1965-05-07

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: had planned to ask the Minister of Justice this question. In his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. If I may preface it with two lines, perhaps I could say that the Early Bird satellite was successfully used to locate Mr. Lemay, one of the most wanted criminals in Canada, and responsible sources have advised me that Early Bird was also to be used to locate another of Canada's most wanted criminals. Did the Government or the Minister of Justice stop this procedure and, if so, why?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there was no intervention or interference in that procedure. As far as I am concerned I did not have any knowledge of it before it was shown on the television screen, but I will consult the Minister of Justice to see whether he can throw any light on it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Is it a fact that Mr. Rivard's picture was to have been flashed over Early Bird but that a minister, or people in high places in the Government, prevented this procedure from taking place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just stated that it is not a fact as far as I am concerned, and I have no reason to think it is a fact as far as anybody else is concerned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister or other Members of the Government prepared to answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Battle River-Camrose in connection with the application for a passport by Mrs. Rivard, and give the House a full report on Rivard's escape? Why are the facts being withheld?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The facts are very simple and were stated by the Acting Minister the other
day. The application was made by Mrs. Rivard for a passport on April 6 and the matter is being considered now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Another supplementary
question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely in circumstances of this kind there is no question of consideration being given to granting a passport to Mrs. Rivard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Member is beginning to argue the question.



SEFKIND BANKRUPTCY-INQUIRY AS TO LAYING OF CHARGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Nielsen (Yukon):: In the absence of the Minister of Justice again today may I ask his Parliamentary Secretary whether he has a reply to the question I put yesterday to the Solicitor General.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: No, I am sorry; I do not have a reply today, but I will check to see whether we can have one ready for the hon. Member on Monday.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the Bureau of Statistics report concerning the cost of living index, which for April of this year reached 137.7 as compared to 135.0 for April 1964. This represents an increase of 2.7 percentage points. I wanted to ask the Minister whether his Department has set up any machinery for a constant review of these increases in the cost of living, in view of the fact that they represent a greater increase than was considered reasonable by the Economic Council of Canada. Could I ask the Minister also whether there is any review of the relative profits of the various sectors of the economy, to ascertain whether these increases are warranted?

May 7, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
Kon. Walter L. Gordon (Minisler of Finance): In the first place, Mr. Speaker, like all hon. Members I deplore and deprecate any increase in the consumer price index. In this particular case, as I indicated in the budget speech and as I have indicated earlier, there has been an increase of 2 per cent over the past year. I would hope that when these figures are mentioned it will be made clear that, as my hon. friend said, the increase is 2.7 percentage points. The hon. Member was very careful to do that. But that works out at 2 per cent over the year. That is the rate of increase that I mentioned in the budget speech. It is also, incidentally, the rate of increase that was mentioned in the review of the Economic Council.
No one condones or is happy about an increase of that kind; but as I have said on other occasions, it happens to be the lowest rate of increase of any industrial country in the world in the last year, except the United States. I can assure my hon. friend that I get a detailed analysis prepared by my Department of the make-up of these increases or decreases month by month. I do not happen to have it this morning, but I had it yesterday when I expected the question would be asked. Naturally the Government watches this closely and continuously.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister whether it is not correct that the Economic Council suggested the objective was an increase of 1.4 per cent a year in the price of goods and 2 per cent a year on services, and that actually the breakdown for the 2 per cent to which the Minister refers in total in the commodity index is much higher than the 1.4 per cent for goods referred to by the Economic Council. I want to ask the Minister specifically whether any study is made by any branch of his Department regarding these increases to see whether they are warranted, in view of the profit relationship of the sectors of the economy that are concerned.


Mr. Gordon:: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the preamble to my hon. friend's question. The review of the Economic Council, in the model which they were presenting, indicated a 2 per cent increase per annum. It does not make a great deal of difference to the ordinary man's standard of living whether it is in one form or another; the fact is that in the last year on the average, according to the statistics, the consumer price index went up by 2 per cent.

As I have said on other occasions, and as I am sure my hon. friend knows, there are those who question whether the statistical measurements in this index are capable of taking everything into account; and there are people much more qualified than I who feel that the statistical measurements show an exaggerated result. With regard to the hon. Member's specific question, as I have said there are senior officers in my Department who watch movements in prices closely and keep me closely informed on them. As to whether any segments of the economy or any businesses in the country are making too much profit, this of course is not something that under our system of government we can control. This is not a socialist state. We have a system which most people think works pretty well.



MEASURES TO ASSIST THOSE RECEIVING LOW INCOMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the address he gave the night before last at Niagara Falls, when he dealt with the economic situation in Canada.
First of all I would like to congratulate the minister for having admitted that in spite of two years of Liberal administration there are still 385,000 families whose incomes are less than sufficient. Having admitted this more or less disastrous situation, does the minister not believe that he should ask his cabinet colleagues to grant priority to the measures listed in the budget speech, in order to remedy this situation which exists in Canada?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, at present priority consideration is being given to certain proposals in this direction.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a copy of which I forwarded to him yesterday. Would the Minister advise the House if it is his intention to give Indian
May 7, 1965

organizations and other interested persons the opportunity to study the proposed Indian Claims Commission legislation before proceeding with second reading?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is the Government's intention to refer the Bill to a committee. Whether it will be a committee of this House or a joint committee of this House and the other place will be announced later.


Alexander Bell Patterson: A supplementary question. Is it his intention to refer the subject matter of the Bill to the committee before second reading so these organizations can present their views with regard to the new measure?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance Bill C-130 was submitted to Indian bands and other interested persons in late December of 1963 and early in 1964. Many suggestions and views have come in, and as I intimated earlier some of these new ideas have been incorporated into a new-a revised-bill. However, the new Bill will not be made public until it has received first reading in this House, and then it will be sent to a committee.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the terms of the Indian Claims Commission legislation be wide enough to permit some remedy to be given if the interdepartmental committee considering matters concerned with Indian treaties and traditional hunting rights makes any recommendations? If not, in what way does the Government propose to proceed if this government committee should in fact decide that there should be certain remedies provided as a result of their findings?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Indian claims legislation in my view relates largely to a different subject matter than that which has been referred to the interdepartmental committee. The Government's ideas were incorporated in the Indian claims bill which was distributed in 1963. If any action has to be taken as the result of a report from the interdepartmental committee on another subject, that will be the subject of separate study and consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he inform the house whether It is the intention of his department to reconsider its position on the extension of winter works in May, so that more municipalities could profit by the extension of winter works during the month of May?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken to change the system of extension that was announced some time ago.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Labour tell the house why the federal department rejects applications for extension of the winter works period, when these very applications have been accepted by some provincial governments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, one of the
conditions of the municipal winter works program over the years has been that each project submitted by a municipality must be approved by the Provincial Government concerned. Then the project is forwarded to the Federal Government. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to accept projects which meet the terms and conditions of the program itself, and a particular application is rejected only on the ground that it does not meet the conditions of the program.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another supplementary question.
Does this mean that the federal Department of Labour did not explain properly the new conditions for this extension to the provincial governments, or that the latter were ready to accept projects which did not fulfil the conditions requested by the Department of Labour? Or are the requirements set by the federal Department of Labour too rigid to allow the extension of the winter works period?

May 7, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the truth may be a combination of all three possibilities.



REQUIREMENT THAT BANK EMPLOYEES WORK ON HOLIDAY WEEK ENDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, let me say that we are all delighted to know that our homespun Minister received an appropriate welcome.']
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in relation to the revision of the Bank Act. Is the Minister aware that under its present provisions bank employees are denied long holidays such as over Easter week end, when other employees are off work on Friday, Saturday and Monday? There is a provision in the Bank Act that banks cannot be closed for more than three consecutive days; therefore bank employees have to work on Saturday morning for two or three hours on the occasion of such holiday week ends. When the Bank Act is being changed, will the Minister take under consideration the advisability of amending it so that on such holiday week ends banks will be allowed to close on four consecutive days?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. friend's solicitude for the welfare of the bank employees, but I suggest that this matter might better be dealt with when we resume the debate on the Bank Act.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponfiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister giving consideration to the registration of a protest or other action regarding the reception extended to our very esteemed Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who apparently did not receive the V.I.P. red carpet treatment on his arrival in Paris?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not the policy of this Government to protest about the absence of red carpets. In this particular instance I have received a report from the Minister which indicates that there were some minor technical problems on his arrival, but that no discourtesy of any kind was intended and, in his own words "It was nonsense to suggest that there was". He indicated to me that he
[Mr. Gregoire.l
was completely satisfied with the welcoming arrangements; that he was met at the airport, as is customary in respect of arrivals of this kind, by two representatives of the foreign office. He also indicated that he expects to have valuable and constructive talks today with the Foreign Minister, whose guest he will be at luncheon, for which arrangement he is very grateful. They are friends of long standing and get along very well. Mr. Martin is having a very happy visit in Paris today.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the Minister's tender feelings were not hurt?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister's telegram to me indicates, as I have just said, that he is very happy about everything.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, let me say that we are all delighted to know that our homespun Minister received an appropriate welcome.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as a staunch believer in Confederation I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the reported statement made by Hon. Ralph Loffmark, the British Columbia Minister of Trade and Commerce, to the effect that the British Columbia cabinet has recently discussed secession from Confederation, will the Prime Minister inform the House whether he has received any official communication from the Government of British Columbia in respect of this most calamitous announcement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to my hon. friend who, with his customary courtesy has given me notice of this important question, but his notice did not refer to a "lamentable statement"; it referred to a "dramatic development". I am prepared to deal with the referred to dramatic development by suggesting that while there may have been a lamentable statement, there has been no dramatic development. The hon. Member's own Premier has very often spoken in warm terms of Confederation and all it means to British Columbia. Perhaps Mr. Loffmark is just preparing for the forthcoming Federal-Provincial Conference, Mr. Speaker.
May 7, 1965



Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should just Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
like to explain out of courtesy to the Prime I should like to check on this, Mr. Speaker. Minister that I changed my adjective after It is my impression it was proclaimed two I rose in my place.	or three days ago, but I will get the exact
date.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in her absence I will direct it to her Parliamentary Secretary. My question is based on the fact that in 1963 we in Canada spent $1,800,000 on mental health research, whereas in the state of New York, with a smaller population $14,600,000 was spent on mental health research. Our mental health research here has been described as a creeping catastrophe and a major crisis in mental health research. Will the Parliamentary Secretary draw this situation to the attention of the Minister?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Carr Munro: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Port Arthur yesterday. He inquired whether there would be any type of pamphlet prepared in layman's language explaining the Canada Pension Plan. I am advised by the department that such a pamphlet will be ready some time in the early part of June.



CANADA PLAN-INQUIRY AS TO PROCLAMATION OF ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. As it is now a little more than 30 days since the Canada Pension Plan was given royal assent, can the Prime Minister say whether this Act has been proclaimed and, if so, what was the date of the proclamation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister say whether any province other than Quebec, in that 30 day period, indicated it would opt out of the Canada Pension Plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; no other province gave that indication.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In March he advised the House, in answer to a question from my colleague from Queens, that the second stage of the Prince Edward Island causeway study would be completed in four to six weeks. Could he indicate what is the new expected date?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there is little I can add to what I said previously. To my knowledge there has been no delay on the part of the consultants, and I would imagine that the report should be ready very shortly.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Forbes (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is he now in a position to advise the House with regard to finalizing an agreement between his Department and the Town of Dauphin, Manitoba, to obtain a water supply for the town?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of representations from Mayor Newton and his council in respect of this matter. I have forwarded a copy of an agreement for the withdrawal from Moon Lake of 30 million gallons of water per year for a 10 year period. Mayor Newton has indicated that he is thoroughly

May 7, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry satisfied with the agreement. This will provide a water supply in addition to the normal withdrawal from Edwards Lake which we are not disturbing at all. The rights for withdrawal from Moon Lake will be written to coincide with the date of termination of the Edwards Lake agreement, which means March 31, 1980.


Richard Elmer Forbes: I should like to thank the Minister for finally getting around to completing this agreement.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. There are reports in the Halifax area that many of the 70 Royal Canadian Navy divers in that area are moonlighting, using navy equipment and taking thousands of dollars worth of work from civilian divers. Has the Minister issued any orders prohibiting this practice, and does he contemplate taking any action prohibiting this unfair competition for civilian divers?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in question, but I will take the question as notice.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the Minister tell the House whether the hearings on the C.N.R. run-through problems are concluded, and when we might expect a report from Judge Freedman?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that question as notice and give the hon. Member an answer early next week.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question [Mr. Laing.l
to the Minister of Industry, but first of all, I am pleased to announce that the dean of the faculty of medicine of Quebec's Laval university is sitting in the gallery.
In connection with the reply he gave yesterday to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North concerning the Medical Research Council, is the minister aware that Dr. Frank Forward, director of scientific research with the privy council, stated recently that research funds are sufficient in Canada? If so, could he tell us whether such attitude reflects the new policy of the government in that respect?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read Dr. Forward's statement which the hon. member referred to. I can say that the government feels that the total amount spent on research in Canada is not enough, especially in industry. I think, however, that the amounts allocated for research by the government for the current year are taken into very serious consideration and I feel they are quite sufficient for what we aim to achieve. We are always looking for ways to increase the amounts allocated for industrial research by organizations other than the government.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I would like to ask whether the Minister has had an opportunity to look into the question I raised yesterday about the serious shortage of funds for Dr. Selye at the University of Montreal; and has he any comment, since he is the Minister directly concerned, on the suggestion made by Dr. Lehmann, of the Verdun Protestant Hospital in his own city, about the fact that psychiatric research in Canada is being starved to death?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to secure an answer in respect of Dr. Selye and I have not seen the remarks made by the Director of the Verdun Protestant Hospital, but will look into the question.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to ask the Minister of Public Works. Among the reports from B.C. this morning one has reached me to the effect that the multi-million dollar
May 7, 1965	COMMONS
trifurcation project for the Fraser River, which has been long awaited, has now been abandoned by the Department. Could the Minister say whether this is so?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, the report is not correct. The Department of Public Works has not abandoned the trifurcation program for the Fraser River. My hon. friend perhaps knows that although there has been general acceptance by the shipping firms of the principle of the program, there has been some objection taken to some of the details of the plan. These details and other difficulties are now being studied by the Department.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, notice of which I sent him yesterday. Would the Minister advise the House when he expects to be able to announce the decision of his Department regarding the request for adjustments in the wage rates of orderlies at Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the hon. Member for giving me notice of this question. As I believe was stated earlier, we are awaiting the results of a survey of salaries now being conducted by the Civil Service Commission, following which it is hoped that this matter will be satisfactorily resolved.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister when we may expect some action on the matter of the increases in salary for the Shaughnessy Hospital employees? This matter has been before the House for a long time. Can the Minister set any approximate date as to when action is anticipated?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This is part of the answer I gave a moment ago. The matter is in the hands of the Civil Service Commission and I cannot give a definite answer. Perhaps I might inquire and report later, but I do not have a date now.
DEBATES	1033
Inquiries of the Ministry



HONG KONG VETERANS-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roger-Joseph Teillet: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for York-Sunbury with reference to the Hong Kong prisoners of war and when we could report in connection with them. I am informed by the Canadian Pension Commission that reports so far have identified a number of problems which require further study. Some of this is being done by the Department of National Defence medical staff. I am also informed that it may be some months before this is completed. However, as a result of the survey an extension of treatment rights for dental diseases is now being implemented.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to ask him if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with legislation this session to assist rural groups to build year round community centres, in conjunction with their agricultural societies.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: This is still under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and I hope we will be able to deal with it soon.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport as a follow-up to a question asked last Monday by my colleague from Queens. Is the Minister now in a position to tell the House whether the C.N.R. has reported to him on its success or otherwise in solving the problem connected with the shortage of suitable refrigerator cars in the Maritimes?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped yesterday to give an answer to the other hon. Member for Queens, but the question period went on so long and I had a very important appointment and was not able to do so.

May 7. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
I have some statistics here. Over the week end of May 1, 61 empty refrigerator cars were taken on to the island and 95 loads taken off. On May 3, 61 empties were taken on and 9 loads off. On May 4, 44 empties were taken on and 12 loads off. On the early morning of May 5 there were 110 empties at Cape Tormentine awaiting ferrying to Prince Edward Island, and in addition 90 cars en route to the east coast, of which 75 are new 50 foot insulated box cars equipped with vents. I am sure the hon. Member will realize what an improvement that is. As of 5 p.m. on May 4 there were 199 cars located on the island. Therefore it does look as though the C.N.R., either as a result of the prompting of the hon. gentleman or on their own-and I hope it was the latter-are meeting the problem.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to answer a question put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat about another railway, this time the Canadian Pacific. I am informed by the Board of Transport Commissioners that on September 8, 1964 the Canadian Pacific discontinued sleeping car service on trains 7 and 8, The Dominion, except for local service between Toronto-Montreal and Sudbury, and between Fort William-Winnipeg.
Canadian Pacific advised the Board on April 7, that on June 24 next full sleeping and dining car service will be restored on these trains. No subsequent advice has been received from the railway company indicating any change in the proposal or any further adjustment affecting these trains.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: As a
supplementary question may I ask the Minister to inquire from the C.P.R. or the Board of Transport Commissioners whether the C.P.R. has given notice to all its postal workers on these two trains that their services will no longer be required after the end of June because it will no longer be carrying the mails?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
David Orlikow: Has the Minister received a copy of a resolution which was passed by the Saskatchewan legislature, unanimously I think, protesting the fact that the C.P.R. has cut the service on the transcontinental train The Dominion; and if so would he ask the Board of Transport Commissioners to investigate the matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think any such resolution has been brought to my personal notice, but I will look into the matter and do whatever is required in the circumstances.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT RESPECTING SUBSIDIES TO C.N.R.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald Augustine Regan: Is the Minister aware of this statement and, if so, does he have any comment to make on the contention of a privately owned railroad, which with regard to its responsibility to the public operates in a somewhat cavalier manner, that subsidies to the publicly owned Canadian National Railways constitute unfair competition with the aforementioned private railway? These statements were made yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I did happen to see a report in the newspapers of some statements by the President of the C.P.R. I have not had time to read it yet, but even when I have had time to do so I doubt whether it would be wise for me to engage in public debate on this matter until such time as Parliament is dealing with this question.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might take this opportunity to deal with the question which was asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Simcoe North about failure to pay certain of the pilots in the Port Weller and Sarnia area of Ontario. I am informed there was a delay in preparing pay lists due mainly to difficulty in obtaining information concerning coverage required under the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan. Cheques are now going out, and it is expected that all of them will have been issued by the 10th of this month.
May 7, 1965



PROTEST RESPECTING SUSPENSION OF SHIPBUILDING SUBSIDIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received any protest from the Government of British Columbia concerning the suspension of shipbuilding subsidies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I have not received any protest. I saw a statement in the press by the Premier which seemed to be based on a misconception. I believe a very, very substantial sum -I should like to name it to the House on the first suitable occasion-has been paid in subsidies by the national treasury for this service. I am told the province makes a profit on it, and I hope on an appropriate occasion they will see that due notice is taken of the fact that between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of the capital has been contributed by the national treasury.


