1966-06-28

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM U.S.S.R.

Mr. Speaker:: I am pleased to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, this very distinguished parliamentary group has come to Canada under the leadership of the First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Dmitri Polyanski.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members are agreed that this visit will contribute much to strengthening the bonds of good will, understanding and friendship between our two countries.
[Translation1
On behalf of hon. members, I wish Mr. Polyanski and his distinguished colleagues a happy and fruitful stay in Canada.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Hales.
First report of standing committee on northern affairs and national resources-Mr. Badanai.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) presented the second report of the special joint committee on divorce, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, as the report requires that the committee be allowed to sit during sittings of the
house and as everybody knows that we are opposed to committees sitting while the house is in session, we ask that 48-hour notice be given for concurrence in the report of this
committee.

[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



FINANCE


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief announcement related to the supplementary estimates which are being tabled shortly. It will be recalled that last December we entered into certain understandings with the United States concerning the application of their balance of payments guide lines program to Canada. I described these at length in the house on January 27. As part of these understandings we agreed that it would be appropriate for Canada's foreign exchange reserve position to fluctuate around a specified level.
As I explained in the house, I agreed with the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States that the government of Canada would be prepared, if necessary, to buy outstanding Canadian securities held in the United States to offset any excess flow of United States capital to Canada and thus maintain the net flow of capital at the level required to finance our balance of payments deficit. This was done in order to permit Canadian borrowers to continue to have full access to the long term issue market in the United States.
I informed the house on January 27 that we had purchased $40 million worth of government of Canada external bonds from holders in the United States. I have now to inform the house that within the last few days we have purchased a further $100 million United States worth of the issue of government of Canada bonds that mature in 1987. Of this amount $69 million will be delivered in June and $31 million in July. When this transaction is completed we will have acquired most of the bonds of this issue that were outstanding in December. It is possible that we may find it desirable to acquire further securities

June 28, 1966
Finance
held in the United States to carry out our understanding with the United States government to which I have referred.
Since the understanding was reached with the United States in December, and announced in January, the United States bond market has declined. The lower bond prices make the repurchase of Canadian securities more attractive from our point of view, but we find it has made the institutions holding them reluctant to sell at prices that involve a book loss. In these circumstances we feel we should have authority to purchase a greater range of securities, more widely held, that will still enable us to accomplish the purpose we had in mind.
We have found that we can accomplish the purpose that both governments were seeking by purchasing outstanding securities of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development that are held by United States residents. Such purchases constitute a movement of capital to the United States offsetting the flow of capital to Canada involved in the sale of new Canadian issues in the United States market.
We are therefore asking authority in the estimates to enable us to purchase such securities for this purpose. This will give us some flexibility in carrying out the arrangement we made with the United States government should the over-all Canadian balance of payments be such as to require further action to attain the objective on which we agreed. I am confident that members of the house and others will agree that the bonds issued by the International Bank are an eminently good investment.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the long range effect of the government's policy as enunciated today, and as earlier enunciated in January, is rather too serious a matter for any off the cuff comment. It does indicate to me, however, that there is perhaps an over-cautious concern with the balance of payments problem which is something we have inherited since 1963 as a result of the agreement the then minister of finance entered into with the United States, and as a result of the interest equalization problem and our own cost of living or inflationary problem in this country.
I think the two are very closely related, but unfortunately far more attention is being paid to our obligation under the balance of payments problem than to the cost of living. It is all very well to benefit the United States authorities and the United States government,

but in the interval the Canadian public is having to take it in the neck as the cost of living goes up day by day.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the Minister of Finance of course merely tends to again underline the fact that now we have literally no control over our monetary policy in Canada; it is now completely out of our hands. One weapon of governmental operation has been removed. I suggest to the minister that sooner or later he will have to face this problem of control of our monetary policy and seriously consider removing ourselves from the fixed exchange rate and going back to a floating exchange rate. I understand, of course, quite well that we would have some difficulty with the International Monetary Fund, but I am convinced this fund would not expel Canada from its ranks if we took the action which is becoming increasingly important and necessary.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I will not hide the fact that we are somewhat surprised to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) tell us that the government now wants to redeem, before maturity, the Canadian bonds held by Americans.
The Minister of Finance does not tell us where he will get the money to redeem those bonds. He announces supplementary estimates. Will this be taken out of the people's taxes? Will we have to borrow elsewhere to redeem the bonds held by American citizens? If we are in a position today to redeem those bonds before maturity, why then did we borrow from the Americans when we did?
Mr. Speaker, our balance of payments problem stems, not from our trade, for in that respect we have a favourable balance of payments, but from the fact that too much money leaves Canada for the United States in interest, dividends and profits. From 75 to 80 per cent of our natural resources and industry is held by Americans, and we send them profits, interest and dividends: that is the source of our difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, we, Creditistes, have been saying this for a long time: we have the Bank of Canada; let us use it, instead of the United States, to develop both our natural resources and our industries. Then our profits, our interest, our dividends will stay in Canada, and we will not have the problems which confront us today.
June 28. 1966

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance that the financial affairs of the Canadian government are going in the wrong direction at the present time.
It is time to take another direction, to find a new source of capital. Let us stop all that borrowing from the United States to develop our industry and our natural resources. We have our own natural wealth in Canada.
Let us instead resort to the Bank of Canada to develop our natural resources and then we would not always be in the mess we are in today, a mess of trade deficit due to the fact that all the profits are going to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, now that he is faced with these problems the Minister of Finance should consider the solutions we in the Social Credit have been suggesting for a long time and, by so doing I am sure that he would no longer be faced with such problems.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
We are buying back our bonds, so much the better, we are bringing our capital back home. But at the same time, the Minister of Finance should also let us know where he is getting the money from in order to purchase such Canadian government bonds held by United States citizens.
That is what the minister fails to say. He informs us about all the rest, but he skips the essential part. Once again, this is a watered down statement, hiding God knows what, a half-baked statement. We are not being enlightened, we are being blindfolded even more.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Fernand Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-214, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Firearms).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to restrict the use of firearms. The federal government is duty bound to co-operate with all police forces of Canada and financial institutions, in order to check the crime wave which makes as many human victims as financial victims.
It is obvious that the provincial and federal Departments of Justice must unite their efforts and co-operate as closely as possible.
Inquiries of the Ministry The fight against crime should be among the priorities of governments at every level.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, over the week end the Prime Minister made a speech in Toronto on the subject of nuclear weapons. Among other things, an interpretation has been given to his words that communist China must be admitted to the United Nations. Would the Prime Minister say whether this is a decision of the government; and in view of the session of the United Nations that will take place in September, before parliament will have any further opportunity to discuss this matter, would the Prime Minister say whether Canada intends this year to vote at the United Nations for the admission of communist China?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I do not have with me the text of what I said, because I could read those sentences which would indicate that I was talking about the desirability, indeed the indispensability, of having the Chinese communist government represented at any disarmament conference if that conference was to be effective in its results.
There was no reference to communist China's admission to the United Nations. That is a matter, of course, for consideration at the forthcoming assembly in the light of developments there and the way in which it is put before the assembly. Our position on this matter has been, I think, made quite clear.


John George Diefenbaker: The clarity is of such a nature that the only interpretation of the Prime Minister's remarks that I have seen in the press has been that the government intends to vote for the admission of communist China. Now I ask the Prime Minister, does the government intend so to do? Otherwise his speeches have a capacity for misinterpretation that beggars description.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman's conclusions, as is often the case, are quite unwarranted from the context of what I said. I will be very glad to send him the text. The policy of the government in this
June 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry matter will be announced, and it will be announced in the house if the house is sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there, within the cabinet, a shadow cabinet on this matter, too, that gives advice from outside?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to the one put by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister indicated that the government's position on the admission of communist China to the UN was made clear. Then in the last part of his answer he indicated that the government's intention on this matter will be announced. Would the Prime Minister indicate why, if the government's position on the matter has already been made clear, it should be necessary to announce a change in the attitude of the government?



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that some workers have been imprisoned as the result of a dispute between Tilco Plastics Ltd., Peterborough, and its employees, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to introduce legislation which will guarantee to the workers of this country the basic rights of peaceful picketing and lawful assembly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very important question, Mr. Speaker, of far reaching significance and I am sure my hon. friend would not expect me to answer it on the orders of the day. The issue which has arisen and the form in which it has arisen has been discussed by the Minister of Labour and myself, and we will be continuing to discuss it in the light of developments.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I would like to know whether he has

received a request from the new Quebec minister of justice for a fight against organized crime?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
Following the publication of the last annual report of the Ontario Police Commission which recognizes the existence of an organized crime union in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, is the hon. minister giving more definite consideration to the establishment of a royal commission on organized crrime in co-operation with the provinces?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, this question concerns the Solicitor General.



SALARY INCREASES FOR CLASS B EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['It was in the London Times.\nITranslation1']
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the government house leader but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement that pay raises will soon be given to 48,000 class B civil service employees, I wonder if the government could indicate whether measures are being taken to ensure that House of Commons employees who fall in this classification will receive their raises prior to the recess of this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know when the house will recess.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that during the last few days numerous reports have been coming from United States sources, one of them being Mr. George Ball, under secretary of state, concerning the details of Mr. Ronning's recent visit to Viet Nam, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs enlighten the members of the house in some detail concerning exactly what did take place during Mr. Ronning's recent visit to Hanoi?
June 28, 1966


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I have nothing to add to what I have already said; but since my hon. friend refers to a reported statement of Mr. George Ball I will have to examine that statement. I did not know he made it.


Mr. Churchill:: It was in the London Times.
ITranslation1



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Can the minister tell us whether he has received any representations from two Conservative members of Alberta to have the signs changed on an Alberta post office so as to indicate that English has priority over French?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not urgent and cannot be put at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is urgent because the signs have just been changed and as long as they are allowed to stay as they are now, it shows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. They can always be changed later.



