shown by the fact that when this pension

Canada Pension Plan
plan was introduced it called for a premium of 1 per cent because it was to be a pay as you go pension plan. However, in the process of negotiations with the provinces the premium has been raised to 1.8 per cent and it is now a partially funded plan. The workers of this country and the employers are going to pay one third more than they really need to pay in order to supply social capital for the provinces. I do not for one moment object to raising social capital for the provinces, but I say that if we require social capital for the provinces there are better ways to get it than by taxing people of $5,000 a year and less. If the government want to raise capital, then there are those in higher income brackets who could afford to pay very generously toward providing social capital for the provinces. But the government's thinking always follows the lines of, "How can you tax workers?"
Let me suggest to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) that he could raise the money to increase the old age pension to $100 a month at 65 years of age by taxing some of his friends. There are certain places where he might get this $820 million which he says it will cost. For instance, he could take the ceiling off the 4 per cent income tax charge on incomes. At the present time the old age security tax of 4 per cent is only levied on the first $3,000 of taxable income. The minister could take the ceiling off. There is no reason why those with large incomes could not contribute to providing security to the older people in this country. Did that ever occur to the minister? Did it ever occur to the minister that he could also raise the old age security tax from 3 per cent to 4 per cent on corporations? The personal income tax levy for old age security purposes has been raised to 4 per cent; there is no reason why the tax on corporations could not also be raised to 4 per cent.
One can hardly pick up a financial paper these days but one finds corporation after corporation reporting increased profits. Here is the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company reporting profits of $39,136,000 for 1964-up 31 per cent. B.C. Forest Products, profits up 27.3 per cent. One might go on with the long list. Profits have never been higher in the history of Canada than they were in 1964. Did it ever occur to the minister that if he needs revenue from which to pay higher pensions to the old people of this country, the tax on profits could be increased? Has the minister given any thought to a capital gains tax in this country? If we are

going to tax people who make $3,000, $4,000 and $5,000 a year, as we do, and tax people who make this money by the sweat of their brow, is there any reason why we should not tax people who make tens of thousands of dollars from land speculation and from playing the stock market?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And those who draw provincial pensions?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And those who draw provincial pensions. Anything that they draw should be taxable. If the minister were as interested in a capital gains tax as she is in provincial pensions, I think that would be appropriate; but her mind, as usual, runs to nickels and dimes and she is always careful to avoid stepping on the toes of her friends. She is a typical Liberal, and every once in a while it slips out in spite of her charm.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would be glad to answer the question when I have finished, Mr. Speaker, if the minister would like to ask it then. I would like to finish the point I am making right now. The minister knows better than anyone in this house that the real answer to financing an increase in the old age pension lies in increasing productivity in this country. This has already been proven. The government has granted an increase of $10 a month in the old age security pension; they have announced that over the next five years they are going to progressively reduce the age at which the pension will be paid-and they are going to be able to do this without increasing the taxation rate. There is only one reason, and that is that the government anticipates an increase in productivity.


Erik Nielsen: They anticipate an election.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Hall commission report on health services has two very excellent chapters in which they project the possibilities for economic growth in this country from 1961 to 1991. They point out that for every percentage point that we can reduce unemployment, we will increase the gross national product of Canada by over $4 billion annually. About a quarter of this will find its way in various forms back into the federal treasury. The government of Canada can finance this $820 million account to which the minister has referred by promoting sufficient economic growth so that we can reduce unemployment by one percentage point. If we can reduce it by two percentage points, we can finance not only an increase

in old age pensions but go a long way toward financing a medicare program as well. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no better way to stimulate economic growth than to put purchasing power into the pockets of these old people who would be the main beneficiaries of raising the pension to $100 a month.
The economic council of Canada have pointed out that the greatest lack in our economy today is the lack of effective demand; and if we are to have effective demand then purchasing power must be put into the pockets of those who will buy consumer goods. There is no group more likely to spend income on the purchase of consumer goods than these people of 65 years of age and over. I doubt if there is anything the government could do that would stimulate and promote growth more rapidly than to increase the old age pension, as we have suggested, to $100 a month and make it payable at 65 years of age.
It is not my intention to hold up the passage of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, but I want to point out that the members of this party have promoted the idea of a Canada pension plan. We have supported it in the joint committee. We have supported it in this house. When the minister makes a statement that we are trying to filibuster it and that we are trying to kill it-