Mr. G. L. Chaiterfon (Esquimall-Saanich):: Can the Minister of Transport now say when the interdepartmental committee investigating these subsidies will have its report ready?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I cannot, but both the Minister of Industry and I are pressing them as much as we can.


George Louis Chatterton: Can the Minister say when their last meeting was held?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite frankly I do not really think Ministers can be expected to engage in this kind of police activity, but I will inquire.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to ask the Secretary of State a question about the continuing problem of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's facilities in Vancouver. I should like to ask him whether the reports that the Government is prepared to turn the Kitsilano site over to the City of Vancouver without reservation are true and, if so, what provision is being made for new C.B.C. facilities in Vancouver?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: The Kitsilano site decision has been
Inquiries of the Ministry communicated to the City of Vancouver. The initiative now belongs to the city to make a proposal to the C.B.C.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: supplementary question in connection with the question addressed to the Secretary of State. Has the Prime Minister received an acknowledgement from the City of Vancouver of his very generous offer to the City with regard to Kitsilano?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I have received a very friendly and appreciative acknowledgement.



EXPO '67 REDUCTION IN U.S. APPROPRIATION FOR BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to comment on the substantial slash in the United States building appropriation for Expo '67, bringing that appropriation to a figure which is now less than that of the City of Paris?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I do not have any comment to make on the action of another Government in connection with this matter. I understand that the appropriation amounts to $9 million. That is a substantial amount.


Robert Carman Coates: Does the Prime Minister feel that this reduction may have been the result of his recent visit to the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure the United States will be very worthily represented at this exposition.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: This is a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the fact that next week the Minister will be meeting with the ten provincial resource ministers to discuss a national water policy, will he consider the desirability of bringing to the attention of that assembly the necessity for more national parks for Canada?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, that matter may be discussed.

May 7, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES



BRITISH COLUMBIA-INQUIRY AS TO SPRING RUN-OFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It will be of interest to all Members of the House but particularly to those Members who come from British Columbia. In view of the unusually heavy snowfall in many portions of British Columbia during the past winter, and in view of reports that the snowpacks at higher levels are above average, has the Minister any information he can give the House as to the run-off to be expected in British Columbia rivers this summer?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. Member that this is a question for the order paper, important as it may be.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a copy of which I sent to the hon. gentleman this morning. In view of the fact that in several instances the Government has denied landed immigrant status to printers from outside of Canada working as strikebreakers in the plants of the Toronto daily newspapers, will the Minister check the case of Mr. Duane Doyle, on whose behalf I am told the Toronto Daily Star is pressing for landed immigrant status?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank the hon. Member for having given me notice of this question. While I cannot admit that the Toronto Star has been pressing the Department, I can assure the hon. Member I will look into the matter at once.



INQUIRY AS TO WHITE PAPER AND AMENDMENT OF ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In so doing perhaps I am being non-political, because I want to preface my question by stating that in the 12 years I have been in the House of Commons this is

the first Minister to give immediate ministerial attention to problems brought to his attention, and I want to thank him for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: And I really mean that, Sir. I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if and when, in view of the announcement made in the Speech from the Throne, it is his intention to produce a white paper on the changes in the Immigration Act. If not, when does the Minister anticipate introducing the amendments, promised for so many years by previous Ministers and which we hope he will fulfil?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the hon. Member for his kind words about me. In answering his question I can say that we have already done a great deal of work on the white paper. We have now reached the stage where I find it difficult to keep up with the volume of material which is coming over my desk. I hope we will be able to finish the white paper so as to lay it before this House within a matter of approximately three months. After it has been distributed it will be referred to a committee for consideration.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question.
Would it be sent to a special committee of this House, a joint committee or a standing committee?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot say at the moment. It may well be a special committee, but it will likely be a committee of this House, which will have full opportunity to study the material in the white paper and to invite representations from chambers of commerce, boards of trade, labour organizations, agricultural organizations, ethnic groups and others interested in this important matter.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I am sorry that I did not give him any notice.
Inasmuch as the hockey season is over and the time is near for picking up players on waivers, is it true that the Prime Minister is planning to exchange the Minister of Forestry for Premier Jean Lesage of Quebec?
May 7, 1965



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: In view of the fact that it is now several weeks since the Board of Broadcast Governors had made a recommendation to cancel the licence of radio station CJOR in Vancouver, can the Minister say whether he has yet reached a decision in connection with this matter and, if so, upon what basis he has reached that decision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. Member appreciates, as do all other hon. Members, that the licence was not suspended immediately, and in view of some very difficult legal questions which are involved in this matter I am still giving consideration to the recommendation I should make to my colleagues. I intend to give it as much attention as I can and to reach a conclusion as soon as I can.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that there are a great many people in the lower mainland of British Columbia who feel very strongly that the present holders of this licence for radio station CJOR should be allowed to continue, will any public hearings be held in the area so the public may be given an opportunity to express their views on this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly there will be no public hearings held by the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, and I think if there are to be any public hearings held, they would have to be held by the Board of Broadcast Governors, which was entrusted by Parliament with this kind of duty. This is precisely one of those questions to which I am giving such consideration as I can. The situation, I am told, is unprecedented, and I think it is very important that whatever is done should be done carefully, according to the law and with a due regard for natural justice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, and ask him whether the Board of Broadcast Governors are planning to hold any hearings in the lower mainland in order to ascertain the views of the general public, many of whom have enjoyed the programs on radio station CJOR and would like to
Inquiries of the Ministry express their views with regard to the possibility of the present holders of the licence being able to continue.
Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of
State): Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to get the views of the B.B.G. on this question.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of this matter, could I ask the Minister whether in his consideration of the recommendation of the Board of Broadcast Governors regarding cancellation, consideration is being given to the fact that Mrs. Chandler, who is a 55 per cent owner, holds dual citizenship, Canadian and American?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that this particular point had come to my knowledge. I am not absolutely sure that at first blush its relevance is entirely clear to me. But I will look into that, among the other considerations. I may say that before reaching any conclusion it is my intention, even before discussing this matter with my other colleagues, to discuss it with my hon. friend the Secretary of State.


Harold Edward Winch: This matter is of major importance, Mr. Speaker, because my understanding is that an American citizen cannot have a majority ownership in a radio station. That is the reason I ask the Minister whether he has taken this matter into consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, notice of which I gave yesterday. I would like to ask the Minister whether the United Steel Workers of America made representations to him that they would like to sit in on the discussions of the Canadian Metal Mining Association with respect to manpower problems; and if they have, whether they were invited to sit in, as the Minister promised me in April they would be; and if not, why have they not been invited to participate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this question arises from a meeting which the Metal Mining Association requested with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys as a normal exchange of views. In the course of that meeting, which

May 7. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry was attended by at least one official of the Department of Labour, the industry expressed certain views about the manpower needs of the mining industry. Subsequently at the meeting information was given out that led to the objection of the Steel Workers. The meeting was requested by the Metal Mining Association. We are quite happy to meet with the United Steel Workers at any time to discuss questions. As a matter of fact, just this week I had a meeting with representatives of the Steel Workers on another matter, and would be glad to discuss manpower needs with the organization at any time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with respect to the first chapter of the book of answers given by the Minister. Would the oldest metalliferous mining union in Canada, the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, also receive an invitation to attend this meeting or meet the Minister on this subject?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The necessity of meeting with this particular union is somewhat lessened by the frequent representations made on its behalf by my Parliamentary Secretary, a former member of that union.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, boy.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Minister did not answer the question I asked, which was, did the United Steel Workers of America ask to sit in on the meetings with regard to this specific problem of manpower needs in the metal industries? If they did, did they get a favourable answer? In view of the answer given by the Minister I just want to quote one line from an answer he gave on April 6 to this very question, when he said:
If they wish to participate and express their views, we will be delighted to co-operate with them.
That was more than a month ago. What has happened?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no meetings have taken place since this particular question was asked.


David Orlikow: Have they asked?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Steel Workers have expressed their views about this particular meeting to which I have already referred and about which I think a misunderstanding developed, because it was not a meeting that

had been requested by the Government to discuss manpower policy with the employers to the exclusion of the union; it was an interview requested by the Mining Association and attended by Government officials.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Red Deer, followed by a question from the hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency, with respect to social insurance numbers.
The Ontario Teachers' Federation have expressed no views formally to the Commission with respect to this project, but a number of Ontario teachers have submitted application forms to acquire social insurance numbers. No prosecutions have been launched against teachers or school boards for their failure to seek numbers, because such individuals are not covered by unemployment insurance at the time of registration and accordingly would not be obliged to register except on a voluntary basis.
The case referred to by my hon. friends involved the failure of an employer to register his employees, as is required under the Unemployment Insurance Act. For that reason court proceedings have been recommended by the Department of Justice.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister as regards the second of the answers he just gave. Yesterday he was also asked whether it was true that the Department of Labour had brought no charge other than the one against Canada Week Limited.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that is correct, Mr. Speaker, because to my knowledge no other employers have failed to comply with the law.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked recently by the hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich with respect to a labour
May 7, 1965

dispute at the Victoria Airport. This situation arose from arrangements within the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the unions which is, of course, a matter under Provincial jurisdiction. There is no policy on the part of Federal Departments which would have the effect of upsetting these collective bargaining arrangements. May I advise my hon. friend that the dispute is settled and the matter has been cleared up. The subcontractor involved presumably has decided to respect the collective agreement about which apparently he had not been fully informed.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)



THE SENATE


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for the Prime Minister) moved: the second reading of Bill C-98, to make provision for the retirement of Members of the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Did I hear one hon. Member say no?


Mr. Churchill:: The Minister has risen to speak.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there is not much which can be added by way of explanation of the Bill on second reading which was not said at the resolution stage of the debate on April 26 and 27. The Bill involves one very simple question of principle, and it is a very specific and narrow point which is at issue.
The question of principle involved is simply whether a member of the Senate will be eligible to hold his place after attaining the age of 75 years. Therefore on the question of principle there is not a great deal which needs to be developed one way or the other because of the very nature of this specific and narrow point. This question of principle involved in the Bill is dealt with in three different ways, as will be seen from an analysis of the Bill. Of course the specific provisions will be discussed in detail when the House goes into Committee of the Whole to deal with the clauses in the Bill.
The first part of the Bill merely provides that a Senator who is summoned to the Sen-
Retirement Age for Senators ate after the coming into force of this Bill will be eligible to hold his place in the Senate only until he attains the age of 75 years.
The second part of the Bill changes the provisions of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, which heretofore was applicable only to Members of the House of Commons, and provides that Senators appointed in the future shall contribute under that Act and be eligible for pension on the same basis as Members of the House of Commons.
Part 3 of the Bill merely provides that any present member of the Senate who has attained the age of 75 years may retire and receive an annuity equal to two thirds of the salary he is paid as a Senator.
It will be seen, then, that the scheme of the Bill is quite simple, and I would think this is the practical and realistic way to deal with the subject in a fair way to all. I say this because the Senators presently in the Senate have been appointed under the provisions of section 29 of the British North America Act, which states simply that:
A Senator shall, subject to the Provisions of this Act, hold his Place in the Senate for Life.
Anyone who was appointed to the Senate heretofore would have the right to expect that provision to be carried out, it being originally enacted in the B.N.A. Act in that form.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether there is much more I need deal with at this stage of the Bill, because as I indicated at the commencement of my remarks the principle involved is a very narrow and specific one, namely whether or not Senators shall be eligible to hold their place in the Senate after having attained the age of 75 years.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Bill is in the name of the Prime Minister, and I realize he is a very busy person, but it is disappointing that he is not in the House during the discussion of this Bill. I am wondering whether the exUniversity of Toronto history teacher is so ashamed of this type of bill that he does not want to be around during its discussion.
On rereading the debate at the resolution stage of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I noted that the motives of the members of the New Democratic Party in advocating abolition of the Senate were questioned by two Members, the hon. Member for Edmonton West and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I should like to refer briefly to what they said. First, the comments of the hon. Member for
1040	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators Edmonton West, which are reported at pages 417 and 418 of Hansard for April 26. The hon. Member said:
Mr. Chairman, in opening my brief remarks this afternoon I have found that there have been some rather widesweeping condemnations of the other place, and I am just wondering whether those remarks would have been quite as sincere if some representatives of the parties in question had themselves been members of the other place. I think that some of the criticisms made of the other place are quite equivocal, and it is because there are particular hobby-horses or axes to grind that we hear such sweeping condemnations.
The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona had this to say, as reported at page 422 of Hansard for April 26:
I think they honestly believe that any legislative body in this country upon which their Party is not represented must lack virtues which most of us feel are most important, if not essential, in any legislature.
There is implied or suggested there that if we had members in the Senate we would not make these criticisms; that if we had the opportunity to have members in the Senate we would not offer such criticisms.
In this regard I would remind hon. Members that in the past Mr. M. J. Coldwell was given an opportunity to become a member of the Senate. I remember that the Prime Minister in a television interview earlier this year mentioned the fact that Mr. Coldwell had had the opportunity for a Senate appointment at one time. I also believe that Mr. Claude Jodoin was offered a Senate appointment a number of years ago.
This perhaps does not prove the case, but I suggest that this matter can be put to the test again. My colleague the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has announced that he will shortly retire from this House after 20 years' service. I suggest to the Prime Minister that perhaps he should offer him a place in the Senate. I say that because I am certain the hon. Member would refuse. If the Prime Minister wants a further test, he could in fact go down the line and offer each member of this party an appointment to the Senate and we would each refuse.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert William Prittie: I suggest that the Prime Minister could put it to the test if these arrangements were made.
Some of the discussion during this debate has revolved around personalities and the type of individuals appointed to the Senate.
I recall on the last day of the hearings of the joint Parliamentary Committee on the Canada
[Mr. Prittie.l
DEBATES	May 7, 1965
Pension Plan one Member of the Government party saying something to the effect that he came to Ottawa with certain ideas about the Senate, but after watching the work performed by some of them at the joint Parliamentary Committee hearings he had changed his mind. I agree with the hon. Member that there were some very useful contributions made to that Committee by members of the Senate. I am also aware of the fact that there are some very valuable and intelligent Senators who have done some excellent work particularly in Committees, but I suggest this kind of discussion is quite beside the point.
I suppose that Senators are similar to Members of the House of Commons in that they vary in ability and in diligence in respect of attending the House and committees. That is also beside the point. Even if the Senate was composed of the very best people in the country, without exception, I still believe that the Senate stands condemned in the Canada of 1965. Our attention should be focused on the fact that in this age in Canada we have a body which has powers almost equal to the powers of the House of Commons, except for the right to introduce money bills; yet this body is not elected and not responsible to the electorate in any way.
I doubt very much if an upper chamber is necessary for the proper governing of this country. We seem to get along very well in nine of the ten Provinces without one. In the tenth Province the powers held by the upper chamber are now in question, and the Government of that Province is moving to reduce those powers considerably. Our sister dominion, New Zealand, abolished the upper chamber a number of years ago. Where upper chambers do exist they are either elected, as in the United States and in Australia or, as in the case of the United Kingdom, the chambers have very little power. I think before very many years the powers of the House of Lords will be further reduced, and I suggest that before the end of this century that chamber will be abolished.
I have very grave doubts as to whether in this day and age we need an upper chamber at all. If there is to be one, surely it ought to be responsible to the electorate in some way, as in the case of Australia. In Canada we have the worst of all possible situations, with a body which is powerful, so far as the constitution is concerned, but which is not responsible to the people in any way at all.
The Bill before us is not a reform bill, but one which merely makes provision for future retirement of Senators, with a clause which
May 7, 1965

would allow the Senators of today, if they so choose, to avail themselves of this retirement opportunity. I am not sure that I agree with the principle of the Bill. In fact I think it is rather ironic that some of the very best members of the Senate today are over the age limit contemplated by the Bill. I do not intend to mention names, but there are some outstanding people beyond the contemplated age limit.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this Bill really is not a reform measure, and we are very disappointed with the Liberal Party, which for years has advocated a change in the Senate; because this minor change is all that is being presented at this time. Surely the Government should have come up with something more specific if what the Liberal Party has said about Senate reform is really what it meant.
If one looks at the speeches made during the debate on a private Member's bill presented last year by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the speeches made during the resolution stage, he will see that neither the Liberal nor the Conservative Parties are really concerned about Senate reform. They are completely out of touch with Canadian public opinion on this subject. Last year when we were discussing the flag legislation many demands were made for a plebiscite. I am not one who believes in plebiscites, because Members of Parliament are elected to do a job, but I suggest that if we held one on the subject of the abolition of the Senate, a majority would be obtained.
Because of the fact that the Government has presented no reform bill the members of this party feel that this House should have the opportunity of clearly expressing itself on the subject of Senate reform. Our idea of Senate reform is abolition of that body. With that in mind I move at this time, seconded by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North:
That Bill C-98 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the Senate should be abolished.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would hon. Members like to submit their views as to the acceptability of this motion for the guidance of the Chair?