WHEAT-SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA THROUGH CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in answer to a question the minister mentioned that in the contract signed between the wheat board and the Soviet union, provision is made for shipments to go through Churchill if that is the wish of the U.S.S.R. Can the minister say whether the officials of the U.S.S.R. were made fully aware of the beneficial savings which could be made by them in accepting some of this wheat through Churchill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I can assure my hon. friend that we are all great proponents of the port of Churchill.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether the Russians were made aware of the savings that can be made by them.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member that assurance also.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-
Tisdale): My question is supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Finance not arrange for the Russian delegation to tour the port of Churchill so they can see for themselves the benefits they will gain by accepting shipments of wheat out of that port?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Your Honour has heard the question.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can he tell me whether any veterans, especially in Prince Edward Island, who are in receipt of war veterans allowance have been informed by D.V.A. that if they accept any increase in the old age assistance or other welfare benefits paid by the provincial government these benefits will be considered as income, and therefore their war veterans allowances will be reduced by the same amount?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: May I take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF NATIONAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will the minister please advise us when we may expect a statement from him respecting the updating of the national oil policy? Will he advise us what goals will be set, and the dates on which these goals are to be achieved?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: That would require a speech, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: I wish to address my question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the statement he made earlier today. In view of the fact that the minister will be seeking permission to
June 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry purchase other securities in the united States in addition to the ones we have been buying, will he also seek permission to purchase equity in United States owned companies in Canada as a better way of repatriating United States funds and helping them with their balance of payments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Whatever merit there may be in that suggestion, it would not have the effect desired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that tomorrow is the day when written questions are answered and since there is one question that has been on the order paper since January, four since February, ten since March, 15 since April and 48 since May, and particularly in view of the fact that starred question No. 1500 has been on the order paper since May 16, will he not prevail upon his ministers to answer these questions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to do so. May I point out that I was looking up the questions today and I noticed that of the first 1,000 questions, 992 have been answered.


Michael Starr: They should all have been answered, not just some.


John George Diefenbaker: Sometimes the last eight are the important ones.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: 1 wish to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to advise us with regard to the position of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers concerning the C.N.R. offer of a wage increase of 9.2 per cent on behalf of the 22,000 non-operating railway employees.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is presently before a conciliation board, and it would hardly be proper for me to make a statement at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister not know that the union told the board that it rejected the offer?
I will then ask the minister this question. In view of the settlements that were made in connection with the stevedore strike in Montreal and the threatened lake strike, has the government come to the conclusion that a 30 per cent wage increase over a period of two years is one that would maintain the line against inflation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. Each one of these cases is dealt with by the conciliation board concerned on its own merits.


John George Diefenbaker: These cases I have mentioned were not dealt with by the conciliation board until the intervention of the Prime Minister.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the difficulties which arose with respect to the longshoremen in Vancouver seeking a holiday on Victoria day as provided for under the Canada labour code, I wonder what steps the minister has taken to make sure the same difficulties do not arise with respect to the observance of July 1.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the matter is receiving top priority attention by the minister.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of the notice in yesterdays Votes and Proceedings that the minister intends to propose a measure authorizing the federal government to make contributions to the provinces for medical care insurance plans. I wish to ask the minister whether any or all of the provinces have agreed to the conditions under which these payments will be made by the federal government.

June 28, 1986


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: All have not agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Will the minister tell the house how many have and how many have not agreed to the conditions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me this is the type of information which should be requested when this matter comes before the house.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that all but one of the legislative items, notice of which has been promised for the session prior to the recess, are before us, can the minister say when this other one will be placed on the order paper? I refer to the pension benefits legislation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure just when this measure will be on the order paper; we are working on the legislation. I thought the hon. gentleman was perhaps going to ask when the income tax bill will be on the order paper. That will be on even sooner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of commitments over the last several months that this legislation would be on the order paper soon, can it not be put on the order paper before we recess?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked now is argumentative.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the fact that the proceedings before the industry, research and energy development committee have prematurely been closed off, is the minister prepared to appear before some other committee to allow questions to be asked on water resources and pollution?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the committee proceedings may have been closed
Inquiries of the Ministry off, but that is not the fault of the minister. I am not the master of decisions taken by committees of this house. As far as I am concerned, I tried this morning to answer all the questions. I was willing to go on for two or three hours, but we were told that the hon. member who has just asked the question was too busy and had to be somewhere else at eleven.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister has not made a complete statement as to what happened in the committee this morning. There was a request-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have the right to state the facts. There was a request that the minister return to the committee on Thursday so the hon. member for Kamloops, who is away today, could ask questions in connection with water resources and pollution. Likewise I had some further questions to ask. The committee completed its proceedings, but I rise merely to point out that it was not just myself involved but another member as well who also wanted to complete his questioning of the minister this morning.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will try to answer any question at any time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DISCUSSION OF FLOOD CONTROL WITH U.S. INTERIOR SECRETARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether, in future consultations with the United States Secretary of the Interior, he and Mr. Udall intend to go beyond the subject of water pollution and look also at the problems of flooding and flood control.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I suggest to the hon. member that he might want to place that question on the order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soufham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I will direct to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the permanent employees responsible for the administration of the Prairie Farm

June 28. 1966
Exchequer Court Act
Assistance Act do not have the benefits provided under the Civil Service Act, would the minister consider bringing this important group of federal employees under this act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a matter of general policy and that his question might very well be placed on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In the recent execution by the R.C.M.P. of the warrant to search the offices and headquarters of the Seafarers International Union for records and documents, why was it that the R.C.M.P. found it necessary to take internal measurements of the buildings and offices by means of a tape measure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question is in order.



FINANCE


Mitchell William Sharp: the third reading of Bill No. C-211, to authorize the Minister of Finance to transfer to the provinces the proportions of the income tax payable by certain public utility companies.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and bill read the third time and passed.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: the second reading of Bill No. C-201, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Fees payable.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, perhaps an explanation might be given of the bill; the explanatory notes are not very complete.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is purely administrative although it does require an amendment to the Exchequer Court Act.
Perhaps by way of explanation I might remind hon. members that while the judges of the Exchequer Court sit from time to time to hear cases in each of the provinces, the office of the registrar of the court has always been located in Ottawa and, until recently, all actions in the court were required to be commenced in his office and all documents relating to such actions were required to be filed in Ottawa.
For the convenience of litigants, a few months ago I approved the establishing of offices of deputy registrars of the court in the cities of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. In the city of Montreal a full time deputy registrar was appointed, but in the cities of Toronto and Vancouver it was considered desirable to appoint officials of the provincial courts as deputy registrars.
In the course of arranging for these appointments we received strong representations objecting to the requirement that Exchequer Court fees be accounted for by the sale and purchase of Exchequer Court law stamps. In addition there was an obvious requirement that some compensation be made to the provinces on account of the additional office costs that will have to be borne by them as a result of integrating this special Exchequer Court service with their own provincial court service.
Furthermore, the registrar of the court and his officials believe that a somewhat more modern and more convenient method than the sale and purchase of law stamps should be found as a means of accounting for Exchequer Court fees. I understand that the acquisition of stamping machines is under consideration, since this system has proved satisfactory in British Columbia, Quebec and in many areas of Ontario. So the whole bill relates to section 80.
Consequently, if the arrangements I have outlined are to be carried out on a satisfactory basis, and if some new method of accounting for Exchequer Court fees is to be found, section 80 will have to be amended. By the amendment to this section contained in this bill, the use of law stamps as a method of paying fees will be discontinued. All fees payable to the registrar of the court will continue to be paid into the consolidated revenue fund, but fees payable to any officer of a provincial court, acting as a deputy
June 28, 1966

registrar of the court, will be retained and dealt with in the same manner as amounts paid to him as provincial court fees. It is contemplated that the fees so retained will either underwrite or assist in underwriting the additional office expenses that will be incurred by the provinces supplying this service.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise two questions. The explanation covers the situation in general but certainly it is not shown in the explanatory notes what provinces have made complaints regarding the procedure that has been followed throughout the years. Second, what has been the amount of fees year by year in the last three years of fees collected by deputy registrars in the provinces, which apparently also will be appropriated now by those provinces?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could answer the last question first. I am sorry that I do not have the figures as to the amounts of money that were paid. Now as to the complaints that have been received. British Columbia and Ontario had made some representations concerning the methods which we used for the remuneration of deputy registrars. As the right hon. gentleman realizes, what we are trying to do here is utilize deputy registrars or registrars or officials of the provincial courts in such a manner that they will act for us in the field of Exchequer Court matters. The question of remuneration had to be reconsidered. This amendment means that the law stamps which were customary in the past no longer exist and that the deputy registrars in the different provinces will receive tax and keep revenue in order to be able to pay for the expenses which would be incurred by the imposition of these additional duties.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I can see where provincial authorities, whose clerical staffs might be used in carrying out duties that are attendant upon the fees of the deputy registrar, might be entitled to say that they should get the revenues from these fees. This is what has happened. In other words, any fees paid into a deputy registrar's office at a provincial capital form part of the consolidated revenue fund of the province. I am wondering about the appointments of these deputy registrars who very likely are clerks of the courts. Any such deputy registrar will become an agent of Her Majesty's government in right of Canada. He is personally undertaking responsibilities that are not
Exchequer Court Act
within the terms of reference of his office as clerk. He is not paid by the province for this additional responsibility. Therefore, the only entities to gain from this arrangement, as explained by the minister-and I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the remarks he has made-are the consolidated revenue funds of the provinces. The clerks or the deputy registrars assume responsibilities with respect to those. I would think that the province could only claim to impose additional responsibilities if it were paying a supplementary allowance or salary to the clerk so that he might also act as deputy registrar.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: My understanding of the matter is that the fees that would be taxed by the deputy registrar would go to the registrar and would be in part, compensation to him for his extra duties.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry, but that does not appear from my interpretation of the legislation. The bill indicates that fees collected:
-shall be retained and dealt with in the same manner as amounts paid as provincial court fees.
Fees do not go to the clerk. They go to the consolidated revenue fund as revenues of the department of the attorney general. It should be clearly spelled out, therefore, that any clerk or other official of a provincial court who takes on the responsibilities of deputy registrar shall receive some salary increment to compensate him for his additional responsibilities. There is nothing in the legislation before us which spells this out.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: As the hon. gentleman can understand, there was an arrangement between the Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of the provinces in which this arrangement is being made. According to this arrangement the law stamp fees which would normally go to the federal government would be discontinued. The amount of fees involved would then go to the provincial government for the payment, in part, of the deputy registrar's fees for his additional work. The balance, of course, would go toward stenographic staffs, space, and this type of thing. That, fundamentally, is the understanding between the Department of Justice and the offices of the Attorneys General of the provinces where this arrangement is to be made.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Another question comes to mind. I have never been enamoured with what I consider to be a spoils system under which an official of the court, whether he be