An hon. Member:: You are.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -that statement is inaccurate, and I think the minister knew it was inaccurate when he made it. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we will support this plan, but we will insist, as we are insisting through this amendment, that this house should stop and give some consideration to the hundreds and thousands of men and women in this country who will get no benefit from the Canada pension plan. They are a responsibility on the conscience of this house, and we will not have discharged that responsibility unless we do something for them at this time.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, as I have already expressed my views on the motion for second reading, I neither want to waste the time of the house nor be criticized by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) who suggested a few minutes ago that the opposition was trying by filibustering tactics to prevent the passing of this so-called social measure.
Canada Pension Plan
I do not think the Minister of National Revenue was right in saying that the three days spent in clearly expressing our views on Bill No. C-136 in the house were a waste of time. I find it rather strange that when we were called upon, last Thursday, to consider an amendment to refer back the bill to the committee of the whole in order to reconsider the basic amount of the old age pension, although the house had already been in committee of the whole for the past 21 days, the press as well as television and radio news bulletins were all pointing out that the matter was urgent and that the house had wasted 21 days on Bill No. C-136.
As a matter of fact, those who introduced an amendment last Friday were the first ones to ask us, last Thursday, to pass the bill as quickly as possible. It was urgent.
Today government members are saying it is urgent while those on this side of the house suggest it is no longer so. In fact, last Friday afternoon was spent in discussing whether the proposed amendment was out of order or not, the final vote being taken at five o'clock.
The amendment now before us bears a strange resemblance to that of last Friday, designed to send the bill back to committee.
The previous speaker referred a while ago to the tremendous job the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had done to promote the passing of Bill No. C-136. I know he certainly co-operated closely with the government to have the motion for second reading passed. As a matter of fact, everything possible was done to prevent a motion from being discussed during the question period, precisely to hasten the passing of the motion for second reading. And now we are going to start discussing all over again, for a week's time, whether or not the bill should go back to committee.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is not a game of cat and mouse going on by way of points of order to find out how political capital can be made. In fact, the purpose seems to be to use the motion on third reading to urge the government to increase the basic pension to $100 per month through an amendment to clause 120.
I think it would also have been proper last week to allow us to put forward all the arguments that were referred to in relation to the amendments moved last Friday and this afternoon.
When the house was in committee, I pointed out several times that it might be an error to adopt the fourth part that was annexed
[2920

Canada Pension Plan
to Bill No. C-136 and that it could be misleading for the public concerning old age pensions.
I do not think that the matter is being made clearer. In fact, it is more confused than ever. Judging from remarks by Conservative and government members and from what the previous speaker was saying a while ago, there is not so much urgency.
In July 1963, a resolution concerning the adoption of a compulsory pension plan was brought before the house. This is now March 1965 and I think it can truly be said that we do have a stable government in the sense that it stays put, going neither forward nor backward, but always staying at the same spot. Such a state of affairs has been going on for two years.
Three babies were presented to us with regard to the old age pension and now on the motion for third reading, having passed hastily the motion for second reading, they want the bill to be referred back to the committee. Are we being serious or not?
Those who moved an amendment last week claimed that it was possible, out of the contributions paid under the first three parts of the bill, to increase the amount from $75 to $100. At that time, we abstained from voting. We were left free to vote or not, according to our conscience, even if we were in the house.
We did not fall into that trap. We feel that it is a mistake to include part IV in Bill No. C-136. The proposed amendment requests that the bill be sent back to the committee in order to study again a possible amendment to clause 120 to change the basis of the pensions under old age security. Not only was it considered previously by the committee but it prompted a second resolution. It was found that Bill No. C-136 could include all the possible judicial and legal responsibilities from the constitutional point of view, with regard to the province of Quebec or other provinces, which are empowered to legislate in the field of social security. Finally the bill was completed by adding part IV to it.
It is proposed to go back to the committee now that this has been approved on second reading. Yet, when the opposition asks for a revision of the basic old age pension, under social security, hon. members opposite answer by quoting figures like $821 million.
The hon. member who spoke before me gave figures which bear repeating.
It was stated that since 1945, nearly $22 billion were allocated for defence in peace-