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which is raised by this motion, by accepting this motion we would in effect be acting in a unilateral manner. I do not believe such a motion can be entertained within our constitutional practice.
Retirement Age for Senators Certainly our ability to entertain such a motion within our practice is questionable, particularly when there has been no reference to the Provinces and no reference to a federal-provincial conference. The motion says nothing in that regard, and I submit it goes beyond the scope of the constitutional authority of this House.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my friend the hon. Member for Carleton I disagree completely with the argument he has advanced. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond does not finalize the abolition of the Senate; it simply calls upon this House to express the opinion that the Senate ought to be abolished.
If this House did express that opinion then, of course, an attempt would have to be made to go through the legal steps necessary to give effect thereto. May I remind you, Sir, that on several occasions amendments to motions to go into committee of supply, and to other measures, calling for the abolition of the Senate, have been moved and voted on in this House. I have to admit that they have all been turned down, but to my knowledge and within my memory the House of Commons has on several occasions voted on the question whether or not in the opinion of the House the Senate ought to be abolished.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Moreau:: You are trying to destroy our British tradition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. Member for York-Scarborough really floors me with the profundity of his remark. May I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to citation 382 in Beauchesne's fourth edition. This citation is in a group of paragraphs relating to what is appropriate at the second reading stage of a bill. Citation 382 reads as follows:
It is also competent to a Member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill-
That is the relevant part of citation 382, but just to put it all on the record perhaps I should finish reading it.
-or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
May 7, 1965

Retirement Age jor Senators
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the part of citation 382 that is relevant is the first part, the part I read before I interrupted myself. I suggest that if you examine the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond you will find that it comes completely within the provisions of the first part of citation 382, and I would add it is in line with many such amendments that have been moved to the second reading of bills over the years.
My hon. friend wishes to place on record reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of the bill, and I may say that Speakers have ruled from time to time that if a Member moves such an amendment to second reading he must be opposed to the bill. The hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond is opposed to the bill. In that circumstance he is entitled to move as an amendment a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill. That is exactly what my hon. friend's amendment does. He states clearly that he is opposed to the bill. He does not want it to be given second reading. Instead he wants the House to express itself on a resolution which declares a principle that is different from the one proposed by the Government. As a way of dealing with the Senate the Government proposes to bring in a compulsory retirement age of 75. My hon. friend proposes as an alternative that we deal with the Senate by asking the House at this stage to express its opinion in favour of its abolition.
When Your Honour invited comment from the floor with regard to whether the amendment was in order I was not sure what question might be in your mind. I thought there might be one relating to the fact that I have a bill on the Order Paper, Bill No. C-54, an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867, abolition of the Senate. I wondered whether you might contend that because that bill is on the Order Paper this amendment is not in order at this time. The answer to that, of course, is found in citation 131 of Beauchesne, fourth edition. It is a lengthy citation but I need to read only the first sentence:
In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.
My private member's public bill is Bill No. C-54. Its present position is item No. 52 on the list of private members' public bills, and

I am afraid the chances of its being reached in this session are somewhat remote. Therefore, in the light of the whole of citation 131, it could not be used to block the presenting of this amendment at this time.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, had I thought you would raise any question about this amendment I would have looked up the number of times this kind of motion has been moved as an amendment to motions to go into supply. I submit to the hon. Member for Carleton that on previous occasions the House has had the free right to express its opinion as to what should be done, which is quite a different question from trying to abolish the Senate by a bill that goes through only one House. Obviously that could not be done. That is not what is before us. In the light of the wording of citation 382 what is before us is a resolution embodying a declaration of principle that we think the House should consider.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put a question to the hon. gentleman. I am not rising to speak on the point of order. Has the hon. gentleman given consideration to whether citation 382 should be read as referring to the declaration of some principle that it is within the scope of Parliament to carry out? The principle that it is sought to embody in this resolution is something that is clearly beyond the scope of the Parliament of Canada under the constitution as it now exists. Therefore, just at first blush it would seem to me to be beyond the scope of the bill.
The hon. gentleman is such an expert and I am so inexperienced in these matters that I would be interested to have his view with regard to whether it is envisaged, when a Member moves that a bill be not now read the second time but that some principle opposed to the bill be asserted instead, that the amendment should be something that it is within the capacity of the House to be opposed to and is intra vires of the House. Clearly what the hon. gentleman proposes to assert is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the first comment I must make is that this is the second time today that the Minister has had a first blush, but in reply to his question may I point out that the Senate is provided for by the constitution of Canada, and in order to abolish the Senate the constitution of Canada would have to be amended. It has been amended a number of times. Even this
May 7, 1965	COMMONS
bill proposes an amendment of the constitution with respect to the Senate, and if amending the constitution in any particular is something that is beyond the power of this Parliament to enact it is still something that could be achieved by sending a resolution to Her Majesty to place the necessary amendment before the Parliament at Westminster. Therefore I submit, to use the Minister's own language, that it is intra vires of the rights of Parliament to deal with this issue. Whether or not we can get the members of the other place-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is ranging far beyond the rather narrow question I put to him. The question I put, the only question in which I was interested and the only question with which it seemed to me His Honour would be concerned, was whether one can seek to assert something that is beyond the scope of the bill. The scope of the bill is something that is clearly within the purview of the amendment to the British North America Act of 1949, but I would say that the abolition of the Senate was quite clearly not within the purview of that amendment. Therefore it does seem to me that this resolution seeks to declare something that is beyond the scope of the bill.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I am just posing that as a question. I really do not have a fixed view on the matter, but I thought we ought to have the hon. gentleman's considered views on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, surely citation 382-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to hon. Members that at this stage it is not proper for them to engage in debate by an exchange of views between two or three.
I suggest that the views of individual Members having been given for the guidance of the Chair, the Chair should be given an opportunity to make a ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did I not still have the floor, and did not the Minister ask me a question before I sat down?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My recollection is that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre got up a second time. This is the third time he has participated in the debate. Certainly I have no objection to hearing his views at this time because this is a very important point, and I am sure the House will want to grant him a chance to put his views in a final way before the Chair.
DEBATES	1043
Retirement Age /or Senators


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I am doing is answering the question which the Minister of Transport has put, and he quite frankly says he poses it tentatively, without any fixed point of view. I suggest that citation 382 makes it very clear that at this stage a Member can give any reason for not agreeing to second reading of the bill, and can suggest his reasons in an amendment that discloses a difference in principle to the proposal by the Government.
I suggest that on a bill to amend the British North America Act with respect to the Senate it would hardly be appropriate to have an amendment dealing with the price of potatoes in Prince Edward Island, but surely if the proposal before the House has to do with the Senate then citation 382 gives the right to present an amendment declaratory of some principle differing from the way of dealing with the Senate which has been proposed by the Government. I submit that the amendment is within the terms of amendments that have been moved to second reading of bills throughout the years.


David Orlikow: I would like to say on this that it has been suggested-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. Member for Winnipeg North that the Chair has heard all the relevant evidence and citations, and according to the Standing Orders the Chair can at this stage be satisfied in its own mind as to the attitude to be adopted by it, and render a decision.
The point made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre is, of course, of great interest. He suggests that the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond is a reasoned amendment, and he refers to citation 382 of Beauchesne. My suggestion to the hon. Member is that this citation does not allow an amendment that goes beyond the terms of the bill presently or at any time before the House, and I subscribe to the argument submitted by the Minister of Transport. In other words, even in the case of a reasoned amendment, the rules of relevancy must still apply, and I refer hon. Members to citations 203(1) and 203(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which, reading at page 171, state:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
And:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.

May 7. 1965
Retirement Age for Senators
The sixteenth edition of May, at pages 416 and 417, states:
The fundamental rule that debate must be relevant to a question necessarily involves the rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
The question before the House is referred to in the title of the bill before the House, Bill C-98, "An Act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate." This, of course, shows the very narrow limits of the bill before the House, and I suggest that even though the principle in the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill that we have before us, this does not make it acceptable ipso facto: The motion still has to be consistent with the rules of relevancy. For this reason I must with regret refuse to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, with deference and respect I must appeal your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond 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.
And the Members having been called in:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the House is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling.
To the motion for second reading of Bill No. C-98, an Act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate, the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond proposed in amendment thereto the following:
That Bill No. C-98-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That Bill No. C-98 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the Senate should be abolished.

The amendment having been proposed by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond, the Chair ruled that the proposed amendment be declared out of order in that it proposed to introduce a subject matter that was foreign to the provisions of the Bill under consideration. Whereupon the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond appealed to the House from the decision of the Chair.


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


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. Lloyd:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take part in this debate but may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member for Carleton.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should be allowed to mention that although the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) did call it one o'clock the reason I recognized him was that the Chair was under the impression that the hon. Member was rising on a matter connected with a vote which had just been taken. I suggest that the hon. Member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) should be recognized at this time.

I therefore recognize the hon. member for Lake St. John.


Marcel Lessard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, my remarks on Bill No. C-98, intituled "An Act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate", shall be very brief.
Mr. Speaker, when I first got interested in federal politics, some five or six years ago, like many Canadians, like the average citizen, I was wondering what was the true technical and political role of the Senate.
Obviously, it has a fine part to play from a technical point of view. In fact, it has lived
Retirement Age [or Senators up to its obligations and has been efficient on several occasions. However, it seems that for some time now the Senate has not been playing its true part. That is why the general public and even some senators and members of parliament are under the impression that the Senate should therefore be abolished.
Mr. Speaker, before abolishing the Senate I think it would be advisable that hon. members ask themselves what changes should be made so that the Senate may recover all the prestige it used to have.
After having studied the Senate, I believe like many other citizens, that its role is that of a moderator, an expert, a consultant and, in some cases, even that of a judge.
If we want the Senate to fulfil the duties assigned to it when it was created at the beginning of confederation, in short, if we want the Senate to settle the problems submitted to it, only people qualified in the economic, cultural and social fields of our country should be appointed Senators.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that Senators have been appointed on a political partisanship basis was probably the greatest mistake and the main reason why that honourable and august body lost the prestige it enjoyed in the past.
One of the functions of the members of the Senate is to protect minorities. It is one of their most important functions. We may ask if they played that role; we may wonder if they showed any authority in that field.
For instance, if we consider how our French speaking compatriots were treated outside the province of Quebec I wonder if the constitution under which they had been appointed custodians of the rights of the minorities had also granted them executive powers to protect the rights of minorities.
In fact, some time ago this made me wonder whether it would not have been desirable for the constitution to grant them a controlling right over education within the provinces.
If one refers to the debates which were held in the Senate when the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan abolished the teaching of French in those provinces, one can see that well-meaning and honest senators could not act effectively on that occasion, because education falls strictly under the jurisdiction of the provinces, which prevented them from expressing the viewpoint of the federal government and protecting as they should have done, according to their functions, the rights of the minorities.
Mr. Speaker, there are those who would like the Senate to be abolished altogether. Of
May 7, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators course, if some people wish that this legislative body be a mere gathering of partisan politicians, whose only purpose is to protect the interests of their political parties, then I would agree that the Senate should be abolished. But I think-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member for a moment to remind him that the house decided by a vote this morning that the question of abolishing the Senate went beyond the scope of the measure now before us. Therefore, I would suggest that he restrict his comments to the provisions of the bill itself.


Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall comply with your decision. I was only referring to the abolition of the Senate in passing and I do not think I strayed too much from the scope of the discussion when I mentioned the possibility of doing away with the Senate.
The measure now before us advocates a reform of the Senate-at least, they call it a reform-but I think that the proposed changes amount to a very limited reform.
Under the circumstances and speaking in my own name, I feel we must endorse the government's proposal because one of the major objectives which would be attained following the limitation of senators' age would be a certain turn-over among members of the house.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In my opinion, when an hon. member has spent a few years here, and particularly in the Senate, he has made known all his views and he has few new arguments to bring forward. I, for one, consider that the role played by the Senate and by the senators is that of moderators. Some people would like to see very young men appointed to the Senate. As far as I am concerned I would be opposed to that; I would be in favour of a minimum age of 50 and, of course, a maximum age of 75.
Why? Because I consider that senators may be appointed on the basis of their knowledge and ability. I consider that the Senate is a place where ability in the various activities of the country must come as an inheritance, from knowledge acquired through experience in life.
In my opinion experienced men should be sought in various fields of activity so that, in a non-partisan way, they may be of some use to the Senate, the House of Commons and the Canadian people.
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John) .3
It is an ideal place where men could impart their experience and knowledge to younger ones.
This is why I feel that we should maintain the Senate but alter its constitution to enable the various classes of our society to be well represented and put forward their opinions.
There is another point which I would suggest should be taken into consideration: appointments to the Senate should be made on a federal-provincial basis. I understand that this would require another amendment to the Canadian constitution. But in that regard, I entirely agree with the suggestion of Messrs. Faribault and Fowler that 50 per cent of the senators should be appointed by the federal government and 50 per cent by the provincial governments. Thus, the views of the various provincial governments and of the federal government would be well represented. This would have another advantage, Mr. Speaker, in that there would be automatically an emulation of some sort between the different levels of government so that the most outstanding representatives, the better qualified men, would be appointed to Ottawa where they would assert with an outstanding efficiency the views of their respective provinces.
I am convinced that the province of Quebec would delegate its best men here and that the other provinces would do the same. Thus, the federal government, not to be outdone, would be bound to call upon the best brains of our generation so that we would have in the Senate truly brilliant men instead of fading lights as is the case for many of them.
This would, in my opinion, be the best reform that could be brought about in the Senate.
For instance, the province of Alberta, which has had a Social Credit government for 30 years, has never been represented in the Senate. Saskatchewan had a socialist government for 18 years and it has no representative either in the Senate. That does not seem logical to me because I think those people could have made a positive and efficient contribution to the business of the upper house.
Some people claim that if there are only old people sitting in the Senate, they will have little inclination to represent the ideas of the younger generation.
Why, Mr. Speaker, am I in favour of appointing to the Senate only people who have reached at least 50 years of age? It is because I want a man to give his full measure in life until he is 50; then he can retire and give younger people the benefit of his
May 7, 1965

experience. If people under 50 have more advanced ideas, more dynamic or even more revolutionary ideas, it is in this house, in this House of Commons, that they will have a right to put them forward if they are elected by their constituents. Later on, if they are appointed to the Senate, they will be more enlightened men, more matured and experienced, who will be able to play their part as moderators and see to it that certain pieces of legislation advocated by a group of young and inexperienced persons be amended to take into account past experiences and provide for a sound balance in the future.
There is another point I should like to make. I think that senators should not hold any office as directors in Canadian companies, corporations, etc. While those people may be very honest they are sometimes caught in a conflict of interests. I think that a person who is appointed as senator should relinquish immediately any other office in any company or corporation so that he cannot be in the situation of having to choose between the interests of the country and those of a small group in which he may have personal interests. I think there is complete incompatibility between the position of senator and that of a director of a company, and I hope that the government, when other reforms are considered-or maybe it could be included in this bill-will make more progressive and positive amendments which will really give the Senate a better sense of responsibility and will improve the image of the Senate in the minds of the people. I am sure that if we made those few amendments we would give senators a real sense of responsibility, we would give them confidence in themselves and they would regain the respect of the people.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my few remarks with respect to Bill No. C-98 will be partly along the line of the remarks of my colleague from Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard).
May I refer to this part which deals with the appointment of senators or persons of the other house which, since confederation, certainly went through fairly drastic changes. Section 14 of the Address to Her Gracious Majesty, following the debate on the constitution, said this:
The first selection of the members of the legislative council shall be made, except as regards Prince Edward Island, from the legislative councils of the various provinces, so far as a sufficient number be found qualified and willing to serve. Such members shall be appointed by the Crown at the recommenda* on of the general executive gov-
Retirement Age for Senators emment, upon the nomination of the respective local governments; and in such nominations due regard shall be had to the claims of the members of the legislative council of the opposition in each province, so that all political parties may as nearly as possible be fairly represented.
Such were the meaning and the spirit of section 14 of the Address which was a prelude to the Canadian constitution and to the appointment of the legal authority in Canada, composed of a governor general, a Senate or a federal legislative council and the House of Commons.
My colleague from Lake St. John precisely mentioned a while ago that it had become for many years a kind of political reward, I would even say, the Hall of Fame in politics.
However, those who are named in the Halls of Fame in the field of sport and who see their name inscribed on a plaque, have distinguished themselves by athletic feats during their career, contrary to what happens in the other place. As a matter of fact, appointments to the Senate should not be made principally as a reward to those who have held a political office for some years, or for services rendered to such and such a political party.
Such appointments should be based on the competence, knowledge and the services that those persons might have to offer to society, either through their knowledge of the law or of the economic and political situation throughout the country.
Section 14 which provided that such appointments take into consideration the opposition group in the various parliaments would indeed have allowed governments having been in office for 25 or 30 years in some provincial legislatures, to appoint to the other place competent persons holding political views on the economic and political future that would have made them more useful, no doubt, to the Canadian nation than the recent appointees.
Bill No. C-98 advocates voluntary retirement at 65 years of age and compulsory retirement on pension at 75 years of age, since it provides a specific amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act for payment of a pension to these people on retirement at 75 years of age, and I wonder whether this is not another means for the two main political parties to create vacancies, inasmuch as some people having reached the age of 65 or 75 years and now sitting in the other place are no longer as active and no longer as able to render as much service, from the political point of view, as they were at the time of their appointment.
May 7. 1965

Retirement Age jor Senators
This would allow them to retire, not, as I heard the other day, when we were discussing old age pensions, with dignity, but with a handsome reward, that is a pension of $8,000 to $12,000. Such vacancies would allow the party in office, as happened in the case of some appointments made by the Conservative party when it was in office, to name young senators who were very active in politics, who could continue to render tremendous services not so much to the Canadian people as to the political party having appointed them.
Therefore, I find Bill No. C-98 a very timid effort at Senate reform. There is a host of very able Canadians engaged in business, there are many associations and movements of national scope who find that it costs a lot to retain a senator who is no longer very active and who, in their views, will not contribute much from the legislative point of view, although he may still, through his influence, be of service to the political party which appointed him.
Some talked of drastic measures, such as the abolition of the Senate; others advocated rather weak reforms as insignificant as those contained in Bill No. C-98.
I wonder if one can really take seriously that legislation, that amendment to the Senate Act in order to pay that pension. I wonder if it is more serious to be on the side of those here who ask for a drastic reform and would be inclined to ask for its abolition. I feel it is more serious to lean that way than to waste time trying to make people believe that a drastic reform of the Canadian Senate is involved. Besides, public opinion is strongly in favour of the abolition of the other house.
In Quebec a bill was presented recently to limit drastically the powers of that province's Legislative Council.
I wonder if, in a Parliament made up of 265 representatives elected by the people at elections held every four years, it would not be possible to find the elements needed to ensure a political and economic continuity that could lead this country to its fullest development, as regards the prosperity and security of the people, and to maintain, because such was the wish expressed in the Canadian constitution, a Senate to protect minorities that could be subjected sometimes to a strong current of public opinion against their rights.
I believe that the minorities in Canada today, because of the bill of rights, are less and less in need of the protection afforded by the Senate. To obtain justice nowadays,

minorities need the other place less and less as my colleague from Lake St. John said, if the Senate was meant to protect the minorities, that institution surely did not prove itself too useful, throughout its long years of service, as regards the rights of minorities in Canada. Canadian minorities are not against the abolition of the Canadian Senate, the institution we call the other place.
If the Senate appointments are only a political recognition for services rendered, I wonder if we should go on thus recognizing people who, in most cases, have already benefited from their political position to a very large extent. In fact, most of them at a given time were considered as leaders in the Canadian economic field because of their directorates in several large companies and may often have directed their way of thinking not towards the pursuit of the common good but in the interests of a given group, or to protect their own group. If I look back on the appointments made in the last 50 years, I find that a large number of the appointees held as well a most important position in the economic sector of the country and often upheld the interests of certain companies, which was often in their own interest, through the power and influence they exercised because of their position in the other place.
So, as far as appointments are concerned, let no one tell us that the reform contemplated in Bill No. C-98 is the answer to the needs and wishes of the Canadian people. The people seriously believe in a reform of the structure of the other place, the Senate, in the matter of appointments and dealings which, in many cases, have been going on for many years. As far as appointments are concerned, we have given our views-some were given out in public-and it is that 50 per cent of the appointments should be made by the federal government and 50 per cent by the provincial governments.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
There again the danger of a strictly political influence would exist. My colleague from Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has introduced a measure to revise the Senate Act. In my opinion, the aims of this bill reflect the consensus and might be accepted by a great number of members.
I am now making a suggestion that could be fully looked into, namely, that a third of the Senate members-since we want to maintain this institution-could be appointed by the federal government; a third could be appointed by the provincial governments and the other third, by national organizations.
May 7. 1965