June 28, 1966
Exchequer Court Act
judge, magistrate or otherwise, shall be recompensed on the basis of moneys collected in that court. We know the abuses that this system gives rise to, especially in certain local courts and also under justices of the peace. Further, if it is anticipated that the volume of fees collected in these provincial jurisdictions will rise because of the nature and increasing incidence of litigation, the government of Canada, having bound itself by legislation, may find itself caught. I would have preferred in actual fact to see the government of Canada entering into an agreement on a fixed fee basis for services rendered. Fees could be adjusted as the situation warranted. That would be far removed from what I deem to be a spoils system. I am afraid that this legislation encompasses a very second-best type of arrangement.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Perhaps I was not quite clear, and for that I apologize. My understanding of this matter is that the fees to be taxed are fixed by the registrar in Ottawa. The difference is that in the provinces those fees would be returned to the consolidated revenue fund of the province and therefore the province would give additional salary or remuneration to the deputy registrar. Also, part of those fees would go toward the expenses of offices. The actual fixing of the fees would be controlled by the registrar in Ottawa.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I agree that the fees are on a fixed scale. What I am concerned about is this. Let us say that for the sum of $1,000 per annum the clerk of the court in the city of Vancouver will act as the deputy registrar. That $1,000 should be paid by the government of Canada to the province of British Columbia regardless of the volume of business.
Under this proposed system the remuneration of the deputy registrar may fluctuate according to the level of fees. This is conceivable, and that is why I call it the spoils system. I should have preferred to see the other system I mentioned. The minister might be prepared to tell us what is the attitude of the provinces in this regard.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, that is the point I wish to raise. The provincial officials with whom we have spoken about this matter agreed to this present system. It is by arrangement that we have entered into it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think it is a second-best system.


Mr. Brewin:: Could the minister relieve my mind about one aspect of this legislation? It

appears to be designed to eliminate the use of law stamps. Has this anything to do with the alarming increase in the practice of glue sniffing we have been reading about?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Very indirectly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said
bill be read the third time? Now?


Michael Starr: By leave.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-213, to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, there is little I intend to say on second reading. I believe most of the views of this party on this measure were expressed at the resolution stage.
There is, however, some concern expressed by those living in the maritime provinces that insufficient attention has been given by the Atlantic Development Board to the opportunities which exist in the maritimes for new developments with outward-looking possibilities for trade with foreign countries where our natural lanes of communication lie. The Atlantic provinces have historically been a seafaring region and their greatest prosperity was in the days of wooden ships. About 100 years ago they were leaders in world trade and I belive there is still a great opportunity for new industries, new developments and new trade in the maritimes based on their fortunate situation in respect of trade, especially within the Atlantic community. I should like to believe that the minister agrees with me in this respect and will at least look into the possibilities of this type of development in the Atlantic region in the future.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on the resolution stage of this bill, we listened to what I thought were several illuminating speeches by various speakers in different
June 28, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has been.


Hugh John Flemming: I agree with the minister that it has been, and I also agree with those hon. members who spoke yesterday about the general excellence of the members of the board and its staff under its director, Dr. Weeks. They are capable people dedicated to making a success of the work entrusted to them.
I think these amendments will improve the general situation and, as I said at the outset, I feel we in the Atlantic provinces should emphasize our advantages rather than our disadvantages and handicaps. Our export drive should not be confined to the United Kingdom. Goods from the Atlantic region can be sold in all the markets of the world, as several firms have already demonstrated. Their products have been satisfactory in quality and competitive in price.
The general level of productivity in the Atlantic provinces on a per capita basis compares favourably with the rest of Canada, and I am hopeful that greater initiative will follow the passage of this legislation. We are not proud that unemployment in our region is higher than in the rest of the nation, and I believe that greater emphasis on exports could be a factor in helping to reduce it.
I have some knowledge of the board right from its establishment. I am grateful to my leader, who is in the chamber this afternoon, for the responsibility he gave me to guide the
June 28, 1966

Atlantic Development Board Act original bill through the house. There are some things in life we look back on with more satisfaction than others, and this was one in my life. When the bill was first introduced there was some discussion on the question of funds for the Atlantic Development Board. It was felt by the government of that day that funds should not in any way be restricted. Now the minister says that the amount voted at that time has been a limiting factor, but I can assure the house that it was not considered such by our government.
The provision of this additional $50 million seems reasonable to me. Perhaps I am too modest in my idea of expenditures. Some people want to talk in billions of dollars but, in the school in which I was brought up, when we went into debt for $1,000 we worried about where the money would come from to settle the debt.
I am quite prepared to take the minister's word that when these funds have been exhausted consideration will be given to the provision of additional moneys. I think the original legislation has provided much benefit to the Atlantic provinces and again I express my admiration for the work of Dr. Weeks and his staff. The house should also give appreciation to the former government which introduced the original legislation and also to the present government for introducing this bill which will further the work of the Atlantic Development Board.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party are wholeheartedly in support of this legislation in so far as it will contribute to the economic development of the Atlantic provinces. I am not going to take very much of the time of the house because I think there is general support for this measure. If I have any criticism at all to offer, it would be that neither the legislation nor the amount of money envisaged goes far enough.
When the resolution was being presented by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) he assured the house that the Atlantic Development Board had not been imprudent in respect of either the money it had spent or the commitments it had made. If I had any criticism at all of the board it would be that they had been so careful that after three years only half the $100 million was spent and the rest committed. It seems to me this is not a very large expenditure over a three year period to take care of the industrial

needs of the four Atlantic provinces and to provide the kind of stimulus needed for the economic growth of that area.
I think the amount of money provided now is too small. I agree with the minister that from time to time the house should have an opportunity to have a report and debate on this matter, but there are other ways by which this could be provided. I do not like the idea of handing out this money in little driblets so that the board constantly is hampered in its long-term planning of what it wants to do. I should like to say that I think this is a good board. I believe they have gathered around them an excellent staff and that their long-term planning and projects offer great promise. But I think they ought to be given a great deal more money and ought to be given by the minister and the government the green light in getting down to the business which needs to be done.
I need not remind the house that the Atlantic provinces have much reason to complain that the disparity of income which has existed in days gone by is not being rectified. The gap in per capita income and in productivity between the Atlantic provinces and the other parts of Canada, particularly central Canada, is being narrowed; but the much greater unemployment figures in the Atlantic provinces compared with those for the rest of Canada are not being reduced substantially. Even if the Atlantic provinces make gains, which they are making, I suggest that they are not making gains as fast as the other parts of Canada. The Atlantic provinces are in much the same position as was the case when the queen said to Alice in Wonderland: You have to run as fast as you can to stay where you are.
Even if we could step up economic and industrial activity in the Atlantic provinces they would then only be holding their own with the rest of Canada and still not be reducing the very considerable disparity which exists between them and the rest of Canada. Therefore I feel that this government and this parliament can afford to be generous and far-seeing in making very much larger sums of money available to the Atlantic Development Board. After all, this involves four provinces. Three at least, leaving out Newfoundland, do not have great hinterlands yet to be developed which is the case in Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces and British Columbia. They do not have the hinterland of natural resources from which they can draw in the future. They will have to depend on intensive industrial development
June 28, 1966
in the small areas they have at their disposal. Therefore I think we could do much better than we are doing under this legislation.
It appears to me that there is not the co-ordination there ought to be between the Atlantic Development Board and the rest of the federal government. I have reference particularly to the Department of Industry. Frankly, I do not know why this legislation does not come under the Department of Industry. Surely there ought to be the very closest integration between a body set up to promote economic and industrial development in the Atlantic provinces and the Department of Industry. It seems to me that this board might well be reporting to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) and be responsible to him so that he can fit its programs in with the programs of his department.
A very good example of the cross-purposes which we find is in the matter of designated areas. From all I can gather the Atlantic Development Board has been waiting for a long time to have the Atlantic provinces in their entirety treated as a designated area. This makes sense. We cannot develop industries on a postage stamp basis. They have to be developed on a regional basis taking into consideration the various natural resources available, fuel, transportation, and markets both export and local.
It is only possible to plan economic development on a regional basis. Yet the Department of Industry proceeds in an outdated manner to select little postage stamp areas and designate them. In the Atlantic provinces it has excluded such cities as Halifax, Saint John, Dartmouth and Fredericton. There is such a thing as mutual attraction in industrial development. You cannot just take a local area, set it aside and say that is a designated area to which we want to attract industry. You have to start where there is some industry and where there is a reservoir of trained manpower and markets. Industry attracts industry; primary industries attract secondary industries and secondary industries attract tertiary industries. Therefore, to take cities out of an industrial development plan is to cut the heart out of any sensible industrial development program.
If the Atlantic Development Board were consulted by the Minister of Industry I feel certain they would be the first to recommend a complete overhaul of his system of designating areas for the purpose of industrial development. I really cannot understand why there has not been a better co-ordination. I

Atlantic Development Board Act certainly think it is regrettable that there should be this complete contradiction with one board trying to treat four provinces as a region for industrial development and a department of government on the other hand cutting up the region into small areas and saying that some are designated and others are not. It does not make sense. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is carrying on one of his periodic reorganizations of government structure I hope he will give some thought to working out a better co-ordination between the Department of Industry and the Atlantic Development Board.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In so far as this legislation will help the Atlantic provinces, which we feel sure it will, we give it our hearty support.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we have under consideration a bill designed to provide assistance to the Atlantic provinces. First, I do wish to say that we are not opposed to that. However, I would like to take a few minutes today to say that the Atlantic provinces are not the only ones with areas of unemployment, with underdeveloped areas. The province of Quebec also has underdeveloped areas in need of assistance.
Therefore, I would simply say this to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Although we do not object to the principle of Bill No. C-213, we believe that the government should also give consideration to the other underdeveloped areas in this country, that is to those of Saguenay-Lake St. John, the Gaspe peninsula, Abitibi, the north shore, etc. Those are areas with tremendous needs, for which the government should make special efforts. Part of the people's taxes is used to assist the Atlantic provinces; yet, those taxes are collected in the country as a whole. We do not oppose this, because needs are becoming apparent in those four provinces, but I insist on the fact that there are areas in the province of Quebec also which are in need of assistance.
For a number of years, the western provinces obtained many things from the federal government, while the Atlantic provinces and Quebec were neglected. At other times, it is the province of Ontario which received a great deal of assistance. At that time, in the thirties, the western provinces, Quebec and the maritimes were forgotten. We believe that the province of Quebec should have its turn, since it has never come.
June 28, 1966