time. It could also be pointed out that the blue book which was tabled last week does not seemingly call for any great reduction of defence expenditures, even though we are still at peace.
In my opinion, the senior citizens who would greatly benefit if they were to get old age pensions of $100 instead of $75 would not feel too kindly toward the Liberal party if they heard that national defence appropriations in peacetime were not reduced by a single cent even but that, for lack of funds, they will be deprived of such an increase.
An increase in old age pensions would cost $821 million. At once, they hasten to say that new taxes would have to be established. They never admit that it is the financial system which compels the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well as the Minister of National Revenue to take $5 out of Peter's pocket to give it to Paul. They will not admit it. This is a real compulsion system.
Of the four ministers who will have to administer this bill, none will get money elsewhere than in the pockets of the taxpayer every time a step forward is taken in the field of social security.
If war broke out tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue as well as the Minister of Finance or the other ministers would not wonder if we should make our war effort, as long as we would have materials, natural resources and unemployed who would then have no more problems. There would be no financial objection to our participation in world carnage, as it happened in the past.
But when it comes to increasing by $25 a month a pension consistent with the needs of people 65 years and over in this country, they invoke all the fiscal arguments, those dictated beforehand by finance to the Minister of National Revenue and to the Minister of Finance.
I pity the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is caught in that strait-jacket. If, with all the generosity in the world, she would commiserate with older people and allow those people who gave 30 or 40 years of their life to their country, to have a little comfort in this century of plenty, she would be caught between a Minister of Finance and a Minister of National Revenue who would cut down her ambitions, because we are always restricted.
The amendment now before us asks that the whole question be referred to the committee. I am not against the bill being re-

ferred back to the committee, and I must say I shall vote for this amendment, but not before proposing a subamendment which, I hope, will give cause for reflection to some of those who would not understand at the proper time, when we were already in committee and should have taken all the time required to study part IV of Bill C-136.
This amendment prompts the Minister of National Revenue to ask himself: Where will the money come from? We shall have to increase some taxes that taxpayers will be unable to bear.
Always the same arguments.
Some will no doubt say that we always put forward the same arguments ourselves, but it is because it is just as true today as it was yesterday.
Governments are restricted by the financial system which entirely controls them in the sphere of security as well as in other areas.
A moment ago I said that should a war break out, we could obtain the few billions of dollars required. But we cannot obtain the few billions necessary to assist persons who have reached the age of 65 and who cannot afford to live decently, who cannot pay for the medical care their health requires, who, in many cases, cannot pay the cost of decent housing, lead a modest family life, between father and mother, without being dependant on the son-in-law, the daughter or the son.
We are restricted; we have no funds unless we dig deeper into the taxpayers' pockets.
If there is a field where the state should assume its responsibilities, it is precisely that of social security, and this, in a suppletory role acknowledged by every political philosophy of the world; the government should certainly play a suppletory part from time to time, if necessary, but not carry out a complete substitution, as in Bill No. C-136. It should only meet the needs of those unable to obtain by themselves the money required to manage their own affairs and profit as much as possible from the abundant resources of their country.
Material resources are not lacking in our country to bring security to older citizens while respecting their freedom.
Goodwill or outside pressure in favour of a revision of the pension plan are surely not lacking.
I am just about sure that if a free vote were taken in the house on the advisability of increasing to $100 a month the pension of people 65 and over, 99 per cent of hon. members would be in favour of such a boost, if 20220-818
Canada Pension Plan
they voted according to their conscience. However, the vote will again go along party lines; once again, it will reflect the dictum of finance.
Who runs this country? Is it this parliament of 265 members or the financiers, those controllers of the economic blood of our nation who ration the purchasing power of the aged?
People of 65 or older surely have a right to some control through us and they need better understanding from their leaders if they are to enjoy a little welfare in such a rich country as Canada.
Why not admit the possibility of getting the necessary funds to enable the state to play its supplementary role, by participating directly though new credits secured from the Bank of Canada to increase the consuming power of those people, which will do nothing worse-as stated a little earlier by the hon. member who spoke before me-than increase productivity in the next five or ten years, not to mention that this will also increase the purchasing power of the people who will benefit from that increased pension?
It must be remembered that at the present time a great number of people get social security or an old age pension, but that a large number of them are almost regularly short of money before the end of the month or the arrival of their cheque.
It means that this would simply increase the consuming power; thus, the consuming power of those people being increased, by the same token productivity is increased, which is a policy more in keeping with the needs of the people than that which today is only concerned with creating needs through advertising. This would allow people with needs to be met at this time to buy the products they require not through advertising, but to order basic things, such as medical care, adequate food, adequate housing, adequate clothing.
The proposed amendment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, to whom I have been listening attentively for the last few minutes. I do not wish to tie him down by restrictions not enforced on other hon. members who participated in the debate on third reading, but I would like to remind him that at this stage, the debate is strictly confined to the substance of the bill which is the subject matter of the motion under consideration.