As a matter of fact, there are many representative organizations in our country. There are the Confederation of Canadian Workers, the Farmers' Association, the Farm Producers' Association, the Association of Canadian Industrialists and the Chambers of Commerce which represent all Canadian businessmen and industrialists. In order to complete the link between some political groups which could use their influence toward the appointment of senators, members of the third parties could be chosen and appointed by the representatives of those various national organizations.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I would point out that the reform provided for in Bill No. C-98 is not important enough to make us lose much of our time in considering it. I only hope that this contemplated reform does not become another smokescreen to have the public believe that this measure brought down by the Liberal party constitutes a far reaching reform of the Senate, because we do not believe that such a timid reform can be labelled as far reaching as the one which is being suggested by other members of this house, that is, the abolition of the Senate.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I think we saw just before the noon recess a little bit of fallout from private members' hour in regard to this bill. I have always been interested in remarks of the chief spokesman for the N.D.P. party in this House, and in particular in regard to Bill No. C-54. It so happens that 92 private bills have been submitted this session, and 42 of them come from his own party. This meant that Bill No. C-54 of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has become trapped in the large number of bills submitted by his colleagues, and the result was the attempt to adjourn this debate along lines which Your Honour properly ruled out of order.
I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, to arise in support of the measure the Government is now putting before the House, but not without some considerable reservations with respect to the nature of the debate that has taken place to date.
By tradition our Parliament has three branches, the sovereign represented by a Governor General, the Upper House and the Lower House. This was the original symbolism of the three maple leaves which the provinces
Retirement Age for Senators of Upper and Lower Canada adopted before confederation; but when some Members of this House speak in disparaging terms about individuals in the other place, which certain members have done-I am not suggesting they all have-this in turn reflects on Parliament itself.
It reflects on our own constitution. Our constitution has changed a great deal throughout the years. It is changing now. Changes are not always a matter of formal legislation, or bills of rights, or documents which can be pinpointed at any one period of time. I wonder, for example, how many Members of the House are aware that a Prime Minister of this country once sat in the other House, Sir Mackenzie Bowell-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Two of them-the other was Abbott.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I had not been aware there had been two and I accept correction from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). But in December 1894 Sir Mackenzie Bowell was then a member of the other place. He became Prime Minister and he never sat in the House of Commons for the entire period of 16 months. I am sure, incidentally, his record has not been judged to be one of the most successful in this office.


David Orlikow: Putting it pretty mildly.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: But by the same token I think it was an indication of the high regard in which members of that place were held at that time.


David Orlikow: Maybe they deserved it at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. Member says they deserved it then.


David Orlikow: I said maybe.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Let us look at the entire record in terms of what we are doing. Surely the measure before us today is a very important and necessary first step. It will have the effect of reducing the average age of members of the other house and bring about the retirement in future of a good number of members who have not been contributing, despite some very able and conspicuous exceptions for whom I have the highest regard. But surely this is the first step toward reinvigorating the other place and having it play a more permanent and active role in the conduct of Government.
May 7, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators


David Orlikow: It may take 1,000 years.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have listened to hon. Members opposite and tried to understand and summarize the points they have made in debate. They have made the observation that the other place was to represent minorities, whether they were linguistic, racial or geographic minorities. They made the observation that it was to take the sober second thought-I think it was Sir John A. Macdonald who used that expression first-on the legislative processes to check impetuous legislation which might be enacted by Parliament.
Others have said in very derogatory terms that the institution of the Senate provides an opportunity for the Government of the day to make changes in its ranks by retiring- as they put it, and this is a more kind expression-Members who had served their time in the House of Commons. Then we have had a series of comments reflecting on the services, real or alleged as the case may be, to the various party organizations by appointees to the Senate.
I have listened to some of the proposals for reform that have come forward. They have been far ranging indeed. For example, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said we should have some Members of the Cabinet in the other place. He elaborated on the parliamentary and cabinet system in the United States and felt that by taking a proportion of Cabinet Ministers from the other place we could have the best of both worlds, having some members chosen on the basis of their ability and others on the basis of their seats in the representative House of Commons.
We have seen another proposal to have provinces name members to the other place, or to have provincial-wide elections with a slate of Senators from each province.
Many of these proposals if adopted, and in the terms offered, would of necessity involve a fundamental change in the nature of our cabinet. To choose hon. members of the other place this way would have, as a corollary, greater responsibility in the Cabinet itself. It would mean that the proportions of the Cabinet between this House and the other House would have to be carefully examined within the complex framework of the delicate balances that have to be observed within our constitution and parliamentary practice, and would make the task of choosing the cabinet very difficult. This does not mean to say that such suggestions are not worthy of merit, and maybe ultimately some of them will have to be considered.


Among objections to the other place have been three that I have been able to sort out. The first is the general lack of activity. But surely the measure now before the House to bring about an infusion of younger members, a greater proportion of them into the Senate, would go some distance to meeting that objection.
The second objection is that the Senate is not elected, and on principle many Members object to something that is not elected. The process of government, certainly in a democracy, must give primary responsibility to elected representatives. But the Civil Service is not elected. There are very many people serving important and useful roles in government who are not elected, who are selected and appointed, and there are a very wide variety of tasks, which are a very important part in the government of this country, that could be conducted by the other place if the opportunity were presented.
The third basic objection which I have heard-and this does not make me worry too much-is the charge that certain hon. members of the Senate have displayed most deplorable conduct in matters of conflict of interest. Conflict of interest in many situations is totally wrong. I for one do not like to hear of a situation where certain hon. members of the other place sit in on judgment of bank charters and appear to be motivated by personal reasons in approaching their decisions. If anyone believes conflict of interest is exclusively a problem of the Senate, he should think again. Think of the Province of Ontario. Look at the investigation going on into the Securities Commission of that Province where Members of the Commission staff and their immediate families are now facing accusations of a serious kind. Consider the Province of Saskatchewan which was ruled for a number of years by Members belonging to the party in the corner opposite. Again, conflicts of interest arose which resulted in proceedings before the courts. There is not a Member in this House who has served on a municipal council who cannot recall instances of conflict of interest at the municipal level.
There was an interesting item in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen. It referred to something which took place in the Province of Quebec; but similar examples could be given from any other province. This happened in Deschenes, a village which apparently has a one-man police force, and it seems that the property owners had a little quarrel with this one-man police force. I am quoting.
May 7, 1965

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Chiel Dubeau, besides being the only member of the force in the municipality, also drives his own taxi cab, owns a general store and a restaurant.
A female neighbour who lives next door to his restaurant on Champlain Street near St. Jean de Baptiste Street said he continually plays the juke box too loud, disturbing her sleep. But she can do nothing about it.
"Who do you suggest I call to complain about the noise?" she asked.
More discussion revealed that the building which houses the restaurant had been condemned several years ago, but again Chief Dubeau himself would be the person to enforce the condemnation if in fact it can be enforced.
Still more discussion by Mayor Rene Paulin, four aldermen, and the homeowners' group, revealed that it is probable the restaurant is in a strictly residential zone, and that no building permit had been issued for its construction.
Again, Chief Dubeau would have to arrest Chief Dubeau.
Mayor Paulin promised he would look into all facets of the complaints, including whether or not it is proper for the chief to wear his uniform while tending store customers.
And so the story goes. Conflict of interest is one of the problems and perils of Government at every level not only in Canada but throughout the democratic world.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Carleton, but-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I was merely seeking-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. Member kindly resume his seat? I realize he is making a point about conflict of interest in the other place, but I cannot help wondering how it is related to the bill which is before us now, an Act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate at a certain age. May I suggest to the hon. Member that he relate his remarks to the principle of the bill now under discussion?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The point I was making is that surely every elected body faces this problem. Conflict of interest is not a problem which calls for abolition; it calls for the reinforcement of the institution itself by bringing new blood into it by steps such as the measure before this House proposes today, and for that reason I support it.
May I suggest a number of the very useful things which, I have observed from my experience of this place, are done by members of the Senate in such a way as to make an important contribution to the Government of this country? In recent years we have had a very high turnover of members of this chamber in the course of election campaigns. The elections of 1957 and 1958 brought about a turnover of very substantial proportions
Retirement Age for Senators and the elections of 1962 and 1963 did the same. A Parliament which experiences a rapid turnover in its membership suffers corresponding dislocation. Even the most conscientious of new Members have to learn the procedures; they have to learn the customs and the rules; they have to learn a good deal about the processes of Government itself and how the institution functions. They are appointed to committees, more or less haphazardly to start with; then they make a choice according to their interest and talents. This is a procedure which takes time. I think a good deal of the difficulty of this 26th Parliament arises not only from the fact that it is a minority Parliament but that we have such a large proportion of Members who are relatively new and inexperienced in parliamentary procedure.
Among those who have been available to give counsel and advice to new Members, explain the rules and extend a helping hand in a friendly way, are members of the other place. It is difficult for me to name individuals and I hope certain members of the other place will recognize that by not naming them at this time I am not in any way reflecting on them. Parliament is in many ways a competitive place and to a considerable extent each Member is on his own. Each is concerned about his own constituency, about the performance of the group to which he belongs and about the dignity of Parliament as a whole. The role of members of the other place in making a contribution based on their experience, their knowledge and their background is something which should not be minimized.
In the fall of 1963 I had the honour and privilege of being part of a delegation which represented Canada at the Commonwealth Conference in Malaysia, a country which now faces serious internal and external difficulties. The head of our delegation was Senator Donald Cameron, who is very active indeed. He is not a man who identifies himself closely with parties and politics but he is a man who has given a great deal of conscientious service to Canada, and he has given continuity to the delegations which represent us at commonwealth conferences, at the United Nations and in many other areas. I am told that at the United Nations men such as Senator D'Arcy Leonard and Senator Yuzyk have made outstanding contributions.
In the course of this debate some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for
May 7, 1965

Retirement Age jor Senators Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) acknowledged the contribution which the Canada Pension Plan committee, a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, made to the preparation of this legislation. This committee held 51 meetings. It met many times during the Christmas recess and on a number of occasions it sat three times a day. Members of the Senate were conscientious in their attendance. I can think of many names: Senator Fergusson, the co-chairman; Senator Croll, one of the original members of the committee which sat in 1950 to make the proposal on which an old age security plan was based; Senator Hugessen; Senator McCutch-eon, whose views I did not share but whose ability in understanding all the issues was beyond question. Such members of the other place made an outstanding contribution to the work of the Committee. There have of course been other valuable Senate committees on land use, employment, old age, and so on. In these and other directions I believe a good deal of necessary work for the development of parliamentary business can be done.
A good deal has been said about some of the recent appointments to the Senate. Unfortunately I have not had the privilege of getting to know many of these men. I know one, who was a classmate of mine. All I can say is this: the men I have met are men in the most able years of their lives, capable men who have had outstanding records in the fields they chose before they entered the public service. They have also made a contribution or rendered a service, perhaps, of some nature to their party. I do not think this in itself disqualifies them. They will be judged on their record in the Senate and as Members of Parliament in the broadest sense of the word "Parliament". Surely the appointment of such men does not deserve the kind of condemnation in such outlandish terms as we have heard.
Perhaps the answer is that there should be more balance in the selection of background when persons are chosen to go to the other place. One of the speakers who preceded me said there had never been a member of the socialist group which governed Saskatchewan appointed to the Senate. Well, I seem to recall that Mr. Coldwell was offered an appointment at one time and that he chose to decline it. I may be wrong. If it has been a matter of principle with their party not to participate in the Senate, I respect them for their principles. But they cannot have it two ways. If the appointments are offered, and they

choose not to accept them, they cannot complain about no appointments being made.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It is quite true that we should work out a basis of more non-partisan selection and balance of representation of Members of the Senate; but the most important thing is that we should select able, conscientious people who have an interest in public affairs and are prepared to devote their time to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question? Did I understand him to say that we were complaining? None of our people have been complaining about not being appointed to the Senate. I think it was the hon. Member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) who complained. We do not complain; we do not want to go there.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for making quite clear the point I was making myself. I said that I respected them if it was their desire not to accept an appointment to the Senate; but I simply said it is not for any minority party to say that they have not a representative in the Senate when they have declined to accept such an appointment as a matter of principle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart).


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have not finished yet, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Speaker thought you had gone to the Senate.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I do believe that in regard to the measures which are proposed it might be worth consideration if some limitation on retirement age could be made for those who elect to take the pension, which will be of the order of $8,000 a year. I would think that such an election should be made fairly promptly, about the 75th birthday, and should not be an election left open at any age or any stage of the career of a member of the other place.
The Canadian Senate is to a considerable degree what Parliament makes it. In previous years it had a higher proportion of active members and it had a higher regard, apparently, in the eyes of many people in the community. The present measure, long overdue, is a very welcome step to bring into its ranks a higher proportion of younger and
May 7, 1965	COMMONS
more active members who can make a contribution. The contribution to be made is potentially a very great one. As has been pointed out, at least theoretically a very great degree of power resides in the Senate; a power which the Senate has chosen, wisely in many instances, not to use. But I suggest there is a very great role, and an important one, to be played by the other place in providing continuity of committees. An elected legislature has on occasion a very large turnover in terms of the proportion of its members. The Senate can provide a continuity from one Parliament to another. It can give a great deal of assistance, primarily of the type that does not hit the headlines, to newer Members of Parliament who come to a very busy institution. It can participate in representing Canada abroad at the United Nations, and in many other places, recognizing the growing role which we have in the eyes of other nations as a middle-rank power. I prefer to see this measure adopted as the first step. This is a measure of reform. How we will develop from this stage will depend upon the customs and usages of the Canadian Parliament itself.


Mr. J. B. Stewari (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the matter treated in Bill No. C-98 has brought on a far-ranging discussion. The bill is simple enough. In essence it provides that persons hereafter summoned to the Senate shall retire at 75 and that persons who are now Senators who are, or become, either 75 or permanently disabled may retire with an annuity.
In this discussion, Mr. Speaker, the N.D.P. has rushed to one extreme. They have demanded the total and immediate abolition of the Senate. I shall not discuss that extreme view because the relevance of it to the debate now going on was settled this morning; it is not relevant to this debate. But we may assume that if this alternative were not available to the members of the N.D.P., they would propose some far-reaching and radical alteration in the Senate. It has been argued, as the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) reminded us, that this N.D.P. extremism is caused by the fact that no member of the N.D.P. is now in the Senate, nor can have a reasonable hope of being summoned.
I think that explanation is inadequate. There are at least two more serious reasons why the N.D.P. wants to see the Senate either abolished or very extensively changed.
DEBATES	1053
Retirement Age for Senators
The N.D.P. dreams of a time when it has a majority in this House. One Member fondly imagines a day when he, as Prime Minister, will bring in a measure to nationalize the iron and steel industry. Another yearns for a day when he, as Minister of Industry and Energy, brings in a bill to nationalize the gas, oil, coal and hydroelectric resources of this country.


David Orlikow: This has been done already.


John B. Stewart: Yet another has his own plans for clinics and hospitals. These gentlemen fear that when their bills have passed this House, they will be rejected by the Senate. Consequently, the N.D.P. now proposes to deal radically with the Senate. They sought today to bring forward an amendment proposing that the Senate should be abolished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Plear, hear.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicating that I have hit the nail on the head.
Second, the N.D.P.-whether consciously or not, I do not know-more and more has come to espouse a primitive congressional theory of government. One has only to read what the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre said, as reported at pages 412 and 413 of Hansard, about the resolution preceding this bill, to detect this approach. He contends that political theory allows no place in the governmental process for persons not selected by the electorate. Naturally, he has no use for an appointed Senate.
As I listened to the hon. Member the other day I was reminded of a famous American professor who always introduced his own views by beginning, "Sound political theory teaches that . . ." The theory put forward by the hon. Member is only one theory. It is not the only theory of representative constitutional government. Moreover, his is a theory that has rarely, if ever, been successful in practice. But be that as it may, the point is that the hon. Member's insistence that the Senate be abolished is perfectly consistent with his theory. It is the logical product of his conception of representative government. At the other extreme we find those who would have Senators come to Ottawa as the delegates of either the several provinces or the people in those provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the "professor" permit a question?
May 7, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators


John B. Stewart: Yes, Sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would he say that the legislatures of nine of the provinces of Canada which do not have an Upper House are not successful parliamentary bodies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That just depends.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have to turn to the legislatures of the various provinces to deal with this point. The hon. Member has been contending that in representative government the right to make decisions arises only through the electoral process. We know very well, as the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) pointed out earlier, that this is a pretty serious misconception of what goes on even in a unicameral system of government. For example, take the matter of elections. We know very well that some of the most important decisions in the electoral process are made at nominating conventions, or even prior to nominating conventions, when people are canvassed as to their willingness to let their names go forward.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: The Liberal party, for example.


John B. Stewart: I know what went on in my part of Canada when the N.D.P. was wandering around looking for candidates.
At the other extreme we find those who would have Senators come to Ottawa as the delegates of either the several provinces or the people in the several provinces. It is not surprising at all there should be Social Credit support for this theory. What is amazing, Sir, is to find both the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) proposing that the Senators should sit in Parliament as representatives of provinces. On April 27 the hon. Member for Oxford, as reported at page 635 of Hansard, said:
Instead of being based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister to His Excellency, the Provinces should be able to appoint certain Members to the other place.
That view was enunciated again today by the hon. Member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) and to some extent by the hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Perron). If the hon. Member had lived in the United States in 1913 he would have opposed the seventeenth amendment to the United States constitution, which in that year abolished precisely this method of selecting the United States Senate. The hon. Member for Skeena is, of course, a radical. He prefers the post-1913 United States

example. On April 26 he suggested that we should get rid of the Senate-I am quoting from his remarks reported at page 421 of Hansard-
-as an appointed political body, and elect 10 members to it from each Province, so that all Provinces would have equal representation in it.
Closely coupled with these proposals for new ways of recruiting the Senate have gone proposals for increasing the role, and thus the power, of the Senate.
What this second extreme view ignores is that our system basically is a system of responsible government. The Ministry is responsible to the House of Commons and is dependant on a majority for support only in the House of Commons. The Senate has extensive rights under the constitution, but for various reasons those rights are not exercised. The inevitable result of having Senators appointed by the provincial governments or popularly elected in the several provinces would be an increase in the genuine power of the Senate. In that situation, to accomplish its purposes a Ministry would have to satisfy a majority in each of the two Houses. No Ministry can be answerable effectively to two masters. Those who propose to reform the Senate threaten our system of responsible government.
It is not at all surprising that the topic of Senate reform has been a delight to those who, like the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), take an institutionalist approach to the academic study of politics in Canada. Here we have a chamber with rights under the constitution so great as to appear inconsistent with responsible government. Here we have a chamber that declines to exercise those rights. Both these facts are offensive to the institutionalist, so, regardless of reality, he contrives what he calls "reforms".
We need not resort to the early American theory of "sober second thoughts" to justify the continued existence of the Senate. We need not resort to the cup and saucer theory. When George Washington was asked whether or not he thought the Congress of the United States should have two chambers, he replied: "I do indeed. I believe in cups and saucers. I pour my tea when it is too hot into the saucer so that it can cool". I think we need not turn to the cup and saucer theory to justify the existence of the Senate, because the accuracy of the theory of the sober second thought is at least uncertain.
What is clear, however, is that Prime Ministers are given a valuable degree of flexi-
May 7, 1965

bility in the making and remaking of their Cabinets by reason of the existence of the Senate. The Senate serves as one of the attractions, all too few in our system, drawing men and women into public life. By its mere existence it deters the spread of the dangerous doctrine of primitive congressionalism.