Atlantic Development Board Act
Some resolutions appear on the order paper, especially that concerning feed grain for eastern Canada. It has been on the order paper for quite a long time, but it has not yet been passed; we would like it to be passed as soon as possible. There are also some reports to the effect that the price of milk in farming areas is not high enough and we would like the federal government to do for certain designated areas in Quebec what it is doing for the Atlantic provinces. We believe that this is an urgent matter. Words are not enough and the government should act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are a few observations one could make at this time in the debate, and in view of the interest shown by the government of which I had the honour to be the head in the Atlantic provinces in general I feel I should say something regarding the measure now before the house.
Let me say at once that this measure will receive the full support of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. However, what is being done and has been done has not met the needs and requirements of this nation to bring about a reasonable degree of equality of opportunity. The people of the maritimes have moved to all parts of Canada and the United States. This area has been the nursery of a very large proportion of the leaders of this nation and of all the provinces of Canada. Many people from the Atlantic provinces have migrated to other parts of Canada and United States because of the inequality of opportunity, and what each of us must try to do is bring about an economic regional advance in those areas of the country where the economy is not on a par with the rest of the nation.
Various explanations have been made for the exodus from the Atlantic area. What has been the motivation for this exodus? I think the recent study made by the organization for economic co-operation and development has given the answer, namely, that the broad range of opportunities in other areas, particularly in the United States, has brought about a continuing process of migration from this area. This has not been a recent development but rather a continuing one which has taken place since the 1880's.
What can we do about this situation? I think the government should have acted to meet the demands of APEC respecting the designation of the Atlantic provinces as a

designated area. Various reasons were advanced why this area could not be designated, but those reasons have no effective basis in so far as Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton are concerned. I again urge upon the government the need for action in this regard. The government must face up to the necessity of restoring a new sense of hope in these areas which find themselves today with great unemployment and without that degree of opportunity that is available in other parts of our nation. If action is taken in this regard I am sure Canadians everywhere will welcome it and the equalization of opportunity that will follow.
I cannot understand the reasoning that impels the Department of Industry to stand so firmly against a course of action which would be beneficial not only to the Atlantic provinces but to the nation as a whole. The problem is a large one. One must always attempt to look into the future. What will the next 25 years bring about?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
One of the major problems in the maritimes has been the lack of a close relative connection with the central provinces. There are many who argue that railway transportation is a thing of the past. I do not believe or accept that argument. Today we must consider what the future may bring about, and one of the greatest obstacles to industrial development in the maritimes, with its vast coal resources, is the cost of transportation.
Various committees have studied this situation and have recommended that assistance be given. The Duncan commission and others have made recommendations. Large subsidies have been granted. Indeed, during our period of office we multiplied the subsidies on behalf of the coal areas, particularly in Cape Breton. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), both of whom have devoted themselves to this problem, have asked for action to be taken. The coal mining industry is today in a serious position. The $25 million that was promised during the election period but which received no political support has not yet been determined upon and made available.
What is needed as I see it, and at the moment it is just a dream, is the development of an efficient, high speed, ground transportation system. I take the position that the economic life of the provinces by the sea has unquestionably been impeded by the lack of ground transportation facilities. The long
June 28, 19G6	COMMONS DEBATES	6947
route followed by the rail line from Montreal to Halifax was satisfactory during the days when it was first built. It was necessary to assure confederation. It was natural that the original construction of the railway line should follow the shores thus linking the centres of population. Today, as I see it, we need fast, direct connections between the maritimes and the industrial heartland of central Canada. It will be a costly thing. It will be a grand design. It cannot be done immediately.
I have pressed for a national transportation policy and in that policy I envisage thought being given to bringing new transportation facilities to the maritime provinces. The present line running from Montreal through Richmond, Levis and Mont Joli covers 840 miles. The fastest time in which this route can be travelled today is some 21 hours. Is the time not here when we should give consideration to bringing about a direct line from Richmond, Quebec, through the top corner of Maine to Woodstock, New Brunswick, and utilizing the present main lines that are available? To follow this suggestion would cut by one-third the distance of the present route. The time that would be taken for travel from Montreal to Halifax would be less than 12 hours rather than the 21 hours now required.
There would be tremendous savings in freight costs both ways. There would be made available to the maritimes the probability not only of the expansion of existing industries but the establishment of additional ones, which would be beneficial not only to those provinces but to Canada as a whole. Such a direct line would not take the place of the present line in any way but would be used chiefly for high speed freight transportation.
The maritimes have tremendous potentialities for the production of electrical power. What they need now, as I see it, is thinking devoted not only to those matters that the Atlantic Development Board is dealing with. We in other parts of Canada, and in particular the Department of Transport-I know the minister has given thought to a national transportation policy-should be thinking about assuring direct, efficient and high speed rail communication for the maritimes. It will be costly but over a period of 60 years the amortized cost would assure the dividend of a discharge of the indebtedness.
This would enable those provinces by the sea to become a vital part of Canada's industrial and business might. Over a period of
Atlantic Development Board Act years there would be tremendous savings in the subsidies that would otherwise have to be paid. It cannot be done in a day, but I think the Department of Transport might very well devote itself to a full and complete study of this subject.
On a later occasion I shall give my views on a transportation system for the western provinces and in particular the Rocky Mountain area leading to the Pacific ports. This country, with all its vast potentialities, must catch something of the greatness of the possibilities of the future. We have to think in a big way. When one reads the story of confederation and the Year Book-I am speaking now from memory-after confederation the prediction was that by 1940 the population of Canada would be some 40 million. How far out that was. New dreams can be implemented and carried out by planning. We have to populate this nation. We have to develop. We have to remove the restrictions of those who fear increased immigration. Canada cannot continue for the next 50 years in the lackadaisical way in national development which has too often characterized this nation in the past.
The task is a difficult one. The arguments that will be advanced will be complex. But 1 feel that we as representatives of this nation as a whole would give young Canada new hope in 1967 were we to raise the horizons of our ideas for national development so that in every part of this nation Candians, regardless of their geographical address, would be able to have each for himself that degree of equality of opportunity which was the basis of confederation and in my opinion will be the strongest bond of confederation in the next 100 years.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: May I
remind the hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is not my intention to hold up the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask the Minister of Transport, in replying to the remarks which have been made by hon. members, to take into consideration the fact that the Donald report on coal is, I understand, under study by the cabinet committee. We have been given to understand that the portions of the Donald report which have been published, and this has not yet been denied, indicate a very detrimental situation. Whether or not this is so I cannot say but I ask the minister to reveal that portion of the
6948	COMMONS
Atlantic Development Board Act Donald report which may hold out some hope for the industrial area of Cape Breton, whether it be the coal industry or other industries in that area.
I also wish to ask him to take a firm stand and resist the suggestion of the leader of the New Democratic Party that the Minister of Industry take over the administration of the Atlantic Development Board. We do not wish the Minister of Industry to do so. Despite the fact that the Minister of Transport is not a maritimer, we realize that he represents Bonavista-Twillingate which may present certain advantages to the maritimes.
I should very much like to hear the minister report on the Donald commission since the government seems to have taken some comfort from the stand taken by Premier Stanfield and supported by the union leaders in Nova Scotia to the effect that coal can no longer be considered a growth industry in that area, will the minister not also take into consideration the suggestions made by Premier Stanfield in his speech?
May I point out that the former minister of labour made promises prior to the election concerning the coal situation in Nova Scotia and despite what our leader says in respect of those particular promises they were originally designed to get votes. In fact, in the minister's own words as recorded in Hansard those promises did produce 5,000 more votes.


John George Diefenbaker: It did not turn out that way.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: I therefore ask the minister to give serious consideration to the suggestions made by Premier Stanfield and at least to alleviate the concern of Nova Scotians in respect of that part of the report which has been made known recommending that vast amounts of capital be imported into the industrial area of Cape Breton.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one should be grateful even for backhanded compliments and I thank the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) for his slightly grudging suggestion that the Atlantic Development Board should remain under my jurisdiction rather than under some other minister.