Canada Pension Plan


Gérard Perron: I abide by your advice, Mr. Speaker, but I thought we were discussing an amendment to refer the bill back to the committee for the purpose of amendments to clause 120 providing for a change in the basic amount through an adjustment-I do not have here the text of clause 120, but I believe that it deals with an adjustment.
This matter was discussed a few minutes ago, and the minister admitted, during the debate on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), that this would cost $821 million. I believe I am quite in order when I quote figures. This would cost $821 million, but not over and above the present cost; it would cost a few hundred millions more in order to increase the pension from $75 to $100, or to revise the basic amount of the pension under the Old Age Security Act, or part IV of Bill No. C-136.
Therefore, I thought that I could continue making remarks of that nature, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Revenue claimed that such an amendment or the study of such a resolution in committee would be out of order.
I understand that it has been decided, or as least so it seems, by our hon. friends opposite, that the bill must remain as it is; they are quite reluctant to accept amendments. Mr. John Meyers, editorial writer of a Montreal newspaper, told us about 15 days ago that no important amendment to the bill had been passed, even after 51 sittings of the committee, where experts expressed contrary opinions to those of certain experts or advisers of the government.
I really thought that proposed amendments would be more readily accepted, but I think, from what I could understand from the minister's statement, that they are not ready to accept them.
However, before concluding, I repeat that my group is fully in favour of referring back this measure to the committee to enable the government to consider the advisability of increasing or of reconsidering the basic payments to the pension recipients, in accordance with part IV, under the social security act.
However, I would like to move a subamendment to bring about the necessary distinction which will enable us to vote for the amendment.
I move this amendment, Mr. Speaker, precisely because two resolutions or motions quite different had to be moved to include in Bill No. C-136 the part affecting the old age security pension, affecting it because

from now on till 1970, the right to pension of all persons of 65 years of age and over in 1970 will be reduced, and affecting also indirectly an act which has been amended from the constitutional standpoint so as to allow, under the Old Age Assistance Act, a pension already existing between the provinces and the federal government for persons of 65 years of age and over.
Considering these facts, as two different resolutions have been moved, as the two parts-and especially this part of Bill No. C-136, part IV, is so different that a special motion was needed to include it in the bill, I move, seconded by Mr. Gilbert Rondeau:
That the following words be added after the words "the said bill":
And that the committee of the whole house recommend also that a separate vote be taken on part IV of Bill C-136, on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the Chair is called upon to express an opinion or render a ruling on whether the proposed subamendment is or is not out of order, I wonder whether any hon. members wish to express their views on this point? If not, I believe I am in a position to express an opinion, and I should like first to read the subamendment as proposed by the hon. member.