Robert William Prittie: Your High Commissioner votes too, you know.


John B. Stewart: Those valuable functions of the Senate would still be performed if the rights of the Senate were modified, in line for example with the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, as amended in 1949. It is conceivable that at some future date this House should take the time to examine the need for such a modification. But, Sir, the conflict between socialism and the Senate is far from imminent. We need not try to anticipate it now, nor indeed for many years to come; and I use those words only so as not to be too discouraging to Members of the New Democratic Party.
Even the bitterest critics of the Senate would not insist that the other place is so outrageous in its conduct that at this very moment we should put aside for weeks all other business to deal with the great constitutional issues raised by some of those who have spoken on this bill. The bill under debate, despite all that has been said about it, is a recognition of the general rule that beyond a certain age a man's capacity for public affairs decreases.
The hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), as reported at page 426 of Hansard, said:
I should like to say on behalf of the Members of this group that not only will we oppose this resolution but that I hope, indeed I expect, that we will fight the Bill when it comes in, clause by clause.


David Orlikow: Hear, hear.


John B. Stewart: I would appeal to him to change his mind, though evidently from his interjection he is not likely to do so.


David Orlikow: That is right.


John B. Stewart: I appeal to him and to the other Members of the N.D.P. to abandon their last ditch approach. Their approach is all too reminiscent of the position taken by the most obstructionist opponents, the "backwoodsmen", in the House of Lords, when the Parliament Bill of 1911 was before that august body.
I refer now to an editorial which exactly sums up the situation which confronts us.
Retirement Age for Senators It appears in the Chronicle-Herald for Wednesday, April 28. Commenting on what was said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Chronicle-Herald said:
Mr. Diefenbaker asserts that the legislation is a ''sham", even while the Bill differs from that which he introduced when Prime Minister in April, 1962, at one point only. At that time Mr. Diefenbaker would have forced the retirement of Senators then serving. The present Bill, on the other hand, applies to future appointees only; it gives present senators over 75 the option of staying on, or of retiring with a substantial pension.
The new approach, in our opinion, is realistic. It is certain, moreover, that not many years will elapse after its passage before the goal of an age limit of 75 is reached.
Members of the N.D.P. may be worried that they might be neglected by this newspaper; but they can rest assured that they have not been overlooked, for the editorial goes on:
As for the New Democrats, they persist in their time-worn cries of abolition. Mr. Knowles has submitted his usual bill to this end, although it must be remarked that Mr. Howard, demonstrating once again the confused front that party often puts up in the Commons, now advocated an elected Senate, with 10 members from each province.
This editorial concludes, as I do now, Sir, by stating that this bill is both reasonable and suitable to the circumstances. It states that this bill does not deserve time-consuming opposition at a time when other, more pressing matters await parliamentary attention.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If you will review, Sir, the time expended on the debate at the resolution stage, you will find that the Government took up something less than 10 minutes. If you review what has been said today you will find that hon. Members on the Government side of this House have taken up something less than one hour of the time of the House.


William Arnold Peters: Do not apologize.


John B. Stewart: We have before us a bill which proposes a reasonable adjustment to the Senate Act. I realize that this does not please Members of the New Democratic Party who wish to see no change at all, year after year after year, if they cannot have their own way. They are whole-hoggers. My request is simply that hon. Members of this House realize how reasonable this Bill is and co-operate in the passage of it without further delay.


David Orlikow: The
hon. Member has taken his theme from the suggestion that it only took the Government
May 7, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators ten minutes to introduce this bill. In view of the many years of discussion about Senate reform, which has resulted in this so-called bill for Senate reform, I am surprised it took even ten minutes.
There has been a good deal of criticism both in this House and in the other place about some of the things which have been said about this bill. Some of the members of the other place woke up from their slumber long enough to attack the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) because of a speech he made in relation to this bill. The Member for Port Arthur quoted extensively from an article written by Mr. Peter Newman, who is well known in this country for his undeviating support of the Liberal Party. Mr. Newman hates the former Prime Minister and has no use for the group to which I belong, so he has no alternative but to support the Party now in power.
In the article from which the hon. Member for Port Arthur quoted, Mr. Newman referred to the appointments made by prime ministers, name by name, pointing out their qualifications, and concluded that the main qualification, if not the only one, of a Senator was that he had distinguished himself as a collector of funds for the Liberal Party. Was Mr. Newman wrong in this suggestion? Was the hon. Member for Port Arthur wrong when he read these suggestions into the record? If these gentlemen are wrong, why have we not heard a repudiation? We have not heard one, so we must assume that the suggestions are accurate.
Is there anything wrong with being a collector of finances for a political party? I have collected money for my party and I am not ashamed of it, although I do not like the job. There is nothing wrong with being a collector for the Liberal Party or any other party.


William Arnold Peters: We did not promise you a Senate seat.


David Orlikow: No, I was not promised a Senate seat and I would not have accepted one, in any event. We will come to that subject a little later.
Let me say in reply to those who criticize the statements made by the hon. Member for Port Arthur that I should like them to inform me what other qualifications the individuals to which reference was made have which make them deserving of a Senate appointment. I think it is incumbent upon hon. Members on the other side of this House to put
[Mr. Orlikow.)
the record straight. If the hon. Member for Port Arthur misrepresented the facts, let them say so.
Today for the first time we have heard a number of Members from the opposite side of this chamber speak on this proposed change to the Senate. I could not help but wonder how many of those preachers were preaching for a call, hoping that in the future they might be called to another place.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: Let me remind the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) that just before we adjourned for lunch an hon. Member suggested that we in this party were anti-British. He demonstrated by that remark his complete ignorance of the British Upper Chamber. That is one body with which the Canadian Senate cannot be compared. The Canadian Senate has virtually unlimited power and can hold up legislation indefinitely. The British House of Lords can only hold up legislation from one session to another. The Canadian Senate is limited as to numbers whereas the British Prime Minister could recommend to the Queen tomorrow, if the House of Lords attempted to block his bill in respect of the steel industry, that 600 new members be appointed to that chamber in order that he would have support. Those Members who suggest that, because we are opposed to the great powers held by the Canadian Senate we are anti-British, display only an ignorance of the facts. We do not deny the fact that we are abolitionists, because we believe there is no need for a Senate in Canada, and that the Senate should-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but I feel that his remarks now go beyond the provisions of the bill before us. I am sure the hon. Member will recall that this House decided this morning that an amendment posed by an hon. Member in regard to the abolition of the Senate was out of order. I suggest to the hon. Member that his remarks now in regard to the abolition of the Senate are also out of order, and I would request that he confine his remarks to the provisions of the bill before us, which relate to the retirement of the members of the Senate.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to co-operate with you, but I note that the Chair did not restrict the hon. Members for Carleton (Mr. Francis) and Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) when they discussed
May 7, 1965

the position taken by Members of this party regarding the abolition of the Senate. I would ask the Chair to extend to me only the rights which have been extended to those hon. Members who spoke before me in this House. Nothing I intend to say will go any further than the remarks made by the hon. Members to whom I have referred.
The position taken by Members of this Party in respect of the abolition of the Senate, because as it is now constituted it is useless, is taken by many other people. Many other Members of this House agree with the position we are taking, and in this connection I should like to put on record some views expressed by an eminent newspaperman, known as a supporter of the Liberal Party. I have before me a series of articles reprinted from the Winnipeg Free Press, compiled in 1961 by Mr. Grant Dexter, who was a very able parliamentary correspondent and, as I have said, a very strong supporter of the Liberal Party. One paragraph of this compilation reads as follows:
As it now exists and has existed since Confederation, the Senate is no more than a haven for party faithful. It is the most potent patronage in the gift of the Prime Minister. It is invaluable in solving Cabinet problems and problems in the majority party. Prime Ministers regard Senate appointments as indispensable to party management and discipline. That is why most have kept a few Senatorial seats vacant as incentives for party supporters, the theory being that every vacancy keeps several hopeful occupants hard at work or contributing to party funds. The reward, when it comes, is generous: a comfortable lifetime salary and expense allowance; an office and secretarial help; free railway transportation and occasional corporation directorships. But once having appointed persons to the Senate, prime ministers and their cabinets have no further interest in the Upper House other than as a possible future haven for themselves.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that nothing the hon. Member for Port Arthur or any member of our group has said is a more devastating commentary on the Senate than what I have just quoted.


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


David Orlikow: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How does the hon. gentleman, who is a great exponent of social security, I believe, reconcile his views on that subject with the doctrine of abolition of the Senate which he is now espousing?


David Orlikow: It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. I believe in social security for those who need it, for the poor. The Minister 22620-68
Retirement Age for Senators who is proposing this bill is proposing a wonderful scheme of social security for the rich Senators who do not need it. That is the difference.


An hon. Member:: Oh, a means test.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, Professor R. H. MacKay, in an article which appeared in Queen's Quarterly in the autumn of 1964, had this to say about the Senate:
The real reason why the Senate seems to be composed of nonentities, why it plays such a minor part in making public policy, is not the age of its members, nor their quality, nor life appointments, nor partisanship, but the fact that in an age of democracy the present Senate is largely an anachronism. The House of Commons can always claim to represent the people, and the government of the day the party which the people decided should hold public office. The Senate can make no such claim. Its fatal weakness is that it represents nothing larger than itself. Whatever its legal powers, it has thus no political authority, no mandate from the people as a whole, nor from the people organized by provinces, by municipalities, or any other political grouping. Senators can speak for nothing but themselves.
Professor MacKay is not an abolitionist, Mr. Speaker. I could go on and quote MacGregor Dawson and others. They all agree that the Senate as it is and as it has been for many years discharges no useful function. It seems to me that those Members of the House of Commons who are opposed to abolition can advance only three basic arguments. They can propose that the Senate as it is now constituted serves some useful purpose. We have heard very little on that score because I think Members of Parliament know that their electors simply would not believe it, since it is not true.
Second, they can advance the argument that the Senate should be reformed, and it has been suggested publicly that this measure is the first step in reform. I want to say that after some 40 years during which the Liberal party has talked about Senate reform, this is indeed a mouse which has been produced. It has been suggested privately, if not publicly, that the only reason this very minor proposal has been brought forward is that the Senate would have to agree, and they would not agree, so we cannot do much more that we would like to do. I recommend that those people who believe that should look at Bill No. 3 passed last year by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec. Bill No. 3 is in the name of a very good Liberal, Mr. Lesage. The title of the bill is "Quebec Parliament Act", and I quote
1058	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators from the explanatory notes accompanying the bill:
The object of this Bill is to restrict the powers of the Legislative Council over Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly.
Let me quote some of the sections, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important that we put them on the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman tell us if that bill has passed both Houses?


David Orlikow: I will come to that. I think there is a lesson the Minister could learn from what is happening in Quebec if he would have the courage to follow the convictions he is supposed to have. I quote the following sections:
1.	If the Legislative Council does not pass without amendment, within one month, a money bill passed by the Legislative Assembly, the bill shall nevertheless be presented to the Lieutenant-Governor for assent and shall become law accordingly, unless the Legislative Assembly directs to the contrary.
2.	All Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue of the Province, or for imposing, altering or repealing any tax allocated to such revenue, or for legislating on any subordinate matter incidental thereto, are money Bills.
3.	There shall be endorsed on every money bill when it is sent up to the Legislative Council and when it is presented to the Lieutenant-Governor for assent the Certificate of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly signed by him that it is a money bill.
4.	If a bill other than a money bill is passed by the Legislative Assembly in two sessions-whether of the same legislature or not-and, having been sent up to the Legislative Council at least one month before the end of the session, is there rejected each time, it shall nevertheless be presented to the Lieutenant-Governor for assent and shall become law accordingly, unless the Legislative Assembly directs to the contrary.
This section shall not apply unless one year has elapsed between the date of the second reading of the bill in the Legislative Assembly in the first of those sessions and the date on which it passed the Legislative Assembly in the second session.
This section shall not apply to a bill containing a provision to extend the duration of a legislature beyond five years.
I think I have given the key clauses of the bill. The Minister of Transport asks what happened to it, and that is a good question.
I will tell him what happened. The Legislative Council, which is analogous to the Senate, amended a number of key provisions of the bill. What did Mr. Lesage do? Mr. Le-sage did what the Prime Minister of Canada has not got the courage to do. Mr. Lesage is sending that bill with a message to the Queen asking that the bill be approved as originally drafted without the consent of the Legislative Council. But this Government does not have

DEBATES	May 7, 1965
the courage to put through a real measure to reform the Senate because they do not want to fight the Senate. So we get the weasel-like kind of thing which has been proposed in this bill. That is the difference between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of the Province of Quebec. When the Prime Minister of the Province of Quebec makes up his mind-


Gerald Augustine Regan: Premier.


David Orlikow: Well, premier or prime minister. I will let the Members from Quebec educate the Member for Halifax as to the correct title. When the Prime Minister or Premier of Quebec decides to do something, he does not look for excuses not to act. He goes ahead and does it.


Mr. Walker:: Would the hon. Member permit a question? I dislike breaking into his illogical argument, but I simply ask him whether he proposes to reform the Senate before or after he abolishes it?


David Orlikow: It is obvious that the hon. Member for York Centre was not here when I began my speech or was not listening, because I made it very clear that in my opinion it is for the people who are opposed to abolition to make concrete proposals and to enact legislation which will reform the Senate. Since the hon. Member's party does not seem to have the ability to draft suitable amendments, may I suggest the kind of line they ought to follow?


David James Walker: May I ask a further question? Is this not comparable to making the prisoner healthy before you excute him?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member thinks that the Senators should be executed, all right. I do not believe in execution, even of Senators. I am against capital punishment. I simply want to abolish the Senate and let the Senators go into retirement without bothering the people of Canada or Parliament, e (4:00 p.m.)
A number of proposals have been made for reform in the Senate. For example, it has been suggested the Senate would be made more useful if Senators were to represent the provinces. Mr. MacGregor Dawson has stated this was the original contention following Confederation when plans were made for the establishment of a Senate. Since I do not believe in the Senate I do not intend to pursue that kind of thinking very far, but for those who do believe the Senate has
May 7, 1965	COMMONS
a useful function, the Government ought to look seriously at proposals made by many competent historians and political scientists to the effect that Senators ought to be elected from the provinces.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Where do they come from now?


David Orlikow: What difference does it make if a broken down Liberal politician from B.C. is appointed to the Senate? Does the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) really-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It is the opinion to the Chair that the House is getting well away from the principle of the bill before it, and I would wish to remind the House we are discussing the principle of a bill to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate. I would hope that the House would remain within the confines of the bill before it. Again, 1 should point out that the principle of the bill has nothing to do with appointments to the Senate. It is a bill for the retirement of members of the Senate.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that we are on second reading of the bill, which is acceptance in principle, and therefore there can be no legitimate objection to alternatives being provided for the principle that you insinuate is in the bill? If there is any principle in it, then it appears to me any alternative to that principle should also be a debatable subject. Therefore I suggest that the alternatives to the principle in the bill may form part of second reading. In my opinion anything less would be completely negative of the whole process that in debating the principle of a bill there is the opportunity to suggest an alternative. If this were not true, then there would be no need for this discussion, and on second reading one could only vote against the principle of the bill. I suggest that democratically we have a right to suggest an alternative to the principle proposed by the Government.


David Orlikow: On the point raised-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
I recognize the argument which the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) presented, but I should again point out to him that this morning the House voted that a discussion of abolition of the Senate was not relative to the point before the House. If the question of abolition is not relative to the point before the House, then I should have to argue equally strongly that the question of
DEBATES	1059
Retirement Age jor Senators retention is not relevant. The bill before the House provides for the retirement of Senators, and I believe that the purpose of the bill and the principle of it are rather confined to narrow limits. I would hope those who continue to make remarks on the principle of the bill will recognize these limits.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on the point you raise, may I point out with the utmost respect that the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough quoted in some detail a suggestion made earlier by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre in which he argued for abolition, and the hon. Member called that a form of primitive democracy, or something to that effect. The hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) discussed the position of his party on abolition, and I am asking for the opportunity to do no more than that. I shall be through in a minute.
I am not discussing the virtues of abolition, but surely we have before us a bill providing for Senate reform. And surely if a Member like myself thinks that the proposal for Senate reform does not go far enough, I have a right to explain in detail what I think should be done in the way of Senate reform, and to explain why I intend to vote against the bill. If 1 do not have that right, and if other Members do not have that right, then we have no right to put our points of view forward.
It seems to me that if those who believe in Senate reform, or those who talk so fervently about it, meant business, they would discuss this question of representation by the provinces, not representation by ex-politicians, by fund raisers and bagmen who do not represent the thinking of the provinces. I shall continue to oppose as vigorously as I can the principles espoused by those people who belong to one or other of the Social Credit parties. But Social Credit have been in power in Alberta for 30 years, and have been in power in B.C. consecutively longer than any other group. Surely if the Senate were to represent the views of the provinces one might expect there would be one single appointment of a Social Credit member. But the plums are too far and too few, and they have to be reserved for the Liberal Party when it is in power, and for the Conservative Party when it is in power.
There was a C.C.F. government in power for 20 years in Saskatchewan, but not a single representative of that party was appointed to the Senate and, to my knowl-
May 7. 1965

Retirement Age jor Senators edge very few, with the possible exception of Mr. Coldwell, were ever proposed.
In Nova Scotia, from which the hon. Mem-er for Antigonish-Guysborough comes, there is a Conservative government. Surely if the Senators were to do a job and somebody were to represent the views of the people of Nova Scotia in keeping with the way they voted during the last few provincial elections, there might well be found a person who happens to be a Conservative and who has enough ability to grace that august other chamber. But no, so long as this Government is in power vacancies will be filled in the usual way.