John George Diefenbaker: That is high generosity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I recognize it and acknowledge it for what it is.
I did not make a speech at the opening of the debate on second reading because it seemed to me that in the observations I had
[Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South).!
DEBATES	June 28, 1966
made yesterday during the discussion on the resolution I had covered the content of the bill. However, a few things have been said that I think deserve some notice from this side of the house. I wish to say right away that I appreciate the tone of every speech that has been made this afternoon, while I do not agree with everything that was said in all of them.
I think this is one occasion when all of us have addressed ourselves to the problem which is the purpose and the raison d'etre of the Atlantic Development Board, that is, an effort to bring the economy of the Atlantic provinces up to the level of the economy of other parts of Canada where, for geographical, historic or other reasons, the advance has in many cases been more rapid.
The senior member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) who spoke first on this subject suggested that we should make a special effort to stimulate industries that would be engaged in export. I think the hon. member, Who is a former minister of fisheries, is well aware of the excellent work that has been done, is being done and will continue to be done by the Atlantic Development Board in helping to modernize one of the most important and oldest of all export industries of the Atlantic provinces, the fishing industry and the processing of fish. Notwithstanding the tremendous amount of fresh water in all the provinces, we have discovered that a lot of our fresh water is not nearly as pure as it should be, nor nearly as accessible as it should be.
The board has made special efforts to make water available to processing plants and it has kept some of them in existence when otherwise they would not have been able to carry on. It has also stimulated the growth of other plants and I therefore think that much more should be done in this sphere. Indeed, a survey of the water resources of the whole region has been undertaken by the board. The accessibility of water is absolutely essential in the location of industries because all of us know that everywhere on this continent water is becoming perhaps the most important of all the resources that large industries, and especially resource industries, look for when they are locating new plants.
I think it is particularly opportune that the hon. members for Queens and Victoria-Carleton should have emphasized export industries and the geographical advantages of the Atlantic provinces in this field on the eve of the conference to be held here next week between the Prime Minister of Canada and the prime ministers, the premiers and the
June 28, 1966

chief ministers of the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean. We hope this will mark the beginning of a new era in our relations with the Caribbean countries. Of course, those of us who represent the Atlantic provinces cannot help but feel that this is of special interest to us, although I think it is also of great interest to all Canadians, including British Columbia which has a considerable market for exports in the Caribbean, as I discovered on a recent visit.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton knows, of course, because he was one of the initiators of the board, that the board has the power to initiate industrial development and so has the government, but it has been found that the co-operation with all the provincial governments has been so close and constant that the question has almost not arisen. I am sure the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton also came to that conclusion when he was first responsible for setting up the board. One thing we certainly do not want to do is to let the board work at cross-purposes with any of the provincial governments and the very effective agencies that they now have in all the four provinces for the promotion of industrial development. There is the very closest and almost constant connection between the two. In the case of Nova Scotia let me say a word about Mr. Frank Sobey who was appointed to the board by the previous government and is still a very valuable member of the board and also the head of Industrial Estates. That dual situation has certainly made co-ordination easier. The mayor of Saint John is one of the members of the board. In selecting members we have sought, as did the previous government, to select people from all parts of the region who would represent all of the varied economic interests. I should like to pay a great tribute to all those who have served on the board, no matter by which government appointed, for the single-minded devotion with which they have served, and served voluntarily, as the hon. member for Kings (Mr. McQuaid) pointed out yesterday, to the great benefit of all regions in Canada.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I agree with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) that we ought to look ahead. I also think we ought to try to emphasize, as I did yesterday in a rather clumsy way, some of the advantages, which perhaps were not advantages even five, six or ten years ago, of the changing patterns of world trade. These changing techniques in
Atlantic Development Board Act transportation will, I believe, give the Atlantic provinces, when combined with their resources of industrial power, advantages that they have not had before for a long time in respect of the development of certain kinds of industry.
In that context I would recall to hon. members the fact that nearly all the freight has tended to move from central Canada to the Atlantic provinces and that there has been very little in the way of return shipments either by sea, by land or even by air. The result of this, of course, is that in order to make the return voyage profitable very advantageous rates can now be had for westbound traffic.
This has made for certain kinds of industry and has created a very great advantage to industry in locating in those provinces, particularly if they can combine an export function with production which is available to the big, rich central Canada market. The Clair-tone Company has recently opened a plant in Pictou County, and I hope and expect that it is going to be one of the pioneers in a movement which I think will gather a good deal of strength in the next few years.
I should now like to make one or two observations about what was said by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). I do not think that the hon. member really meant to describe $50 million as a little driblet. I am still modest and old-fashioned enough to think that $50 million is a great deal of money, even in 1966. Sometimes I think we are a little apt to take these amounts in the multi-millions too much for granted.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that because I was brought up in the bush of northern Manitoba where there was not much money this feeling made a permanent imprint on my mind, but I have always thought there is a lot to be said for prudence when you are handling other people's money or even your own. That does not mean, sir, that I am not willing to take risks. When I left my previous occupation to become a politician I gave a demonstration that in certain circumstances risk did not frighten me too much. There are a lot of big risks that I am quite prepared to take in discharging the responsibilities I have and in encouraging the Atlantic Development Board to discharge its responsibilites.


An hon. Member:: Here we go again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the repeated failure of the power supply in this chamber I
June 28, 1966

Atlantic Development Board Act think is evidence that we should get on with developing these huge power resources both in Labrador and in the rest of the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Burnaby-Coquitlam was, I am sure, speaking from an academic and theoretical, or perhaps I should say from an uninformed, viewpoint when he said that there ought to be more co-ordination between the Atlantic Development Board and the Department of Industry. I cannot think of any department with which there has been closer co-ordination from the day the Department of Industry was established.
I would remind hon. members that these two agencies have entirely different, though in some respects closely related, functions. The purpose of the Department of Industry is to stimulate industrial development from one end of Canada to the other. This includes Toronto, if it still needs stimulation, as well as anywhere else. On the other hand, the purpose of the Atlantic Development Board, as I said when I introduced the amendments in 1963, is primarily to act as a steady pressure group on every department of the federal government and on all other agencies so as to get things done for the Atlantic provinces.
I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into the question raised both by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam as to the reasons that Halifax, Saint John, Fredericton and Dartmouth are not designated areas. However, I think I should remind all hon. members that the criterion for a designated area is the amount of unemployment existing in that area. It does not matter where in Canada any particular area is. What is the criterion is the quantity of unemployment existing in the area.
It just so happens that the employment situation in Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton is happily good enough that these areas do not qualify as designated areas, and this is a fact for which I think we should be grateful. If we are to have in all parts of Canada designated areas which do qualify under the criteria, then the same criteria obviously have to apply in the Atlantic provinces as apply elsewhere.


John George Diefenbaker: Could I ask the minister a question? Does he not think that the representations of those connected with APEC, with full knowledge of the needs of the Atlantic provinces and having recommended that the Atlantic provinces be so des gnated, deserve serious attention by the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of
course. I am sure that the right hon. gentleman, who had the responsibility of being prime minister of Canada, never allowed any regional consideration, no matter how strongly put forward, to make him deviate from taking a national point of view. That was his responsibility, as it is the responsibility of every prime minister and of every government.
However strong may be the representations made by APEC and however desirable their recommendations may be in given circumstances-this is a debatable question which I do not propose to discuss on this particular occasion-their representations are naturally made from a regional standpoint. If we are to have a designated area policy such as that we now have applied to the whole of Canada, I think the criteria must be the same for all parts of Canada. That is part of the reason why it is very undesirable to have the Atlantic Development Board and the Department of Industry under the same minister, because they are working to achieve different aims.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would prefer to deal with this point first.


Donald MacInnis: My
question is exactly on this point. The minister will have the opportunity to clarify it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member may put his question when I have concluded what I have to say on the point.
The Department of Industry is working to stimulate industry throughout Canada and to try to even out the unevenness between regions which are designated and regions which are not designated because their unemployment situation is not so difficult. The Atlantic Development Board is devoted primarily to the promotion of industrial and economic development in the whole of the Atlantic region.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Under the designated areas policy direct aid is given to businesses themselves. Direct
June 28, 1966
aid up to now has not been given to individual firms by the Atlantic Development Board. They are working in slightly different fields but, of course, to the same broad end.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister has indicated that one of the criteria for establishing designated areas is unemployment. He referred to the fact that the criteria for designated areas are the same across Canada. Would he not agree that they are so rigid as not to produce the desired results in the Atlantic region? How can the minister equate the idea of unemployment as a criterion for designated areas right across the country and at the same time go into the maritime areas and tell the people there that everything is going better in Canada and in the maritimes than ever before? I indicated to the minister that the criterion of unemployment on an across Canada basis is not producing the desired results in the maritime area simply because it is the same throughout the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not accept the hon. gentleman's premise at all. I do not propose to debate this subject as it has nothing to do with the bill before us. I merely want to point out that the broad objectives of economic and industrial development are the same but the method of arriving at each particular area of operation is different in the two cases. I do not think that co-ordination could possibly be closer than it is. I think that those people in the Atlantic provinces who have followed the work of the board and the Department of Industry closely will admit that very readily indeed. I could, if we did not want to get on with our legislation, give many examples.
I should now like to say a word or two about what was said by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). He, it seems to me, gave the best possible reply to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. He pointed out the need for industrial development and economic advancement in certain parts of the province of Quebec, including the area he represents. We acknowledge this. It is a designated area. Some hon. members are not ready to accept our designated areas as such. But if we simply abolished the criteria for different designated areas, then the whole country would have to be designated. That is the
Atlantic Development Board Act problem and it is not easy of solution. I am not saying that our solution is perfect; I am not saying it will not be improved. But I say that if you are going to designate areas across the country you must have some way of designating one area as distinct from another; otherwise the whole idea is meaningless. I appreciate what has been said and I realize the difficulties.
The Leader of the Opposition said a few things about transport that encouraged me very much. The right hon. gentleman referred to my conversion with respect to views he had expressed about a railway in Alberta and the Northwest Territories, the first railway that ever went into the Northwest Territories.
I admit that the right hon. gentleman gambled and his gamble now looks pretty good. I admit it. But I am also very pleased at his conversion because in 1958 the party I belong to went to the country advocating a trunk road program for the four Atlantic provinces and we said we would undertake to pay 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway. Unfortunately for the Atlantic region itself we had no chance to carry out that program until 1963. We lost no time when we got into office in 1963. The promised 90-10 formula was put into effect and the trans-Canada highway is completed across Newfoundland. Progress of that highway is not moving fast enough to suit the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan), but the highway is moving across Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Since this government came into office $30 million, in addition to what is directly in the Atlantic Development Board fund, has been devoted to assistance in a trunk road program throughout the entire four provinces. I do not think it is going to be enough but it has not yet all been spent. Everything is moving ahead quite rapidly. Moreover, taking the suggestion of the MacPherson Commission, which did a very solid job in my view but which did not deal, as the right hon. gentleman will recall, with the special problems of the Atlantic provinces, we have now under way a comprehensive study which we have discussed in detail with the four provincial governments, by a joint venture of the "Economist" unit and the Acres Company in regard to the transport needs of the whole Atlantic region. I do not think anything is more important to the economic advancement of the area than providing good transport. That is more important even than power development.