The subamendment was moved in the following terms:
That the following words be added after the words "the said bill":
And that the committee of the whole house recommend also that a separate vote be taken on part IV of Bill No. C-136, on third reading.
On that point, I would refer the hon. member to paragraph (3) of citation 202, in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which says:
Since the purpose of a subamendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment-
It seems obvious to me that the subamendment moved by the hon. member tends to enlarge upon the scope of the amendment.
The paragraph goes on to say:
If it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
In the circumstances, I have to rule the hon. member's amendment out of order.

Is the house ready for the question?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the amendment that has just been submitted deals specifically with one part of the bill-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member for Shefford that the Chair has considered the amendment to the amendment and stated it was not in order. Therefore, he cannot further debate it.

Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment
lost.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote; I was paired with the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve).


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean).


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Ouellel:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Postmaster General (Mr. Tremblay). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Canada Pension Plan
[Textl


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the final vote on third reading on Bill No. C-136 is taken we feel that there is one remaining issue with which the house should deal. That issue has to do with the date at which age 65 as the new eligible age for old age security is to come into effect. We did deal with this matter when we were in committee of the whole. As a matter of fact, on March 15, as recorded at page 12379 of Hansard, there were two standing votes in committee on this question. In one instance we on this side lost by a vote of 86 to 51. A few minutes later we lost by a vote of 87 to 52.
We in this party, Mr. Speaker, feel that the house should deal with this question, and we can deal with it very simply. Clause 119 of the bill specifies that the qualifying age for the old age security pension is 65. That provision in clause 119 is qualified, however, by the provision of clause 122, which stipulates that for the next few years persons under 70 will not get the old age security pension except on the basis of the eligible age coming down a year at a time. This matter can be taken care of very simply. All that needs to be done is for clause 122 to be voted down in committee of the whole. If that is to be done the bill will have to be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 122.
Therefore, in a minute or so I shall propose just such an amendment. I make it clear that what we are asking for is that the house support the principle that the government has accepted, namely that the old age security pension should be paid at age 65. But we ask that instead of the full implementation of this provision having to wait until 1970, it be given immediate effect upon the final approval of Bill C-136, which we hope is now imminent.
As we pointed out when we were debating this matter in committee of the whole, the government itself has found it possible to provide for the full pension of $75 a month to be paid at ages below 70, without any increase in taxation. The increase which was enacted two years ago in order to pay an additional $10 by way of old age security has been found to be sufficient to pay the $75 a month on a sliding scale down to age 65 by 1970. We feel that by a further sharpening
[Mr. Ouellet.l
of pencils and by looking at such methods as those suggested a few moments ago when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) argued for the pension to be raised to $100 a month, this provision could be altered and the old age security pension, which is going to be effective at age 65 in five years, could become effective at that age right away.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been fully argued. There were votes on it in committee of the whole, but not all hon. members were here for those votes. More of them are here tonight and we think that this is the place where the decision should be made. Therefore, since no further argument is necessary, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That Bill No. C-136 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering clause 122 of the said bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether hon. members would agree to sit until eleven o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Do hon. members want to register their pairs?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean). I waited to announce my pair, so I might as well do so.
Canada Pension Plan


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Harley:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Postmaster General (Mr. Tremblay). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


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


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have just voted, and in order to clear up certain things concerning this quite complicated bill, I should like to point out to the house certain facts to support an amendment which I shall move later on.
On Friday, February 19 last, as can be seen in Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, No. 218, part IV of Bill No. C-136 was the subject of a resolution concerning precisely the annexing of that part of the bill. That resolution read as follows:
Miss LaMarsh, seconded by Mr. MacNaught, moved-That the house do go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:-
That Bill No. C-136, now before the house, be amended to authorize, in the place of the age-adjusted pension now provided for by part IV of the said bill, that a pension under the Old Age Security Act in the full amount of pension available to those who have attained 70 years of age be paid commencing 1 January 1966 to those who have attained 69 years of age, commencing 1 January 1967 to those who have attained 68 years of age, commencing 1 January 1968 to those have attained 67 years of age, commencing 1 January 1969 to those who have attained 66 years of age and commencing 1 January 1970 to those who have attained 65 years of age.
Resolved-That the house do go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the said proposed resolution.
It was necessary to propose a second resolution which was very specific in order to add that part IV to what is known, all across Canada, as old age security legislation.