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


David Orlikow: Certainly.


John B. Stewart: I should like to ask him if he did not follow the argument I made, to the effect that if Senators were selected by the provincial governments or by the electors within provinces, this would enhance the power of the Senate and inevitably cause a conflict with the principle of responsible government.


David Orlikow: I followed the hon. Member's argument very carefully and I agree with a great deal of it, but when he finished I had to come to the conclusion that he is against abolition. He wants the Senate to remain, but he is against giving the Senate any power. What he wants is a group of some under-people who will come to Ottawa, be appointed for life and have the power to block any legislation they desire, but who will have no real contribution to make. There is no other alternative left-


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he will promise to read my speech?


David Orlikow: Let me tell the hon. Member he is one of the few Liberal Members who I think make suggestions that are worth listening to, and I will be glad to read his speech; but the fact is that he really offered nothing to explain the old custom in this country of appointing to the Senate the kind of people who have been appointed.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. Member permit a question? I believe he served on the Winnipeg school board and in the Legislature of Manitoba before coming to this House. Is he aware that most of the Senators since Confederation have been politicians, and does

he really think politicians are unworthy to be appointed to a legislative body?


David Orlikow: Of course not. I wish the Canadian people thought as highly of those who go into politics, whether municipal, provincial or federal, as they do of some others. After all, the important decisions in this country are increasingly made by government. But I believe politicians should be elected. I know the Minister really believes the Liberal Party has a divine right to be the Government at all times. But I believe that in a democratic system people have the right-and sometimes they exercise it-to defeat Members of Parliament or members of a legislature or members of a municipal council or a school board. What I do not like about the Senate is this, particularly when I look at the kind of people who have been appointed by the party on the other side: once appointed there is no control over them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the hon. Member is a fair minded man and that he would not wish to misrepresent my views. He has told the House he knows-and by what process he arrived at this conclusion he did not tell us- that I believe in the divine right of the Liberal Party to rule. Let me tell him this. I believe in the right of the Liberal Party to carry on the Government of this country only when it can get a majority-and that has happened to be most of the time during the 20th century. It seems to me the hon. Member might examine his own position in this connection because the Members of his party are the ones who generally in this House, I think, give the impression that they and they alone are divinely inspired. Well, at least they cannot get elected.


David Orlikow: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you are keeping a record of these questions and interruptions and not including them in my time. I did not deliberately misrepresent the views of the Minister of Transport and I do not think that what I said is really different from what he said. He simply put it differently. He thinks that nearly always, or most of the time anyway, the Liberal Party deserves the support of the people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Once again, the hon.
Member has totally distorted my meaning. I said they had got that support. I did not say whether they had deserved it or not, I said they had got it. But it is an historical fact that since the C.C.F. Party was founded in 1932 they have never been able to secure the confidence of Canadians and that during the
May 7, 1965	COMMONS
period from 1932 onward the Liberal Party has been given it most of the time. And when we did not get it I sat on the other side of the House in good part and did my best to deserve it again.


David Orlikow: I do not know why the Minister finds it necessary to interrupt me. I cannot deny that the people of Canada have elected supporters of his party to Parliament and that they have formed the Government all these years. He only substantiates what I have said, and what I continue to say. I may think the people of Canada are making a mistake, but as long as they wish to vote that way they have a right to do so.
My point is that as long as Members of Parliament are elected the people of Canada can, if they choose, decide not to re-elect them. If this Government is in power for another couple of years it will so pack the Senate that there would need to be a government of different political complexion for 25 years before the Liberal majority in the other place would disappear. That is what I object to, because I think it is completely contrary to the whole concept of democratic government.
If Members of the Senate are not to represent the provinces from which they come, then perhaps they should represent the various groups in the community.


John B. Stewart: This is what is called "corporatism".


David Orlikow: The hon. Member for An-tigonish-Guysborough can call it what he likes. I think it is an interesting and sad fact that the number of Senators who have been active in farm organizations and who can speak for the farming community of Canada is very small. I may be wrong, and I speak from memory, but the only Senator I can think of who has any right to claim he represented the farmers of Canada is a Senator from my own province, Senator Crerar. But it is a long time since the hon. Senator spoke for anybody except the corporations on whose boards he now sits. It is a long way from the leader of the Progressive Party, which had an important and useful role to play in this Parliament, to the man who makes speeches suggesting that an increase in the old age pension would weaken the moral fibre of the Canadian people. I do not know who has a better old age pension than a Senator. But that is the kind of speech the Senator from my own province makes and I do not think the people of my province are very proud of him.
DEBATES	1061
Retirement Age jor Senators
I would have expected that there might have been some representatives of labour in the Senate. After all, there are some one and a quarter million workers who belong to Canadian trade unions. But none has been offered an appointment as far as I know with the exception of Mr. Jodoin, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress. The appointment may have been offered to others, but I do not know of any such cases and I know the labour movement very well. I can think of several people who are capable of making valuable contributions. There is Dr. Eugene Forsey who had a distinguished record in Canadian universities before he became research director of the Canadian Labour Congress. There is Mr. Frank Hall-


William Arnold Peters: Trying to get rid of all those dissidents?


David Orlikow: No, but I would suggest that with the kind of party we have in power, a year ago we might have had Mr. Hal Banks in the Senate as a representative of labour. He has lots of friends in the Liberal Party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. Member forgotten it was several Members of his own party who recommended Mr. Hal Banks very strongly for citizenship not so long ago?


David Orlikow: If the hon. gentleman wants to discuss Mr. Banks' citizenship-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You raised it.


David Orlikow: -I will be happy to discuss that question at the appropriate time and ask why his former colleague, the man who preceded him as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, ignored the recommendation of his appeals board and gave Mr. Banks the status of a Canadian resident. I would be very happy to accommodate the Minister by discussing that matter at the appropriate time.
One would think that universities might well be represented in the Senate. I can think of a number of distinguished professors who could add prestige to that body-Professor Lower, Professor Underhill, Dr. Pen-field-


Gerald Augustine Regan: Frank Scott.


David Orlikow: The hon. Member suggests Frank Scott. I was trying to steer away from N.D.P. people because I am sure they would not accept the appointments if they were proposed.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I suggested it seriously.
May 7. 1965

Retirement Age jor Senators


David Orlikow: That may be so, but the Prime Minister would not consider it for very long. After all, he needs a vacancy from Quebec for some deserving fund-raiser. That is the important consideration. Appointments of the kind I have been suggesting are those which might be made if this question of Senate reform is considered seriously, but this is not what we get. We get businessmen and former politicians who very quickly become members of boards of directors of companies.
The hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) raised this question in connection with applications for banks which came before the Senate last year. He said the Senators were not the only people who had a conflict of interest, and that is true. It may be there are Members of Parliament who have a conflict of interest; I can think of several sitting on the other side of the House who have a conflict of interest, as it seems to me. The difference between the Senators and the Members of the House of Commons is that at the next election the constituents of any Member of Parliament who may have a conflict of interest can settle it by defeating their Member, who has not represented them but has represented the business interests.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I want to talk briefly on this conflict of interest in the Senate. Bruce Macdonald, who I think was one of the best reporters in the press gallery, of the business of Parliament, wrote an article on July 7, 1964 which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail, and I want to read two paragraphs to which I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill) will give some thought in the future, if he has not done so in the past. Mr. Macdonald says:
A question arises whether some members of the Senate, many of whom are associated with the oldest, most powerful financial institutions in the country, may be using their position to discourage or retard the development of young and lusty rivals to challenge this establishment.
That is a pretty serious charge to make, Mr. Speaker. Further, Mr. Macdonald says:
Yet another question that begs an answer is the extent to which individual Senators should properly participate in consideration of measures, such as the establishment of companies, that may conflict with their private interests as shareholders, officers, directors or partners of organizations which may be affected by the legislation at hand.
What was Mr. Macdonald talking about? He was talking about applications for the the right to operate banks made by the Bank of Western Canada, the Laurentide people
[Mr. Regan.l
and the British Columbia bank. They were applications which got a very rough hearing from the Senate Banking Committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Member to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to a few members in this House giving their opinions of Bill No. C-98, which provides a retirement age for Senators in the other place, I have come to the conclusion that not only do the public feel something should be done about the Senate but that that feeling exists also in this chamber. This puts me more at ease in speaking about the other place, realizing that I am not the only one who thinks that something should be done about the Senate.
If we go back to some of the speeches made on April 26 and 27-that of the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), for example-we realize that a certain pattern is followed in the nomination of Senators. I had realized that for some time. During the 1963 campaign I read a list during a television interview of all the Senators who belonged to financial institutions, naming them and the institutions concerned. The reaction to that television program was such that for the following two weeks I received telegrams, letters and telephone calls from all over the area covered by that station, which was the Sherbrooke television station, a station with an audience of two and a half million people covering about two thirds of the province. I was asked for a list of the Senators, and I can say that 99 per cent of the people who phoned me or wrote to me were not in too good humour about the Senators I had named. I had four long typewritten pages of them; there were not just one or two. I might say that before the bill passes I intend to read these names again. These names were obtained from the 1962 financial survey, and I would be very interested in the 1964 financial survey to bring me up to date, because since this Government has been in power it has named a few more Senators. And the hon. Member for Port Arthur has given these Senators a pretty good pedigree.
In passing this bill we are asking the House to provide a retirement age of 75 for Senators. The way I see it, this will not help solve the problem. We have two possible solutions. The first is to abolish the Senate entirely. The second solution is to reform it. Abolishing it
May 7, 1965

would please a lot of people, but it would not necessarily be the right thing to do. If we want to find out exactly how much it would please the public, I would ask the Government to submit to the people a referendum or to make it an issue in the next election campaign, thus saving perhaps the Senate's skin. We will not only abolish the Senate but possibly get rid of the Liberal Party from this House forever, so it might be a very good thing to submit a referendum to the people on this matter.
I think that we need some further deep thinking before abolishing the Senate entirely. We can have measures brought before this House to reform the Senate so as to make it a more active body, instead of a political refuge for financiers who have financed either the Liberal or the Conservative parties in the past or who will do so in the future. It is also a refuge for those who deserve some recognition for their efforts in helping the party. The hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) mentioned having Senators in the other place who were of Liberal or Conservative affection, and this is entirely true. I agree with him in his remarks about the Province of Alberta. If the Senators were to represent the interests of the provinces, which in turn are guided by the governments of the provinces, then why do we not find any Social Credit Senators in the other place? There are no C.C.F. Senators in the other place, yet the C.C.F. have been in Saskatchewan since 1944. There are no Social Crediters from British Columbia even though the British Columbia government was elected to office in 1952. There are also no Union Nationale members from the Province of Quebec in the Senate, a government which was in office for 16 years.
I agree with some hon. Members that Senators are not entirely fulfilling their role at the moment due to the way they are nominated for the other House. The only interests they defend at the moment are those of the government in power when it also has a majority. We cannot touch them or do anything about them because these Senators are named by the government in power. If the Government were to act as some Senators sometimes act toward legislation which is brought forward, we would suggest that it would go before the people and their conflict of interest, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North, would be settled in due course of time by the electors themselves, the Canadian people.
Retirement Age jor Senators [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
But you cannot do that with the Senate. We have had a Liberal Government in this country for many years, with the exception of the period 1957 to 1962. During that time the Liberals did not name other than Liberals to the Senate. I do not wish to give too many flowers to the Conservative Party, but from 1958 to 1962 they had to struggle and perhaps make up for a lot of difficulties because of that position in the Upper House. There might have been a lot of difficulties because the majority of the Upper House was not Conservative. But this is something that is abnormal, Mr. Speaker, and to my mind the other place is just a political refuge for aged financiers who have furnished electoral funds to the two large parties; and it is also a refuge if they did not furnish financially but because of their service to the party were qualified to be appointed to the Senate.
I am not discussing the age limit of 75, Mr. Speaker. You have people of 75 and even 90 years of age who in many ways are more alert and intelligent than is the case with some who are 30 or 40 years of age. This is always the case. This is why those nominating people to the Senate should know what they are sending them there for and whom they are appointing. The main reason people are appointed to the Senate now is for political services in the past, or their financial assistance to the party.
When we come to deal with the clauses of the bill I intend to deal with this matter at greater length than did the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I certainly agree that it might be a slap in the face to some, but this is the perfect, honest truth as I see it. Sometimes it is difficult to swallow the truth, but in a case like this I do not discriminate against any of the Senators, because if they have succeeded in attaining a certain financial state or prestige, so much the better. But I object to the Government appointing them only on these bases. I blame, not the Senators but the Government for acting in this way. Furthermore, I am convinced that the people do not know exactly what is the role of the Senate. When you get out and meet the public you find that most people want to get rid of the other place.
I can say I am not of that opinion, Mr. Speaker. I honestly think that the Senate can fulfil a better role and do a better job than it is doing now. One way it could fulfil a better role, if it is going to represent the provinces and the federal Government and any
May 7, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators intermediate party, would be to have appointments made on the basis of one third, one third, one third. They should not be nominated for life, but for ten years, and the nominations should be based on the work these people have put in and what they have done for the Canadian people in the years preceding their ten-year nomination.
There is one thing the Senate could do that would gain the esteem of the Canadian people, if they are going to be the guide of this House, the leading light of this House and objective in Canadian political issues. There is one role they could play that would save the Canadian taxpayer millions and millions and millions of dollars. That would be if we had a qualified Canadian Senate which would replace the very many royal commissions set up by the government almost every week. Then the Senate would not have to wait for legislation to come from this House, and when it does not come, go to sleep. At the moment the age limit of 75 would certainly wake up a few Senators. But would abolishing the Senate be the entire solution? Then we would end up in this House with a majority government-that would do what? For the five years of its mandate it would be king and executioner at the same time.
We must have that extra safety brake in the other place. But to have this you must have people who are intelligent, entirely objective and who will look at a problem not only from one angle but from all the angles. You must have qualified men, not only in the financial field or the political field with regard to how to win an election. You must have men who know what they are talking about. You must have educators; men who, when something concerning education is dealt with, know what they are talking about. You must have men who are qualified in agriculture. How many Senators know what they are talking about with regard to agriculture? Some have interests in different fields of agriculture. I know of one now, for instance, who knows more about maple syrup than anybody else. At least he knows how to make a profit on it and how to sell the stuff. You have one who has an interest in steel, one who has an interest in the wheat business, who probably knows more about the Winnipeg Grain Exchange than he does about the troubles of the farmers in growing that wheat. That is what you have in the other place at the moment. If we had Senators qualified in these various fields, we would have a responsible Upper House. We
[Mr. Langlois.l
would have something worth listening to when these matters were being discussed.
I found it funny when we went across to Europe that our Senators are confused with United States Senators. The people in Europe think that our Senators have the same authority as those in the United States. I never said anything about this, but I laughed pretty often in my beer about this. If that pleases them, let us give them that pleasure, in addition to all the other advantages Senators have. It is their right, and I do not blame anybody in the Senate. They are appointed there, and let us leave them there. But let us change the manner of appointing them.
I honestly believe that if we had people named, one third by the provinces, for ten years, this would be a considerable improvement on the present system, because when the provincial governments change they would have somebody representing their interests in the Senate within this ten-year period at least. I am sure the provinces would not send anybody to the Senate who would not represent their interests. For brightness, intelligence and alertness you do not have to be of a certain age.


John Edward Lloyd: Who is talking about brightness?


Raymond Langlois: I can look across the chamber and not find any sunshine there.


An hon. Member:: Halifax is pretty cloudy today.


Raymond Langlois: There are some parts of Canada that are pretty dim all around. We want people in the Senate to know what they are doing and how they are going to do a job. If you ask university professors to come in there, they have not millions of dollars; they are as poor as church mice. But they are a darned sight more intelligent and alert than some of the people there at the moment who have millions. When are we going to quit judging people by the thickness of their wallet and start judging them by their real value? Until we do this, we will not have a responsible Senate. Until we do this the Senate will not have the support and the confidence of this House, or of the people. This will not be achieved until we have a Senate which merits this confidence.
These intermediate bodies should name people to the Senate. These other fields, which come less often in this House, still necessitate attention. At least we could have experts in these fields in the other place. If you start talking to Senators about sports, most of them have only played golf during their
May 7, 1965

lives, and they perhaps cannot play a decent game of golf. That is all they know about about sports. More and more today there is more leisure time available to the working man. The more automation, the more leisure time he will have. Working hours are being cut down and we have more leisure time. Nobody is responsible for this. It seems that the Government is only now opening its eyes in this respect. After so many years the dust is just being taken out of their eyelids by the sandman. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, intermediate bodies such as labour unions should name Senators, and then we would have people who know what they are talking about. They would know what they were talking about in regard to Hal Banks, for instance. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) mentioned the case of Hal Banks a moment ago. I would be surprised to learn that many Senators know much about labour unions or would defend them. Perhaps some of them would have defended the financial interests involved in this question. But I am sorry to say that we do not have too many of this type of Senator.
We could have Senators named by the federal Government-one third; no more. Then you would have the nation's Government, the federal Government, represented in the Senate. You could have the provincial governments represented in the Senate, and you could have the intermediate bodies represented there, with one third, one third, one third. That is one reform we could institute. Senators could be nominated for ten years, and the next ten years their nomination would be based on the preceding ten years in the Senate, the same as with any Member of this House.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
When one wishes to be re-elected he must depend on what he did during the preceding four years. If he contented himself by sitting on his posterior for four years the electorate would likely give him the opportunity to again sit on his posterior, from then on. If that is the view taken by Senators, that they can sit on their posteriors year after year, then it is my opinion that the Senate should be abolished.
If Governments want responsible people to guide them in the governing of this country it seems to me that use could be made of the Senate in this regard. For this reason the best people possible should be appointed to the Senate. At this time those members of the other place are all honourable gentle-