June 28, 1966

Atlantic Development Board Act
I come finally to the question of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Mac-Innis). I cannot, of course, disclose what Dr. Donald has advised the government. But I can say, and say with the most complete confidence, that a great deal more than $25 million will be spent for the industrial development of the coal mining regions of Nova Scotia. There is no question whatever but that we must grapple with this very serious problem. I certainly will not be satisfied, and I know my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not be satisfied and I do not believe any member of this government will be satisfied, until we have an industrial capacity in Cape Breton Island that will make the situation there better than it is now or than it has been for a long time. There are some very encouraging signs now of developments already underway.


Mr, Douglas:: Before the minister leaves that point could I ask him a question? When he says that a great deal more than $25 million will be spent in that area, could he be more specific? Will the $25 million be spent in the development and extension of the coal industry as was suggested by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in Cape Breton?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no question that more than $25 million will be spent in an effort to provide employment. How that will be spent and the precise manner in which it will be spent I do not say. The hon. gentleman was the head of a government for quite a long time, and I am quite sure that he remained head of that government by working out his policies before he announced them. I think it is a sound rule and it is the rule I intend to follow.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that rule apply to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is just another bit of prudence.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister whether that rule is in any way in conflict with the announcement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare some time ago?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of National Health and Welfare made an announcement that will be carried out. I can assure hon. members that there was nothing said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare which is not in complete and total accord with the policies of the government at the present time.


An hon. Member:: We have your word for it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I assume that the recommendations of the Donald Commission have already been circulated and, whether those recommendations are authentic or not, I take it that the government is determined to ignore them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member may draw any conclusions he likes from anything he has read, but he cannot draw any conclusions from what I have said-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -other than what I have said. As every politician knows, it is very easy to distort other people's words and to say that other people have said something different from what was said.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
question of privilege, I had no intention of distorting the minister's words. If the minister will look at his own words he will find he said that the government has every intention of carrying out the conditions laid down by the hon. gentleman who was then minister of labour with respect to the $25 million grant for the coal industry. The minister now states it is the government's intention to back up the statement of the former minister of labour. What other interpretation can I place on his remarks other than that the circulated reports of the Donald coal commission are to be ignored?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a perfect example of what I was saying. I was saying that if anyone wanted to scrutinize the words actually used by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, not the words attributed to him but the words he actually used, it would be found that they represent the position of the government. I am not responsible, nor is he, for interpretations which others place on his words. Perhaps when we get into committee-


Malcolm MacInnis: One
more question. Would the minister care to come to my office and listen to the tape?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can answer that shortly. The answer is, no.
If these diversions are over, I should like to make one final observation. It is about the sum of money which is to be paid into the fund under the terms of this bill. Yesterday and again today there was some suggestion it was not large enough. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam expressed this view. I
June 28, 1966

was pleased that the hon. member for Vic-toria-Carleton took the view that it was a reasonable sum at the present time having regard to all the circumstances. He has had a lot of experience and it comforts me to feel that on this particular measure we are in agreement.
I wish in closing to repeat that when this fund, which is not yet all committed though about $90 million is and which is to be replenished by a further $50 million if parliament sees fit to allow it, needs further strengthening, then if the present government is here and if I am the minister responsible for the board, as I hope to be, I shall not hesitate to come back to parliament and ask for more provided I believe the board is doing a good job and getting results. If results are not being achieved it would, of course, be irresponsible to do so. But I am confident they will be, and I have no doubt that the government of the day, whatever government it may be-I am fairly sure it will be a Liberal government-will be back with a similar measure before long because we shall find things to do with this money which will contribute to the growth and development of the whole Atlantic region and, in doing so, to the growth and development of the whole of Canada including the Lake St. John area.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport took some exception to my statement that I did not think there was adequate co-ordination between the Atlantic Development Board and the Department of Industry. Then he proceeded to make a speech which completely proved my statement. He said the two organizations had different purposes. Surely this proves a lack of co-ordination.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? How can you co-ordinate two things which have the same purpose?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are parallel but not different purposes. The minister laughs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not laugh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The chaotic situation which now exists is the result of the complete refusal of the government to face facts. The minister's statement that the Department of Industry and the Atlantic Development Board have different purposes explains fully the
Atlantic Development Board Act situation in the maritime provinces today. These organizations have parallel purposes. One is concerned with industrial development for Canada as a whole and the other is concerned with the same thing on a more intensive basis in a specific region.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not exactly the same thing at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, they ought to be doing the same thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not recognize a clear distinction between what the Atlantic Development Board is doing in providing general support for the Atlantic economy and the specific purpose of the area development agency for designated areas, which is to provide grants to specific industries? It is true these activities have to be co-ordinated closely but they are quite distinct.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely it must be apparent to the minister that the objective of both the department and the board is the economic growth of the area, the promotion of industry and the providing of employment. The board does it by means of grants and loans to specified industries. The Department of Industry has charge of the whole area of industrial promotion. Here is a department setting up criteria for designated areas which run absolutely counter to the policies established by the board.
The minister says the standards established for designated areas must be uniform across Canada. The board, on the other hand, was set up because the government was convinced this was a particular region which needed special help. Surely a department interested in promoting industry all across Canada has to take account of the fact that this is a region which the government has recognized as being one in need of special consideration. If it were not, the board would never have been set up to promote industrial development there.
The fact is the minister is trying to defend a formula in the Department of Industry which is completely unrealistic and runs at cross-purposes to the function of the board. The board was set up by parliament to look upon the Atlantic provinces as being a region with special problems. You cannot deal with these problems by cutting up the Atlantic provinces into areas, excluding some of their principal cities and proceeding on a piecemeal basis.
June 28, 1966

Atlantic Development Board Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not think that even within the Atlantic region it would be desirable to raise the economic level of those parts where there is heavy unemployment?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But it can only be done by treating the region as a whole. The minister must be aware that you cannot cut up the country into townships and say we will deal with the number of unemployed in each township. Industries attract other industries. You have to start from where the industries are and have them spread out all over the area. A whole region's economic development must be planned as a unit, not by townships or counties. Of course it is true that in wealthy provinces there are also areas with specific problems because of certain circumstances, such as the Lake St. John area, but the government and this parliament have recognized that the Atlantic provinces have a special problem, a general disparity of income and productivity in relation to the rest of Canada. Having recognized this and appointed the board to make plans, and the provinces themselves having set up APEC, surely it is ridiculous on the other hand for the Department of Industry to be operating on an entirely different premise and on a formula which does not make sense in the light of the regional planning already established by the Atlantic Development Board and APEC?
The minister has taken exception to my referring to this $50 million as a driblet but $50 million in terms of the industrial development of four provinces over the next four years is a driblet. The minister has talked about how careful he is in money matters and of his background in northern Manitoba.
I come of a race that is pretty careful about money too, but when the government is buying bomber planes $50 million is small change. When the government brings down the defence budget not $50 million but $500 million goes very quickly. In many areas of expenditure $50 million is treated as chicken feed.
All I am saying is that $50 million to meet the industrial development needs of the Atlantic provinces over the next few years is not adequate. If the board has not got plans that demand more money, and the minister is the only one who can be aware of that, then of course $50 million is what they need. I know it takes time to complete development studies. You just cannot put your hand on a


shelf and pull off a lot of industrial development projects. It takes time to conduct feasibility studies and market research.
I want to compliment the board and the minister on the work that has been done, but the basic work having been done the board ought now to be encouraged to move forward with the utmost possible speed and ought to be told that $50 million is not in our opinion anything like the limit we are prepared to set and that further considerable sums of money will be available. If that is not done, then not only will the disparity between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada remain but the gap will widen, and as the gap widens national unity is thereby weakened.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-194, to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Arts Centre-Miss La-Marsh-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
The Depuiy Chairman: When the committee rose on Friday, June 10, the title, clause 1 and clause 4, with an amendment to the latter, had been allowed to stand. On clause 4 the hon. member for Levis had moved an amendment as follows:
That clause 4 of Bill C-194 he amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
In the appointment of members and officers of the corporation, due account will be taken of the linguistic duality of Canada and its cultural plurality.
On clause 4-Appointment of chairman and vice-chairman.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, there has already been some discussion of this clause and the amendment in question which you have
June 28, 1966

just read, which is to the effect that in the appointment of members and officers of the corporation due account will be taken of the linguistic duality of Canada and its cultural plurality.
In this clause and this amendment we are dealing with a corporation which will have management responsibility for a cultural activity in our national capital that will, I am sure, be of significance and value to all of Canada. I am sure all members of the committee recognize that in the membership of boards and agencies of the government, and in particular in the membership of the board of this particular corporation, there should be as broad representation as possible of our cultural variety,	something	that adds
strength, colour and greatness to our Confederation.
I am sure we also recognize that the membership of a board of this kind should reflect the two official languages which signalize the dualism of our political origins and recognize that French is the language in this country of a cohesive cultural group, customarily used by a large majority in one province and by a very large minority in another province.
In the membership of boards and federal agencies this duality of language and also our plurality of culture are now recognized in fact, as I could show by referring to the composition of such agencies. I have studied all of the existing federal agencies and there is no doubt that these considerations are recognized in the appointments to these boards. However, Mr. Chairman, I think it is unwise and also unnecessary to include commitments relating to recognition of this kind in legislation itself, as my right hon. friend pointed out the other day, because in my view this could freeze a situation in a way which might hinder rather than help the achievement of the objective we have in mind-which is broad representation with appropriate recognition of the two official languages.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This principle of representation, as I said, is now accepted in practice and in custom. Sometimes practice and custom become very deeply embodied in a constitution, sometimes even more deeply embodied in a constitution than are some of the actual provisions of that constitution. As this now has become embodied by practice I suggest it might have a disunifying rather than a unifying effect to write it specifically into an act of parliament
National Arts Centre
as a legislative obligation. It could lead later to misunderstanding rather than greater understanding between English speaking and French speaking Canadians.
I can only give a specific assurance, and I am very glad to do so, for the present government, but I am quite certain any Canadian government will always take due accord of the linguistic and cultural factors mentioned in the amendment in respect of the appointment of the members and officers of government boards and agencies. I think that anyone who studies the appointments which have been made over the years will be assured that this is being done. I do not think there can be any possible doubt on this score for the future.
In the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, while recognizing the essential desirability of the principle and while certainly accepting the good intentions and worthy purpose of the hon. member who has moved the amendment, our colleague from Levis, nevertheless many members of the house are worried about the implication which might be read into its incorporation in legislation and perhaps the harmful effect of a recorded division on such a vote in this house. It is because of considerations of that kind and not because I am in any way, shape or form opposed to the principle involved in the amendment-I am sure no member of the committee is opposed to the principle involved in the amendment -that I would not be able to support the amendment. Yet, it would be very difficult indeed to vote against it because of the considerations I have mentioned and because of the principle involved.
So I venture to ask the hon. member for Levis whether in the circumstances he would ask leave of the house to withdraw his amendment.