Canada Pension Plan
But, so that no one will say that we were opposed to having that pension payable to every person who is 65 years of age in the near future, I think it would be proper, since we do not accept this Bill No. C-136 in all its complexity and even in its principle, as we logically and clearly explained at time of the first, second and even third reading of the said bill, for the house to take under consideration the amendment I am sending over to you. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford:
That two different votes be taken on Bill No. C-136, one on the part dealing with the pension plan as such, and the other on part IV of the bill dealing with the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this amendment would be hardly in order.
It may be that the hon. member intended to put this question before the committee of the whole house for consideration, but in making the motion in the terms he is using at this time, I regret to say that the motion is not in order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, can we express our opinions?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. It seems to me the ruling could be made rather easily by the Chair.
To my mind, there can be no doubt as to the amendment not being in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we appeal from your ruling.


Mr. Habel:: That shows how responsible Social Credit is.


The Deputy Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. member for Lapointe has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Would the hon. member for Lapointe resume his seat?

Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling.
To a motion for third reading 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, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) moved an amendment in the following terms:

That two different votes be taken on Bill No. C-136, one on the part dealing with the pension plan as such, and the other on part IV of the bill dealing with the Old Age Security Act.

The Chair ruled the amendment out of order from which decision the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) appealed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to remind the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) that during a vote he cannot come into the house or leave his seat. The point is not just to abstain from voting, but under standing orders he cannot enter the house and take his seat.
Order. I do not want to insist on applying the rules, I simply want to remind the hon. member about standing orders.


Mr. Caouette:: I shall go out now, Mr. Speaker.

After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the decision sustained.

Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the vote that was just conducted. It seems to me that we have in this house established the practice of having only two whips, one representing the government and the other representing the opposition; and the circumstances that we just experienced left, I think, something to be desired in the sense of British fair play. I suggest that this matter be given consideration by the members of the house and unless some consideration is given to it, in my opinion it would warrant a change of the rules under which we are operating.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will be pleased to bring the hon. member's remarks to the attention of the Speaker. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Miss LaMarsh, seconded by Mr. Benson, moves the third reading of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yeas and nays, please.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour will
please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May we have order for those members who want to declare their pairs.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. I too would have voted in favour of the motion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose submitting the opting out legislation first, and then interim supply.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand everybody's anxiety to get home. However, on March 25 I asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries on behalf of the united conservation front for Kootenay West which includes members supporting all parties and numerous organizations. I asked the question with the knowledge of the responsibility of the federal government for the protection of the commercial and sport fisheries in Canada. Rod and gun clubs, chambers of commerce and other groups are concerned about the danger of the possible extinction of the fish population of the Arrow lakes and other areas affected by the building of the High Arrow, Mica and Duncan dams as the result of the clearing of the basins according to the policy announced by the B.C. hydro and power authority.
My question to the minister was: Would the minister inform the house if he is aware of