Retirement Age for Senators men, but the fact that they are honourable does not mean that they are capable of doing the job which should be expected of them. I do not wish to name any members of that place, but I suggest that three quarters of the members are not in regular attendance.
Abolition of the Senate would throw the entire weight of governing this country on the shoulders of the Members of the Government in this chamber. Minority governments can sometimes be swayed in their opinions, but often majority governments become kings and executioners when there is no control exercised by an Upper Chamber. For that reason we have an Upper Chamber, but it is now obvious that the members of that chamber have been appointed as a result of patronage on the part of the Prime Ministers rather than on the basis of their ability to carry out that job.
In my opinion we should reform the Senate in a way which would be in the interests of the public. One of the tasks that could be performed by members of the Senate relates to royal commissions, of which we have had some 37 in the past, expending many millions of dollars. Surely intelligent members of the Senate could be appointed as commissioners to aid the Government in carrying out these inquiries. At the present time I am afraid there are not many members of that other place who could satisfactorily perform such a task. The majority know nothing about labour, agriculture, or any other subject not associated with finance. The majority of . the members of the other place have never done any real work in their lives, but have been for the most part financiers and directors of companies.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me state that I am in favour of Senate reform, rather than abolition. However, my attitude is radical to the extent that if the Senate is to remain as it exists today, without reform, then I support abolition. It seems to me that under present circumstances the Senate is filled with aged gentlemen who have no other jobs or positions, or no other place to sleep. It is common knowledge that they sleep there a good deal of the time.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to participate in this debate on Senate reform after all those learned Members of Parliament have spoken, but as a farming Member I hope you will be lenient and allow me to ramble as other speakers have done.
May 7, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators
I anticipated that the provisions of this bill would have been much wider in respect of Senate reform than they in fact are. The retirement age of Senators is of definite concern to me. As a result of the passage of this measure, Senators appointed after it becomes law will be required to retire upon reaching age 75, and Senators who are now Members of that other place will be allowed to stay for as long as they wish or take advantage of the retirement opportunity. This provision is both annoying and discouraging.
The next time I return to my constituency I must discuss the future welfare of several of my constituents who have been retired at 65, in good health and capable of working. Many of these people do not have sufficient finances to continue to live in a reasonable fashion. These people want to work, but because of their age they are unable to do so.
On the other side of the picture we have Senators who have for many years received high incomes and in a great number of cases are still directors of companies. While it is true that many people of 75 and 80 years of age are capable of working, many thousands of others, including farmers, wish to retire but cannot do so because they have not been contributing to pensions and do not have sufficient money to do so.
I am not afraid to admit that I have on occasion gone to different Senators asking for their advice on various subjects. I realize that there are many intelligent men who are members of that place. I do not suggest that I have always accepted the advice given, because I have not; but it is my opinion that individuals who are appointed to the Senate should be appointed for specific periods of time. Those who are now members of that other place will by the provisions of this bill be required to retire at age 75. In my opinion the new appointees to the Senate should not be allowed to remain there after they have reached age 70. By this very fact we are giving them five years more grace than we give anyone in industry or other commercial institutions in this country.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I have done some reading on this subject, although probably just enough to confuse the issue more than anything else. I have also checked with some of the representatives in Ottawa of other governments to find out what kind of Senates they have in their countries. Jamaica has a Senate. I know Jamaica is a very small country but Senators there are appointed for the length of the

life of Parliament. Appointments are made to the extent of one third, plus one, of the membership by the opposition, and by the government to the extent of two thirds less one. Senators serve without any pay. I inquired whether the members of the Jamaican Senate look after the business of the country and I was told that they do just as well as members of their House do.
I have also read an article by Lord Campion in which he deals with the Senates of some of the Commonwealth countries. He has this to say in part:
As for the Commonwealth, the principle of life nomination found a place in the two earliest Dominion constitutions; that of New Zealand (1852) and that of Canada (1867). In the early constitutions of the Australian states (which are 50 years older than that of the Australian Federal Commonwealth) the Legislative Councils of New South Wales and Queensland were based on nomination for life. It is only in Canada that nomination survives. In New Zealand, nomination was retained, after the reduction of the life period to a term of seven years in 1891, until the long threatened abolition of the Council was effected. Queensland has abolished her Legislative Council completely, and New South Wales has replaced the method of nomination by election for 12 years by the joint vote of the existing Council and lower chamber. In some of the other Commonwealth countries nomination is combined with other methods for the constitution of a portion of the second chamber- in South Africa, for one quarter of the Senate: in the Indian Council of States for 15 out of 250; in Ceylon for one half the Senate.
The method of nomination for life was devised in what was for its period the reasonable hope of producing a "'strong" second chamber capable of "standing up to" the popular House. It was to work through the prestige conferred on its members. In progressive Europe, as popular election became the sole source of political power, most countries which wished to keep their second chambers "strong" acted as if they had anticipated Goldwin Smith's dictum about the vanity of supposing that "power will allow itself to be controlled by impotence" and exchanged nomination for election. Meanwhile, in countries which have not particularly valued a strong second chamber, the survival of the method of nomination has been helped by its patronage value to the political parties.
In Canada the method of life nomination has worked out in a way which would surprise the Fathers of Confederation, could they see it. They wanted a Senate that was independent and above party. Instead, Senators have, from the beginning, been chosen on strict party lines-with the result that in the early years of a government the Senate, largely chosen by the previous government, has shown itself recalcitrant; but. when the steady filling of vacancies by partisans of the government in power has had time to do its work, the Senate has been all that a government supported by the representative House could want. In a country remarkable for long lived administrations, the pattern has been: bicameralism in the first years of a government's life, unicameralism in the remainder.
May 7. 1965

I have also read a thesis by a young man who is now a Member of this honourable institution. The thesis is entitled "The Senate of Canada-Political Conundrum". I will only quote certain parts.
No political subject provokes more dissatisfied public comment in Canada than its Senate. Rare is the year that passes when someone of note in this country has not been on his feet voicing criticism and seeking the reform or outright abolition of the Upper House. It is probably fair to say that most Canadians who are aware of the subject feel that the Senate has outlived its usefulness and has become a superfluous appendix to the political system. Indeed, the prestige and authority of the Senate has probably fallen to its lowest level in Canadian history.
Then he goes on to point out that in 1955 the situation had become less than comical because of the make-up of the Senate. He said:
The situation had become somewhat less than comical in the year 1955, when virtually a fifth of the complement of the Senate was vacant, provoking the introduction of a bill (Bill H-10, introduced in the Senate on March 29, 1955, by the Honourable Senator Euler) to provide that vacancies in the membership of the Senate be filled within six months of the occurrence of the vacancy. Needless to say the bill had little chance of success and was killed on second reading.
1 simply want to say that I come from a large area of Southwestern Ontario that has no representation in the Senate. If you put a compass on the map and trace from near Goderich on Lake Huron around to Lake Erie, just missing the city of Brantford, you will find there is no Senate representation from that part of Ontario, which has a population of almost three million people. Neither this Government nor previous governments have seen fit to appoint a Senator from that very important part of Ontario. I feel this is one thing we should consider and that should have been considered in the bill. There should have been a form of redistribution, if you want to call it that, in order that Senators would be given districts and would come from certain sections of the provinces. I believe there is a good opportunity for Senators to serve. I know the heavy work load that the Members from Southwestern Ontario have and if we had an active young Senator from that area he could be very beneficial to us in helping us with our work. I do not mean I am not willing to do the work I have to do, but I come from one of the most productive, most diversified and most populated areas of Canada and if the Senate were properly reorganized I believe a Senator representing that area of Ontario could do a great deal to serve its people.
It is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
1067
Consumer Credit Controls


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely Public Bills, Private Bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



FINANCE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-10, an Act to provide for control of the use of collateral bills and notes in consumer credit transactions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, an Act to provide for control of the use of collateral bills and notes in consumer credit transactions, was first introduced in the House on November 26, 1963, during the first session of this parliament. It was referred to the Joint Committee on Consumer Credit, of this House and the other place. It was re-introduced and referred to the same committee in the second session, and this committee was still hearing evidence before prorogation of the second session so that consideration of this and other referred bills was not reached, and as yet the joint committee has not been constituted for this session.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, in view of the luck of the draw that gave priority to this bill, and in view of the crying need for the reform of present paper discounting and credit-sale practices, I feel it is in the public interest and that of the joint committee that I should proceed to cause this measure to be debated without further delay.
The purposes of the bill are threefold: first of all, to give warning to makers of promissory notes given as collateral to deferred payment agreements in consumer credit-sales transactions, that they may become liable for payment of the notes to third parties who are innocent purchasers of the notes for value, and without notice of the warranties and equities of the sale of goods transaction; second, to make it practically impossible for finance companies and other financial institutions to claim with success that they are innocent purchasers without notice of any equity in the buyer of the goods; and, third, to control and limit the interest rates that may be charged if a vendor elects to use this method of collaterally securing his deferred payment sales agreements.
It will be argued that this bill should not be passed until interpretations have been handed down by the courts which would
May 7. 1965

Consumer Credit Controls define provincial and federal jurisdiction with more certainty in the consumer credit field. Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of such argument which I shall not likely have an opportunity to rebut, I would point out that the British North America Act, section 91, class of subject No. 18, gives exclusive legislative authority to the Parliament of Canada to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters concerning bills of exchange and promissory notes; and further that class of subject No. 19 of the same section 91 gives similar exclusive authority to the federal Government in all matters concerning interest.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is only concerned with bills of exchange and promissory notes, and the interest rates that may be charged or chargeable in connection therewith if they be used as collateral security in credit-sales transactions. If a purchaser gives a vendor a promissory note as sole security for the goods sold and delivered to him, then this bill would not apply.
It only applies where a bill or note purporting to be a negotiable instrument under the Bills of Exchange Act is taken as collateral security to a conditional sale agreement or similar device that is designed to keep the property in the goods vested in the vendor until payment in full, despite delivery of possession to the purchaser.
Some hon. Members may wonder that I have not sought to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act rather than introduce a new bill called the Collateral Bills and Notes Act. I considered such a course thoroughly, but arrived at the conclusion that a separate and distinct measure was needed in the interests of merchants, financiers and credit buyers.
This measure alters the form or make-up of all collateral promissory notes that are used in the credit-sales field as distinct from those customary forms of notes that would continue to be used in the cash loan and banking fields. I concluded that it would be easier to publish and distribute information to merchants and others concerning the changes in the law and form of collateral bills and notes if there be a new and separate bill, and also that the whole change in this confusing field would be better understood by the public if the bill were a separate one.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make clear at the outset that this measure does not attempt to control the interest rate on all credit-sales transactions. It does, however,

limit the interest rate chargeable on a time purchase of a car, refrigerator or any other goods, if the vendor wishes to additionally secure his contract with the device of a collateral promissory note. I would thus expect that passage of this bill would tend to discourage the use of collateral promissory notes among those anxious to charge exorbitant interest rates. On the other hand, where notes are signed under this statute all parties to the transactions would be likely to have a sounder, fairer and better understood bargain in each case.
You will notice that the bill does not in any way prohibit the making or taking of collateral bills and notes, if they conform. It, in fact, recognizes that there is some merit in the device that has evolved over the years in our wholesale and retail sale practices, but it does endeavour to correct the abuse of the device. Preservation of the device as controlled by this bill will still permit merchants, third parties and holders in due course to obtain quick default judgments in proper cases-it usually being much easier to sue and obtain judgment on an assigned promissory note than on an assigned conditional sale agreement or other type of deferred payment contract.
How did the device of the collateral promissory note evolve, and how is it being abused? Well, bills of exchange and promissory notes were originally designed to facilitate cash and credit transactions in the banking field. Indeed, most bank notes themselves are but promissory notes payable to the bearer on demand. Notes other than demand notes, to be valid, must have ascertainable due dates. A characteristic of any bill or note is that it is readily negotiable.
A note can be assigned by the promisee putting his signature on the back of it. This endorsement is known as "backing" the note. It may be endorsed in blank or to a stated assignee. It may be backed many times and eventually the original maker of the note or promissor, if he fails to pay, may be sued by one even as far removed as the tenth holder.
The law of bills and notes is clearly understood in banking and merchandising circles and the remedy for non-payment is swift.
Under our Bills of Exchange Act no defence can succeed against an unconditional promissory note for a sum certain that is proper in form when it is sued upon by a holder of the note in due course, that is, one who obtained the note for value in good faith
May 7, 1965

Consumer Credit Controls
before it was overdue and without notice of any defect in the title of the person who negotiated it. Not even the fraudulent conduct of a prior holder is a good defence if unknown at the time of the purchase of the note by the holder suing.
As a result of seeing that bills and notes in the hands of innocent purchasers of them were subject to few, if any, equities, some merchant likely hit upon the idea of selling his goods on a deferred payment contract and taking a collateral note as additional security which he could sell if need be. This note he likely eventually backed in favour of his bank. He suffered a discount on the principal amount of the note but still showed a profit on his sale. The bank then collected principal and interest directly from the buyer of the goods after giving the buyer notice of the assignment of the note to it.
In time this practice grew. Individuals, finance companies, acceptance corporations and other financial institutions also went into the business of buying collateral notes at discounts. As time passed these buyers became less interested in the size of the discount they could get from merchants than in the size of the interest rate on the note. Merchants were encouraged to get the paper signed up at the rates of interest set by the finance companies, and in some cases premiums have been paid to merchants for quantity of paper assigned. Other merchants have found it profitable to sell great quantities of goods at cost, or close to it, and make their money by carrying their own paper or setting up their own finance companies.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Today we have found that a real monster has grown up about us in the form of undisclosed interest rate on these transactions. The effective interest rate on these credit-sales contracts and their collateral promissory notes is often higher than 24 per cent per annum. The finance companies are making phenomenal profits as a result, even in the small loans field. Fortunately corporation taxes capture almost 50 per cent of these profits for government, but the man on the street is being exploited by a lawful form of banditry based on the know-how of high finance, the unawareness of the man who buys on time, the co-operation of merchants and the inertia of government.
This bill will not prevent exorbitant interest rates on conditional sales contracts but it will cramp the style of those employing collateral notes in connection with them and
will set a new tone in merchandising that will be better for both the merchant and his customer. A customer paying exorbitant interest cannot buy as many goods in the long haul as he otherwise would. This bill would encourage the merchant to make his money out of mark-up once more, instead of by usurious conspiracies with finance companies.
With this bill the federal Government can lead the way, as it should lead the way, in an area which is its sole concern and responsibility. It can do much to stop the highway robbery indulged in by finance companies with the aid of used car dealers and door to door salesmen. Listen to this extract from the Toronto Telegram of January 14, 1964:
Sales "Gimmicks" said Abominable but okays Bill
A county court judge criticized one company for 'high pressure salesmanship' and using 'abominable methods or gimmicks of selling', but awarded a finance company $590 for the installation of a water softener.
Judge Harold Timmins-
-who by the way is a former member of this House-
-ordered Mr. and Mrs. Stanley R. McLean, of Axminister Rd., Richmond Hill, to pay the money to Algonquin Building Credits Ltd.
The water softener was sold without down payment by Water Conditioners of Canada which later sold the promissory note for $590 to the finance company.
Listen, too, to this non-exaggerating editorial from the same paper. The heading is "Crooks At Large".
Each year people in Ontario are cheated-quite legally-at a cost of a large part of their earned income.
The victims, of course, are the gullible. In this company are the illiterate, the newcomers to our land who do not understand the language perfectly or the complexities of our credit system, the aged and the trusting, the young who want more of the good things of life in a hurry.
It is easy to moralize about this. It is easy to say that the sensible man or woman should deliberate well before entering into a transaction that gives them credit at usurious rates. But the fact of the matter is that they don't. Not all of them, by any means.
These are the people who are the simple victims of the men who traffic in ignorance, ingenuousness and faith.
At a time when credit buying is a way of life, it is understandable that some of the economically illiterate may be as they are., committed to transactions that demand as much as a hundredfold interests on the value of goods they buy.
Surely these people must be protected, just as minors must be protected by law from the sophisticated scheming of adults. They are, to all intent, infants in law.
The Telegram's Special Squad has documented many cases where the unknowing or the gullible have committed their meagre fortunes to obtain what appeared to be a demanding need. Others have told similar stories in the legislature and the House of Commons and the Federal Senate.
1070	COMMONS
Consumer Credit Controls
Little is done, however.
On the statute books of Ontario there is a law giving redress to victims of unconscionable transactions. This law is most useful and has had a salutary influence in the past. The trouble seems to be that it is not used often enough.
When a man robs a bank of a few thousand dollars and is caught, the penalty is fairly swift and certain. When a shark cheats a man or woman of his or her life's savings, it is a far different matter.
The victim is hooked on a signature placed on a contract lightly read if, indeed, read at all.
This is not a problem for which an easy remedy Is apparent. It resides in the twilight zone of finance and commerce. But surely it is reasonable to call upon our legislators to hasten the work of our committees studying the matter and to give the very highest priority to remedial legislation.
In the meantime, our law enforcement agencies might make more frequent and vigorous use of the laws, upheld by the Supreme Court, on behalf of people who are prey to the unscrupulous and the avaricious.
When crooks are at large, we expect our law authorities to be vigilant and stem.
Lawyers are just sick when they are asked to defend a suit on a collateral promissory note obtained in the manner of the water softener case. Usually they are required to waste a great deal of their time defending without hope of success, and without recompense, out of sheer sympathy for these unwary buyers. Occasionally a judge will become so annoyed in these cases that he will simply refuse judgment or hold that a finance company is not a holder in due course, but such decisions can be appealed from and the finance companies have the money for appeals. Meanwhile the buyer of the water softener or used car, as the case may be, finds that he has a useless article with a useless warranty on it.
The Government must awaken a new awareness among Canadian consumers of the true cost of credit. I believe the joint committee on consumer credit under able leadership is doing a great deal and will do more in this regard. I would like to see this bill strike the first blow in the war that must come against the finance companies. At the end of June 1964, finance companies in this country had balances for consumer goods financing of $942 million, department stores $419 million and furniture and appliance stores $188 million, for a total of over $1J billion. The State of New York passed credit service charge legislation in 1957 based on percentage calculations. Since it did this 12 other states have passed laws to limit interest charges on instalment purchases and/or revolving credit accounts. So legislation of this kind can and should be passed.
In the case of the appeal of the Attorney General for Ontario v. Barfried Enterprises

DEBATES	May 7, 1965
Limited, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its momentous decision on December 16, 1963. An applicant for relief under The Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act of the Province of Ontario applied to have revised a certain mortgage transaction with the respondent lender. The mortgage was for a face amount of $2,250 with interest at 7 per cent per annum. The sum actually advanced was $1,500 less a commission of $67.50. The difference between the $1,500 and the face amount of $2,250 was made up of a bonus and other charges. The County Court Judge who tried the case set aside the mortgage in part and revised it to provide for payment of a principal sum of $1,500 with interest at 11 per cent per annum. No constitutional issue was raised before the trial judge. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that The Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act of Ontario was ultra vires, being in direct conflict with section 2 of the Interest Act of this federal Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must advise the hon. Member that the time allotted to him has expired. Does the House give unanimous consent for the hon. Member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Thank you very much.
The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the finding of the Ontario Court of Appeal and held the Ontario Act to be intra vires of the Province of Ontario in that its main purpose was to effect rescission and reformation of unconscionable transactions whether interest was charged or not.
True the interest jurisdiction of the federal Government was affected in this case, but only incidentally they said. Two out of the five judges dissented, holding that there was direct conflict between the two statutes and that in such circumstances the Interest Act of the Canadian Parliament validly enacted must prevail.
Neither the Appeal Court of Ontario nor the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the merits of the case, but in effect the judgment of the County Court Judge was upheld. This would seem to indicate that the interest rate in practically every conditional sales contract presently held by finance companies in the Province of Ontario, whether or not collaterally secured by a promissory note, could be revised downwards if application to an Ontario court were made under the
May 7, 1965