Mr. Guay:: Mr. Chairman, over a week ago I moved an amendment to clause 4 of Bill No. C-194 so that the appointments made under the said clause would take into account Canada's linguistic duality and cultural plurality.
Never at any time did I believe that such an amendment could result in appeals and assure us that the principles put forth would be judicially respected. I was merely trying to elaborate the embryo of a general policy which would apply in federal institutions.
Since the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) has just announced formally and

June 28. 1966
National Arts Centre
officially to the house the government policy on the important matters which were the subject of my amendment, there is no doubt that my objectives have now been achieved. I could even say that they have been more than achieved, since my amendment applied only to a single piece of legislation.
In the circumstances, I cannot see any reason for maintaining my amendment and I therefore ask the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw it.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I must ask hon. members of this house if they agree to the hon. member for Levis withdrawing his amendment.

Is it agreed that the hon. member has leave to withdraw his amendment? The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the house has seen a most unusual-


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Lapointe on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you ask whether the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw his motion. Well, he does not have it from our group and I would like to explain why we are not ready to allow the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) to withdraw his motion.
I listened with great interest to the Prime Minister's statement, especially when he said that any government would take into serious consideration the factor-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Lapointe but I had recognized the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). And I understand very well the point he just made to the effect that-


Gilles Grégoire: The amendment is not withdrawn?
The Depuiy Chairman: The amendment has not yet been withdrawn because unanimous consent has not been given. It may or may not be given later on.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman of course has made his position
[Mr. Guay.)
very clear and no doubt he will amplify it. It is not for me to argue the case. When this matter came before the house I took strong opposition to it. On June 10, at page 6252 of Hansard, I pointed out the dangers in this type of amendment. The Prime Minister has now seen fit to agree with the contention I advanced and which I believe was in the interest of our country as a whole.
It is of interest that the minister of manpower is not in the house, for he followed me on that occasion and spoke eloquently and succinctly. He said:
In its present form, the amendment contains nothing of a racial nature.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I just want to say that, personally, I would have preferred this amendment not to be presented to the house, but since it is before the house, I do not see how I can be against it and I shall vote for it because, as there are real grievances in this field, it would mean that the house does not heed these grievances but rejects them altogether.
Therefore, I shall vote for the amendment, although personally I wish it had never been presented.
We find a most anomalous situation. When ministers speak on matters connected with legislation they speak for the government. That is the constitutional position. Now we have a position of affairs where a minister purported to speak for the government and said he was going to vote for this amendment. In his absence today the Prime Minister has asked for the withdrawal of the amendment, to which the hon. gentleman who moved it agreed.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This is a most unusual step in constitutional development. I would very much like to see the minister of manpower here to ascertain whether in the intervening two weeks or so since he expressed himself on this matter he has seen the light.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He said he preferred to have it withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said it at the time.


John George Diefenbaker: I missed the interruption.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman read his words and he said he wished it had never been moved, so he is getting exactly what he asked for in having it withdrawn.


John George Diefenbaker: The aroused nature of the hon. gentleman indicates that I have touched a tender spot. He never rises and becomes so
June 28, 1966

obviously excited unless there are reasons. Indeed, I hear, and only by that rumour that flows about the House of Commons at all times, that there have again been strong divisions on this subject among members of the cabinet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are an expert on that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -and it is very obvious now that there have been. The Prime Minister laughs. The press references of the last few days have given strong support to the tremendous division that is apparent to anyone who watches this government from day to day. When the minister of manpower spoke, does the Prime Minister say that he did not speak for the government? Does the Prime Minister say that when ministers speak they do not speak for the government? Yet, if the minister of manpower were here on this occasion, conveniently absent as he is, and there were not unanimous agreement for withdrawal he would find himself in a most unusual predicament constitutionally. This is not unusual so far as this government is concerned. Only a few days ago, on the question of loans to university students, the Minister of Finance brought in the legislation and the Minister without Portfolio proceeded to advance his ideas of changes that should have been in the bill and were not. This is a most unusual idea and concept of cabinet solidarity.
The Prime Minister has expressed himself clearly and definitely. I do not know what will be the position of the minister of manpower. No doubt he will learn his first constitutional lesson, that ministers ought not to rush in where angels fear to tread. The Prime Minister today in a very diplomatic speech reviewed the dangers inherent in this amendment. I am glad that he has taken this stand. If withdrawal of the amendment is not accepted by the house and it is passed, it will lead to an ethnic formula as a qualification for the filling of positions on boards.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is nothing ethnic in it.


John George Diefenbaker: It would mean that racial origin and not ability would be the criterion for appointment. It would place race against race in competition for the filling of positions. It would accentuate cultural differences. It would Balkanize this nation in so far as appointments are concerned. In the national 23033-4414
National Arts Centre
interest the varied racial resources of the nation should be pooled rather than isolated one from the other. The richness and diversity of the cultural heritage of the various ethnic groups should be preserved. In that way Canada will be enriched.
The English and French have their constitutional rights. Those are unchanged and unchangeable. To accept this amendment would be the prelude to debasing Canadi-anism. I am glad that the Prime Minister saw fit to take a strong stand on this matter and I hope that the request of the mover of this amendment for consent to its wihdrawal be accepted.
This kind of thing started off when there was before the house a bill in connection with the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company. We have not heard anything about that bill since the month of March. There for the first time this type of concept had its beginning. I do not know whether the bill regarding the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company is going to remain on the order paper and then die a natural death when this session comes to an end, but having regard to its having been in a state of suspended animation for April, May and June, over three months, I would take it, in view of the attitude of the Prime Minister today, that the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company bill will be one of those things that had its day and then passed away.
I support the Prime Minister in the general expression of his viewpoint on this amendment and would hope that the hon. member for Lapointe would be willing to join in agreeing to the withdrawal of an amendment which if voted on can only lead ultimately to serious consequences to national unity and in that relationship that should prevail among all Canadians regardless of their racial origin.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in a very brief moment may I too applaud the statement that was made by the Prime Minister. I think it was the proper kind of statement to make on a matter of this sort. I should also like to support the hon. member for Levis in his request to the house that withdrawal be consented to. I hope that request will be met.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and to the one made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).

June 28. 1966
National Arts Centre
The Prime Minister said that any government, including the present government, will from now on have to take into consideration the bilingual and bicultural factor which exists in Canada, and that the present government did so in the past when appointing directors to crown corporations. Those are wonderful statements but the facts should be examined first and then we can judge.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke a little earlier about the bill to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company. Well, if you study what happened in that case, you will see that the facts contradict the ideas set forth today.
When the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company was to be set up, the standing committee on railways passed an amendment asking that at least two French speaking members be appointed to the board of directors. And that was agreed to by the majority of the committee members.
That bill was discarded last year; it was not reintroduced in the house and, this year, a new bill comes back without the amendment. Why? Because the directors to be appointed had been contacted beforehand and there was not a single French speaking Canadian among them.
Therefore, in that case, the facts were at variance with the fine statements. If that was asked for, if that was voted in the committee, it was precisely because the directors of the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company had been approached and appointed even before the company or the corporation was instituted and when the members of the committee asked that there be French Canadians, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who is here, could not but object, since they had approached and appointed the directors of that corporation and there was no French speaking Canadian among the members of the corporation, and that was said in the committee.
In that case, I think everything is clear. Let us examine other crown corporations. When, after the statement of right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), I look at the executive directors of Air Canada, the president, vice president in charge of sales, operation, finance, vice president in charge of business, stores, vice president in charge of administrative services, director of public relations, secretary, chief solicitor and general counsel, they are the directors but none of them is a French Canadian. Not a single French speaking Canadian.

If the Prime Minister wants names, I have before me the list published in the latest 1966 report of Air Canada. This should be enough to convince the Prime Minister.
But, let us look at some others. Polymer Corporation Limited, another crown corporation. President and managing directors, five vice presidents, treasurer, secretary and solicitor, not one French speaking Canadian. Not a single one. Another crown corporation.
Let us take another crown corporation. Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, not one French speaking Canadian among the directors of this crown corporation. Are not these facts inconsistent with the statement of the Prime Minister?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The facts are at variance with the statements. In the Canadian National Railway Company, two French Canadians out of 17. In the Bank of Canada, only one French Canadian among the directors; none in the management.
Despite these facts, fine statements are made to the effect that our government and any government shall take into consideration the bilingual factor in Canada.
Well, this has not been done in the past. It is precisely because it has not been done that it is time to spell it out in legislation, because it has not been put into practice.
That is why we object to the withdrawal of the motion, because in spite of all the statements, it has not been done and it is not being done now, any more that it was done in the past.
The facts prove it. I do not say that we accept all of the motion or of the amendment of the member for Levis (Mr. Guay). No, there is something ridiculous in his amendment.
For instance, when he mentions the linguistic duality of Canada, we agree. But when he refers to cultural plurality, what in the world is it? Either we have culture or we do not. Some people have culture. Some do not. But cultural plurality, what does that involve?
You may be a man of culture, be a French Canadian and listen to Italian opera, and you have culture even if you are listening to Italian opera.
You may be a French speaking Canadian and listen to the works of Shakespeare, in English, and then you have culture. But it does not mean that you have cultural plurality. You either have culture or you do not. That is all.
June 28, 1966