this situation and what action the federal government intends to take to make certain that the fish population of these waters is conserved? This is a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker, and I shall quote briefly from a resolution passed by the Nelson rod and gun club which has been endorsed by other organizations, including chambers of commerce and so on:
Whereas the four major dams, namely, Arrow, Mica creek, Duncan and Libby in the Columbia project are contained in areas having a recreational potential of inestimable value, and
Whereas water storage areas to be created by the four dams will, when full, be of great depth* steep banks, scrubby and timbered shorelines;
Whereas water reservoirs resulting from said dams are designed to flood thousands of acres of farm land, range land, low lands, camping grounds, beaches, sport fish spawning beds, and
Whereas notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary we cannot agree that these affected areas will be enhanced to the degree of enchantment which will attract thousands of tourists, conversely, we predict a substantial loss of camping, holidaying and outdoor hunting and fishing types, and
Whereas, acknowledging the inclusion of a hydro electric installation in the Mica Creek dam, which will provide a small labour team with employment after completion, the Duncan, Arrow and Libby dams will have nothing to offer area employment, other than that required for nominal unkeep. In retrospect, an enormous potential in recreational values in the depopulated areas will be destroyed, the few people required for maintenance will do little to increase district economy.
Whereas, history and scientific knowledge has proven that, regardless of relentless restocking programs, fish rehabilitation requires at least 20 years to establish and in many known projects never succeeds and without complete scientific facts to prove why, uncleaned reservoirs present the greatest resistance to sport fish rehabilitation, and
Whereas all facts point decisively to the necessity of full scale reservoir clearing preceding flooding because,
A.	Areas affected will require rehabilitation as rapidly as possible to bolster their economy.
B.	The multiple use and protection of all air, land and water resources must reconcile the demands of an exploding population and economy. We the people, represented by those we elect to govern purport to adhere to this factual philosophy and
Whereas in 1961, and before ratification of the Columbia River Treaty, the west Kootenay rod and gun clubs zone prepared a brief which in no way opposed the building of dams but took a reasonable approach to the inevitable "march of progress." The brief gave a complete coverage of all aspects for the protection, conservation, propagation, rehabilitation of fish and wildlife and the necessary allied recreational facilities if and when dams and resulting reservoirs were constructed. The brief contained recommendations resulting from scientific data obtained from similar projects which by virtue of man's errors and mistakes in his efforts to simulate nature, assisted the authors of the brief in resolving their conclusions and recommendations. The brief was accepted, by the government and sportsmen alike, as the most comprehensible, intelligent and generous documen-
29, 1965	12929
Proceedings on Adjournment of Motion tary on the aspect of the industry, recreation, fish, game and wildlife existing together as a resource. In May 1961, the federation of rod and gun clubs of B.C., adopted the brief as their official document, an advisory offering to the B.C. hydro authorities as a token of good faith in a cooperative covenant they believed existed between them.
Therefore, be it resolved, in the interests of this association and all citizens of B.C. that-
A.	All dam controlled reservoirs in the Columbia system be cleaned as specified in the west Kootenay rod and gun clubs zone brief: "All vegetation must be cleared from the present low water level up to 10 feet of elevation above the maximum storage level. This is an absolute necessity, if use is to be made of the reservoir for any purposes mentioned in this brief other than storage power generation."
B.	And be it further resolved that-
All reservoir clearing as aforementioned, be completed prior to initial flooding.
Voted upon and accepted unanimously at a regular meeting of the Nelson rod and gun club, February 19, 1965.
J. J. McEwan, Committee chairman
This situation has caused a great deal of concern in Kootenay West, and this resolution has been sponsored by chambers of commerce and other organizations. It is the cause of editorials in the Nelson Daily News and other newspapers, because if we are not able to get these basins cleared according to the program laid out by the rod and gun clubs, we will have lost tremendous possibilities for the development of our natural resources.
The Nelson Daily News of March 17, 1965 said in part:
Grave fears are being expressed by area conservationists and businessmen that the government is planning to divert funds, some $68 million, slated for clearance work to other channels.
That is the government of B.C.
The reservoirs are destined to become a sportsman's and tourist's paradise... if properly established. Improper clearance can endanger all of this, as well as create huge expense for repairs to damage caused by floating debris.
The people of this province should utilize every means at their command to see that the government does not shirk its responsibilities in this regard.
I brought this question up, Mr. Speaker, because it is a matter of great concern to thousands in my constituency, and I want to find out from the minister what he considers the responsibility of the federal government with respect to these fishery resources in particular.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, as we seem this evening, for the first time in quite some time, to have reverted to a two party system, I want to tell the hon. member I appreciate the interest