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) for introducing this bill, and I should like to make some comments on it. I think the Government has, again, been remiss, because I would point out that we had the promise that most of the Committees would be set up immediately. But this has not been done. This is the seventeenth day of the session, and this bill cannot be referred, again, to the Joint Committee on Consumer Credit, where this matter should before now have resolved itself into Government legislation.
What the hon. Member is doing is twofold. I believe he recognizes some of the major problems that affect those who buy under this type of arrangement, having regard to the explanation he has given with respect to the fact that many of the people who sign a promissory note for goods, and so on, do so not knowing what they are signing and not being fully aware of the fact that the promissory note becomes a negotiable instrument and can be transferred. But I do not think the hon. Member's bill goes nearly far enough in this regard. I had a bill on the Order Paper last year which was referred to the Committee, and I would hope that it would again be referred to the Committee. In my opinion my bill goes further than the bill of the hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), and covers something the hon. Member has referred to but which really is not covered in his bill.
It is not of any interest whatsoever to me whether or not the promissory note can be sold. I am not the least bit interested in the sale of that note, and I do not think the Canadian public should be particularly concerned about this, either; because I have found that in almost all these cases it is irreputable companies that are operating in this field. I am well aware of the fact that a promissory note, being a negotiable instrument, is a valuable part of our operations in trade and commerce. The hon. Member for Spadina has said,
May 7, 1965

Consumer Credit Controls in this regard, that if you are dealing with reputable companies and reputable goods, that note does not have to be sold; it can be used at the bank as collateral. If the company from whom you buy the product is prepared to stay in business, the promissory note is collateral in the true sense of the word.
However, the problem I have found is this. Let us take the case of the sale of water softeners, or aluminum siding and all the other shady door-to-door peddlers selling products, those people who plague us in this country. They have no intention of ever honouring the promissory note, even if they made the commitment in the original sale. They discount the promissory note to a company they have set up down the hall; they go out of business, and a man is left with a useless item and a promissory note that is a negotiable instrument which, as the hon. Member said, may go to seven or eight places. My suggestion was to attach to the promissory note the liabilities that went with the original sale. This would mean that if you made the sale with the liabilities attached to it, and someone went to a finance company with this promissory note in regard to a water softener guaranteed for ten years with a supply of salts, the finance company that was stupid enough to buy the note would also have to live up to the guarantee.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Would the hon. Member look at clause 3 of the bill and the form of caution. Would he not agree that where the caution says "this note has been transferred even though the goods be unsatisfactory," this would be sufficient warning to any subsequent holders of the note so that they would not be holders in due course?


William Arnold Peters: I would suggest that this is a debatable point, Mr. Speaker. But as I read it, this means that the person who signs the promissory note is made aware, by this caution, that the note can be transferred and he will still be liable for payment no matter how often the note is transferred. What I want to attach to the note is the liability of the person selling the goods. Let us use another example. Supposing I am a door-to-door salesman-and this is actually how it works-and I go to a house and say, "We have selected you from a list". This will be very familiar to people all across Canada. The

guy comes up and says, "We have chosen you out of a number of people on your block" or "on your concession, to provide you with aluminum siding. We hope you will explain to your friends that we have provided this. If you will help us to get your neighbours to buy this siding, and if you can get us ten customers who will buy it, you will get yours for nothing; we will put this siding on your house at no cost to you". Of course, he does not tell them they are going to put it on at the cost of hiring a carpenter to do it, namely $50 or $75 to install the siding. The man or woman involved does not look at the contract, or they do not understand it if they read it. In fact, most Philadelphia lawyers would not understand these contracts if they read them, because the fine print is so fine that you have to use a magnifying glass, and the wording, the legalistic jargon, or whatever you want to call it, does not really say what it means, and confuses the issue.
The person has the siding put on his house and finds that it is worth $3,000. He is told it will be done for nothing, but they only went out and hired a carpenter to instal it for $50. The buyer is told, "This siding is guaranteed for ten years. It never needs painting". Then he finds after two or three years that the promissory note has been transferred to an agency, and the paint is coming off the siding. He goes to the agent to whom he is making payments and finds that it is a finance company down the hall from where this other guy was operating; and because the company is out of business and does not exist any longer, he cannot do anything about it. He is stuck with a promissory note that gives a value of $3,000 for something that is not worth $300, because the goods are of an inferior quality. The whole thing is misrepresentation, and the buyer finds that he does not have any claim against anybody.
I honestly and sincerely believe that there is not a Member in this House who has not had a case of this nature brought to his attention and is not well aware of the problem. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I say that the House must accept this kind of bill with amendments that will carry the liability with the promissory note. I don't give a damn if they can't sell these promissory notes. They should not be able to sell them. This is a dishonest transaction. No legitimate money lender or agency would buy one of these phony promissory notes without knowing something about the company that supplied
May 7, 1965

the product that resulted in the issuing of the promissory note.
Therefore anybody who gets stuck with this type of promissory note should have the Judge stand up and say, "You are a dishonest company. You are a fake company. You are only a dummy corporation collecting for the original fake company. I am therefore not interested in giving you judgment". I agree with the hon. Member for Spadina that there have been many honest Judges who have said this after listening to some poor family tell the story of the abject poverty to which they have been reduced because of buying something they did not want, could not use, and were high-pressured into buying. I think this House has an obligation to the public in this regard. Without a doubt in this respect we are the most backward country in the western world; we certainly go backward faster than we go ahead.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Surely we can consider what has been done by other countries in this regard. In my bill I simply applied the copyright principle. One of the few pieces of legislation passed by Canada which has been adopted by almost every other country in the world is the copyright legislation. By the principle of that legislation all the liabilities and assets in relation to the original patent, no matter how many people purchase it, remain with the original patentee. Surely this principle could be carried through in respect of the subject matter of this bill.
I hope this bill will not be referred to a committee. We discussed this subject matter in a committee last year. I am no longer a member of that committee, but I can say that the committee last year did not refer one piece of legislation back to this House. The House would be well advised to pass this legislation at this stage, without further study by a committee.
The hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) referred to a four day cooling off period which is included in this proposed legislation.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: That cooling off period is included in the English statute of 1957, as amended recently.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps that cooling off period is referred to in the French translation of this bill.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: It is not included in this bill.


William Arnold Peters: In any event, I am sure the hon. Member for Spadina would agree to
Consumer Credit Controls including such a cooling off period as part of the provisions of this proposed legislation. I am sure that no one here who has considered this matter would object to such a cooling off period.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we are so stupid in this House, but we are stupid. We have been unable to adopt machinery to prevent certain things from happening of the kind which I am sure this bill is intended to prevent. A day or two ago a young lady came to me within an hour of the time she had signed a contract under which she would receive a free $600 stereo set by purchasing a number of records at an exorbitant price. She was talked into signing this contract by a high pressure salesman in an office here in the House of Commons. She came to me and suggested that she had been taken. She certainly had been taken. I do not suggest that the company which this high pressure salesman represented is completely dishonest in its advertising, but I can assure you that she did not understand what she was getting into.
This young lady was high pressured into signing this contract. I got in touch with the company in question and suggested that the salesman had better come back to his office and tear up the contract, because if he did not I was going to raise an awful fuss. I do not intend to use any names regarding this case, because in the final analysis that is what took place. I asked the gentleman to whom I spoke what length of cooling off period was allowed following the signing of one of these contracts-whether it was 24 hours, two days, two hours, six hours or what. He did not understand what I was referring to. I said that I wanted the salesman back immediately so that we could dispose of this matter. Apparently this company had just commenced its campaign in Ottawa and, after some discussion with the salesman involved, it was decided that they would go along with my suggestion, because it would be less expensive to them, having set up this sales campaign, than risking a great deal of adverse publicity.
This a rather long and complicated example, but it is typical of the kind of thing that happens every day in Canada. For this reason I suggest there should be a cooling off period of two or four days. The young lady to whom I referred did not want a stereo in Ottawa in the first place, and having signed the contract realized within an hour that she had made a mistake. When the
1074	COMMONS
Consumer Credit Controls salesman did reappear he was informed that he could not collect the money or enforce the contract because the young lady was under age and did not have her parents' consent to enter into such a contract. The salesman Anally agreed to tearing up the contract, but in the process of explaining its terms to the young lady he almost convinced her that she should sign another contract. I was only listening to the conversation with one ear because I did not wish to become involved, but I was able to ascertain the type of high pressure salesmanship that he used.
What would a fellow in the country do after he had signed a contract to purchase aluminum siding for his house, which had been sold to him under similar circumstances, but which he could not by any stretch of the imagination afford? I am aware of one case of this kind where an individual agreed to the purchase of aluminum siding for his house only to And afterwards that it was going to cost him $3,300. This individual is now applying for welfare because he cannot afford to make the payments.
I suggest that the examples I have given are not unusual cases. On the contrary, they are taking place every day in various parts of Canada. The kind of bill proposed by the hon. Member for Spadina, if passed, would do a lot to protect Canadians from the tactics of salesmen of companies of the kind to which I referred. Surely we do not need more study of this subject. I am sure that if the hon. Members in attendance today were asked to raise their hands if they were not completely aware of this kind of situation there would not be a hand raised. It is high time that we had in Canada legislation of this type, and I am sure that the Minister, who is in the House, would support me in this regard. If we pass this bill I am sure we will do a great deal to eliminate this kind of hoodwinking and dishonesty by shysters who travel throughout this country selling products of no real value, on the basis of no down payment and so much a month. These companies are not bona Ade companies, but Ay by night operations which, after selling an area and completing their campaigns, in turn sell these promissory notes to third parties.
By allowing a cooling off period in respect of these so-called discount transactions we would do a lot to eliminate this type of business. This would allow at least some time for an individual to reconsider the proposition and talk it over with his wife, if not also give him enough time to make an intelligent decision as to the actual value of the product

DEBATES	May 7. 1965
involved. In my opinion the hon. Member for Spadina will have done Canada a great service if this bill is passed. I hope there will not be a suggestion that it be referred to a committee for further consideration. The hon. Member for Spadina I am sure will agree to amending the bill to include a cooling off period, and I hope that this can be done this afternoon and the bill passed without further discussion. I am sure that the Cabinet Minister who is here will obtain unanimous consent of the House if he asks for an extension of time this afternoon to complete the consideration and passage of this bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my congratulations to the hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) for the introduction of this Bill, which represents an attempt to deal with a very serious problem in respect of consumer Anancing in Canada. At the commencement of the hon. Member's remarks I got the impression that he was concerned more about the purchasers of these promissory notes than about the individuals who signed them in the Arst instance. Perhaps there is some validity to his argument in that regard, that these people also need to be protected, but I am sure that they do not accept any promissory note that is not capable of collection. I am sure that the majority of individuals involved in the purchasing of these promissory notes, or this type of collateral, are experts in this Aeld and do not purchase something that under the law cannot be collected.
As far as I am concerned, I am more interested in protecting the people who sign these promissory notes. This type of activity is widespread in Canada. These organizations campaign in various areas, the salesmen work very hard in selling their products, and then in turn sell these negotiable promissory notes to third parties, and then move out of the area.
In addition to what the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has suggested, I think there should be some provision in respect of the sale of this kind of collateral given in exchange for merchandise, and some responsibility attached to the individual who transfers this collateral, after selling the merchandise. In other words, there should be some responsibility on the part of the original company transacting this business. While I realize the truth of the maxim, let the buyer beware, it is very difficult for a buyer to beware under the pressure of these specialized salesmen.
May 7, 1965

I support the suggestion in respect of a cooling off period which would allow the purchaser to reconsider the transaction. Whether that period should be four days in length, longer or shorter, I do not know; but in respect of some of these products, such as water softeners, siding and so on, it is difficult for the purchaser to ascertain within four days whether they are of reasonable value. At least a cooling off period would allow them an opportunity of reconsidering the whole matter, in light of what they will eventually have to pay. There should be some provision whereby purchasers can nullify these contracts without penalty. As a matter of fact, any reputable company in Canada, permanently established, will give this kind of assurance.
The provisions of the bill now before us would not impose any great burden or hardship on a legitimate business enterprise, because a legitimate business enterprise guarantees its product to be as good as advertised, or to perform the service which it is advertised to perform. I think this is a very important consideration.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is not in the bill at all. I admire the provision in the bill to give more prominence to a warning to purchasers that their promissory notes can be transferred to third parties and are collectible by them. Many people do not realize that. We know, of course, that one of the old, traditional ways for a purchaser to register a protest against a company or person who has sold him an inferior product is to stop payment. However, if this bill is passed in its present form with no additions to it, I am afraid it will strengthen the position of third parties to the extent that they will be even more willing to buy such paper in the future. For that reason I am a little apprehensive about passing the bill in its present form. As I have said, I think it might even provide an incentive for this practice to become even more widespread among unscrupulous businessmen.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Has the hon. Member read the clause limiting interest rates? That is the reason for that clause being in the bill. The limit on the first $500 is 12 per cent and on anything over $500 it is 6 per cent.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have read clause 8 carefully, but I am not completely convinced that by
Consumer Credit Controls itself it will be sufficient to stop the trafficking in promissory notes. For example, I know that in Medicine Hat a group of people bought water softeners for which they paid $450 each and they signed promissory notes. The same kind of equipment could have been bought for less than $100 from a reputable company which would have guaranteed that the apparatus would perform reasonably well. But these other water softeners were installed and these people were caught. I do not know how much the original vendor got for the promissory notes, but I suggest it was probably less than 50 per cent. Therefore, even if the interest rate were limited to what the hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) suggests, it would not really be a deterrent if at the same time we strengthen the position of the third and fourth parties, and so on, who may own these pieces of paper.
I am not going to take a lot of time, Mr. Speaker. I should like to see the bin passed because I think its intent is very good in seeking to deal with a most serious problem. But I really must add that the bill does not go far enough because it does not provide for an opportunity for the original purchaser to back out of the deal within a specified length of time and it does not provide for the guarantee that the goods are satisfactory to be transferred to and assumed by subsequent purchasers of the paper.
A very serious problem has grown up in Canada in this regard because in my opinion the banks have been reluctant to meet the demand for consumer credit that has been evident in Canada for some years now. I hope the banks will come to realize that the demand for consumer credit constitutes a very large market and that it is a field where they should be much more active. They should not resist applications for consumer credit for the purchase of household appliances and so on. I know there is a lot of paper work involved which is perhaps a nuisance to some extent in the case of these very small loans that have to be collected on a monthly basis. However, at the same time it is the failure of the banks' to provide this kind of credit that has permitted many of these consumer finance corporations to engage to such an extent in what I call an illegitimate business.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), and particularly their es-
1076	COMMONS
Consumer Credit Controls pousal of a four day cooling off or waiting period and their criticism, though gently voiced, of the hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), for failing to cover this particular aspect in his bill. I think it only fair to point out on behalf of the hon. Member for Spadina, Who is a member of the Bar, while the other two gentlemen are not, that it is not within the constitutional jurisdiction of this Parliament to provide that kind of stipulation, for reform of rescission of the contract.
Essentially a provision to intervene in a contract already made was what was in issue in the case involving the Ontario Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, and the Supreme Court of Canada found that a matter of that kind, which would prevent the operation of the contract, or at a later date could involve reform of the contract, was something within provincial and not federal jurisdiction.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Having said that, would the hon. Member be willing to take the appropriate action to allow this bill to come to a vote?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to have the same right as other Members of the House have to express my views on the bill. In particular, having been a Member of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the question of consumer credit, which other Members who have spoken on the other side were not, I should like to point out something that emerged most clearly from the proceedings of that committee, and which would have been obvious to hon. Members if they had wished to devote any time to examining its proceedings. In the committee the need for complimentary and co-operative action by the federal and provincial Governments for the purpose of securing the protection of consumers was disclosed very clearly.
I should like to give an example of how intricate and how important a task it is to interlock federal and provincial legislation so as to make sure that all aspects of a transaction are protected. Let us take, for example, a particular transaction where a housewife purchases a sewing machine or a washing machine on time. Jurisdiction between the two levels of government will be fragmented in the following way. With respect to the question of warranty, that is, taking action against the store or manufacturer if the machine does not work, this is a matter for Provincial law. If the machine was bought on time and in

DEBATES	May 7, 1965
addition to a conditional sales contract a promissory note was taken and discounted by the storekeeper to an acceptance company, the liabilities of the housewife on that note are defined by federal law. The terms of the conditional sale contract itself, the security which it creates and, more important, the rights of repossession of the machine by the vendor, are determined by provincial law. If there is to be a requirement that the amount owing by way of cost of loan or interest is to be stated in the contract, or if there is to be a maximum interest rate imposed, that is a question for this Parliament because it falls under federal law. If the terms of the contract, as I have already observed, are to be reformed at a later date by the court as being harsh and unconscionable in the way that the Ontario Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act provides, that is a matter for provincial law.
As can be seen, different but closely related aspects of the same transaction fall within the separate legislative fields of the two levels of government and they so fall in a pattern which is known, I confess only imperfectly at the moment, to lawyers. Therefore I suggest that the discussions we at the federal level have had in the committee and the discussions that the Ontario and other provincial committees have had have been very valuable in disclosing the legislative methods which can be followed between the two levels of Government in arriving at a comprehensive consumer's code. I hope that the Government will take early steps to reconvene that committee so that those witnesses with whom arrangements had been made prior to prorogation may appear and deal with the matters we had been discussing at that time.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I suggest that when that committee and the several provincial committees have reported it will be useful then to have the studies made at the two levels of government, so that appropriate interlocking legislation may be adopted by the respective levels of government. I suggest it would be very useful to have this bill available to the committee for study. I regret that the hon. Member for Timiskaming did not see fit to introduce the bill he introduced last session. I am prepared to give him credit for doing so although I suspect it was not an original idea with him. I think it originated with Professor Ziegel of the University of Saskatchewan, but it certainly did provide an
May 7, 1965	COMMONS
excellent method of dealing with the same kind of transaction, although it involved a slightly different approach than that taken by the hon. Member for Spadina. It would have been useful, however, to have that bill and I am sorry that the hon. Member did not see fit to introduce it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private Members' business has expired.


William Arnold Peters: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, would you ascertain from the committee whether or not there is unanimous consent to allow the hon. Member to continue, so we can give second reading to this bill this afternoon?
DEBATES	1077
Business of the House


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the House give unanimous consent to continue the consideration of this bill beyond six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: There is not unanimous consent.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will submit to the House a supply motion.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



END OF VOLUME I