Proceedings on Adjournment of Motion which has been shown by the united conservation front of Kootenay West in this vital problem affecting the sport and commercial fisheries of B.C. The hon. member stated that the federal government was responsible for the conservation of commercial and sport fishing in British Columbia. I wish to assure him that 1 am fully aware of the circumstances involved in the building of the Columbia river dam. However, I must inform the hon. member that the management of fresh water fishing in British Columbia is by agreement the responsibility of the government of that province. The province has been kept fully aware of the situation and has been advised from time to time of ways and means of preventing any possible difficulties which may arise from the construction of such important projects as the one mentioned by the hon. gentleman.
Furthermore, the management of freshwater fishing in British Columbia has fully co-operated at all times with the federal Department of Fisheries and I can assure the hon. member that all possible steps are being taken to see that the fish population will not be affected as a result of this gigantic project which means so much to the population of his province.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-ASSISTANCE TO DISPLACED WORKERS IN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Reid Scott: The matter I wish to raise concerns the recently signed auto pact between the United States and Canada. It is related to a question which I placed before the Minister of Industry on March 24. At that time I was drawing attention to fears which have been expressed about unemployment caused by a reduction of staff in Windsor. I was unable to obtain from the minister a commitment similar to that given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to the effect that there would be no such dislocation.
The situation is this. The president of Chrysler has announced that the company will be producing an additional 80,000 units of their 1966 model for export to the United States. This means a reduction in what is called the model mix, and the production of a reduced number of models. This in turn means a cutback in the number of office employees needed to follow through what would otherwise be a wide variety of models. In the product engine department of the Ford Motor Company of Canada approximately 250 employees will lose their jobs due to the reallocation of their
[Mr. Robichaud.l
duties to the parent company in the United States as a result of this agreement. A few of these people have been interviewed by Ford Motor Company of the United States, but even though the supervisors said they were acceptable they have been notified by the personnel department of the U.S. company that they were unacceptable as employees.
The changes in production and the reduction in the number of models will affect the whole of the remainder of the office staff because of a reduction of the number of parts controlled in the offices. For example, in the engine plant they have 1,350 parts and subassemblies for the 1965 product. In 1966 they will have 290 parts and subassemblies for one engine instead of 11. So it is easy to see there will be a lot of empty desks. It has been calculated that 75 per cent of the workers in the engine plant of Ford will be affected. The Chrysler office staff will not be affected until the latter part of 1965 and 1966 as a result of advance tooling for the 1966 model year. But after 1966 Chrysler will follow the same general pattern of disintegration.
In 1967 both Ford and Chrysler will be dropping their car lines to three models. This will eliminate about 50 per cent of the parts handled by the office staff. It is estimated that the following production and office plan operations will be affected: production control follow up department; production control specification department; production control scheduling department; production control engineering department; production control drafting department; plant engineering department; blue print department; invoice auditing department; accounts receivable department; accounts payable department; customs department; purchasing department; sales department; technical department; pricing department; accounting department; payroll department; service parts department, and typists.
We would like to have some statement from the government in amplification of the remarks of the Minister of Industry as to what policies and programs are available to offset the real and genuine fears being expressed by the people of Windsor about the possible loss of jobs and dislocation of the industry, which may well result from the present agreement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) has now joined the hon. members for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and Essex

West (Mr. Gray) in drawing to my attention and to the attention of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) the situation that may prevail as a result of the duty free entry of automobiles between Canada and the United States. It should be pointed out that the purpose of the agreement is to increase substantially the total volume of Canadian production, and this can be expected over the course of time to result in an increase in total job opportunities in the Canadian industry. Therefore any manpower adjustments that may be required will take place in the context of expanding employment.
We have had meetings already with the united automobile workers in Ottawa, directed at foreseeing what adjustments may take place and in an effort to establish arrangements to assist in these adjustments. I have had a meeting, also, with the president of Chrysler, at which he stated in the presence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself that there would be no reduction in the number of office workers required in his operations. The same situation, I understand, prevails with respect to Ford Motor Company of Canada.
Proceedings on Adjournment of Motion
These changes that may take place will take place in a context of expanding employment, but there may be adjustments required for individual workers. Our purpose, in addition to discussing the matter with the representatives of the union, is to convene very soon a meeting with the company presidents and company heads with a view to establishing joint arrangements between management and the unions to prepare for adjustments that may affect individual workers, and to set in motion the kind of programs that will assist in the adjustment, including training and especially the use of the manpower consultative service of the Department of Labour. I am expecting that we will get the full cooperation of the union and management in working out joint arrangements that will prepare for any displacements, and reduce to a minimum any adjustment problem posed for individual workers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

Tuesday, March 30, 1965