A French speaking Canadian may also have the mentality to listen to go-go music and then, he will have go-go culture. But that is not necessarily culture. And then, we are told about linguistic duality and cultural plurality. But what in the world has cultural plurality to do with this?
One cannot have several cultures. One has culture or one has not. Our culture includes Italian opera and English theatre and German opera and French opera.
The works of the Italian painters and Beethoven's symphonies. There is no language involved. It is not spoken. Are you going to tell me what is included in an exclusively German culture? Not at all. Music has no frontier. What does cultural plurality consist of? Does that mean that you can be cultured or not be cultured? To be half cultured? Or be cultured in several ways? Not at all. One either has culture or not at all. Period.
Now, in view of the facts and after the statement of the Prime Minister, after the facts I brought forward contradicting the statement of the Prime Minister-and I challenge the Prime Minister to question what I have mentioned, I have the names here and I can name them in the house and he will see that I am right.
After what happened concerning the Ottawa Railway Terminal, I feel we must retain an amendment before the house, but an improved amendment which will not foster racial discrimination in the country and will not be prejudicial, not to unity, in which I have never believed, but to the understanding which may exist.
That is why I wish to move a subamendment to the amendment of the member for Levis. I move, seconded by the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), that:
All the words, after the word Canada, be deleted.
So that the amendment will be worded as follows:
In the appointment of members and officers of the board, the linguistic duality of Canada will be taken into account.
Period. And the following words "and of its cultural plurality" will be struck off.
Even though the linguistic duality of Canada is taken into account, we do not discriminate against anyone. English and French are recognized as the two official languages of Canada and when a piece of legislation provides that, in the appointment of the directors of the National Arts Centre,
National Arts Centre
the linguistic duality must be taken into account, no racial discrimination is involved. There is no ill-will in this.
Other racial groups in Canada will not seek revenge, because when they first come to Canada, they know this is a bilingual country with two official languages, French and English.
I feel that with this amendment, the amendment of the member for Levis should be maintained and passed by all members of the house. In the future, we shall probably see more directors and executives able to speak both languages within crown corporations.
We, the members of the standing committee on trade and finance, recently visited Expo '67. We met there several directors and most of the people we met were bilingual, could speak French and English. They will be better able to welcome the visitors, to fulfil their duties, and we believe that, in the case of all crown corporations, such as Expo '67, by beginning with a legislation dealing with a corporation which is being created, which does not exist yet, and including that, we will reach that objective for that corporation and it will probably be desirable and preferable to include the same provision for all future crown corporations.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the predictable remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe. I say "predictable" because they are so constant. He continues a never-ending struggle for the recognition of what might be called "the French fact", and I have applauded the hon. member's efforts in the past. However, I wonder whether at times the hon. member for Lapointe, in his enthusiasm to bring about better understanding between the English and the French not only in the province of Quebec but in the whole of Canada, hurts this cause instead of helping it. I wonder whether he should not consider, as I do, that when he insists on the appointment of French speaking Canadians on the boards of directors of crown corporations he is, without realizing the fact, actually insulting the very people he has been elected to protect.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I consider that any legislation making it imperative for a French speaking Canadian to be on a board of directors, not necessarily

June 28>
1966
National Arts Centre
because of his intelligence or because of the contribution which he could make to that board-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question to prevent him from misunderstanding the meaning of our remarks. He will notice that the amendment speaks not of French Canadians or English Canadians but says that the linguistic duality must be taken into consideration. An English Canadian can speak both languages and then the linguistic duality is taken into account. A French Canadian can speak both languages and, there again, the linguistic duality is taken into account. I would like the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) to take that into consideration.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe has made his speech once and he is just summarizing precisely what he said 20 minutes ago.
The point I am trying to make, whether the hon. member for Lapointe likes it or not, is this. Having lived perhaps longer in the province of Quebec than he has, since I may be a little older at 44 years of age, I do not consider myself any less a Quebecker by reason of the fact that I was born of Irish parents than the hon. member who by accident was born of French-speaking Canadian parents. Furthermore, there are times when I listen to the hon. member for Lapointe and consider that I have more respect for and understanding and appreciation of the contribution French speaking Canadians have made to Canada than he has.
I think that any crown corporation in this country, whether it be a new crown corporation or an existing one, that numbers French speaking Canadians on its board of directors does so not because of ill-founded legislation which makes this imperative but because that crown corporation realizes that French speaking Canadians as well as English speaking Canadians have something worth while to contribute to the corporation. If we are ever to have a united country, Mr. Chairman, it is time that we stopped trying to legislate this type of thing into our statute books. You do not overcome prejudice by the statute books; you overcome it by practice and understanding.
The point which the hon. member for Lapointe seems to forget is that French speaking Canadians, under the present terms

of the British North America Act, have risen to positions of great prominence in this country not because there has been an amendment to a bill or because of a particular term in the constitution or the constitution of a corporation making it imperative that they be appointed. The hon. member mentions corporations which do not include French speaking representation. What about the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? What about Mr. Roberge, President of the National Film Board? What about the Governor General of this country whom the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to appoint as the first French speaking Governor General of Canada? What about former Prime Minister St. Laurent? What about the contribution of General Allard who has just become the top soldier in the country? Were these appointments made through legislation? What about French Canadian representation in the Supreme Court of Canada, not forgetting the Chief Justice himself?
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these people did not go home, having been appointed to these positions, and hide behind some legislation. These people were appointed because of their ability and the fact that they were Canadians foremost and Quebeckers second. I suggest it is time that the hon. member for Lapointe became a Quebecker second and a Canadian first.
I stood up in this house not yesterday but three years ago and asked the house when we would eliminate the English separatists in Canada. I predicted that French speaking separatists would disappear and I am glad to repeat this prediction today. But there are times when I wonder whether the hon. member in the corner, in fighting his battle for an associate state, realizes that he is abusing the very mandate which the people of the constituency of Lapointe gave him to come here and represent them in a united Canada. That is his mandate. It is not to use every little piece of legislation which comes forward to drive home what all French Canadians are entitled to and are not entitled to.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that French Canadians are entitled to the same things as I am. They are entitled to make their mark in life in the same way as I am, namely, by hard work and recognition of ability. If we are to have the unity that all of us want, regardless of where we sit in the House of Commons, it is time we stopped putting a prefix to the word Canadian. We are all
June 28, 1966

National Arts Centre
Canadians. All that this bill seeks to do is to provide that every director on the board of the national arts centre shall be a Canadian.
I do not like losing my temper on a matter as important as this but I should like to say in conclusion that this type of discussion is pursued quite frequently. I have discussed this question in groups of 2, 3, 10 and 20. Usually a discussion of this nature starts in a friendly fashion but then gets down to the real thing, dividing this country.
What is separating this country are the callous politicians who use lack of education in certain parts of the country, politicians who use bigotry. As I go across this country I condemn English speaking politicians who use prejudice against the province of Quebec and French Canadians for political reasons. However, I suspect many French speaking Canadians are equally as guilty as many English speaking politicians in resorting to prejudice for short gain and temporary political advantage.
The history of Canada is punctuated with the exploits of French speaking Canadians. I do not have to reiterate for the benefit of the members of this house the contributions of such great people as Champlain, Cartier and Montcalm. However, I think it is time that French Canada shook off its inferiority complex and realized that there is a place in Canada for people of talent and ability, whether they be French, German, Jewish, Ukrainian or Irish.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to disprove in a few words some of the entirely inaccurate assertions made a while ago by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). According to him, the Prime Minister asserted that French speaking Canadians had been appointed to all commissions or crown corporations.
What the Prime Minister pointed out very clearly and explicitly is that, in the last three years, the policy advocated in the submitted amendment has been followed by the government. That is what he said and he indicated thereby the definite intention of the government to pursue the same course.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If the President of the Privy Council was here, then he has put into my mouth words which I never uttered. I have never said that according to the Prime
Minister French Canadians had been appointed to all the crown corporations. I said this: the Prime Minister stated that his government must give due consideration to the bilingual element in Canada; after which I mentioned some crown corporations, to prove that it has not always been the case.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order. The member for Lapointe used the same text to name crown corporations founded 20 years ago which the Prime Minister used when he said that for three years now, the government had followed that policy of bilingualism in its appointments to crown corporations.


Guy Favreau: In any event, figures and statistics clearly indicate not only that the government intends to implement this policy, but that it started doing so three years ago. The member for Lapointe said something interesting in this connection. He said that in the case of the corporation for Expo '67 all its members are bilingual, and this, mark you, expresses the aforementioned policy.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council to again quote me correctly I mentioned the majority of the members we met, we did not meet them all. That does not mean all the members of the corporation are bilingual. I should ask the President of the Privy Council to quote me correctly. I said the majority of the members of Expo that we met.


Guy Favreau: The hon. member for Lapointe will not go as far as to deny having met certain of the members appointed by the federal government and yet those-he admitted so himself a while ago-meet the requirements that his amendment or sub-amendment seeks to legislate into the statute books. Besides, since 1963, five French speaking deputy ministers, five bilingual deputy ministers have been appointed by this government. I think one must at least recognize what statistics, what the actions of the government, clearly evidence: the policy which the right hon. Prime Minister wants to see implemented is already implemented, and will continue to be implemented under this government.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, several months ago, when the Prime Minister set up a Commission on bilingualism and bicultural-ism, millions of Canadians welcomed that initiative. Last April 6, when he introduced his policy on bilingualism within the public service, millions of Canadians also welcomed

June 28. 1966
National Arts Centre
that step. This is not the right time to discuss the implications of that policy. But I am wondering why the Prime Minister, through the request he is now making to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), objects today to translating explicitly by an amendment or in a bill the application of bilingualism which is asked for.
I understand the Prime Minister's argument who speaks of tradition, custom and also the argument made by the President of the Privy Council who says that the government intends to do it.
But that is precisely the question, namely the intention. If we must wait another 100 years, as we have already done, to realize the unfairness and the unequal treatment given us under confederation, that is precisely what we are complaining about.
I feel that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Levis is certainly not a factor of dissension; on the contrary, no one should be afraid here in Canada once and for all to show his good faith and to include in the statutes standards, provisions to stress Canada's bilingual and bicultural character. The Fathers of Confederation had more courage in 1867 than we have now; they were not afraid to include section 133 in the constitution to stress in the federal stronghold of the central government, here in Ottawa, the bilingual character of Canada.
I cannot understand that argument of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) when he says that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Levis is an insult to French Canadians; in my opinion, it is the most ridiculous argument which can be used with regard to the dissatisfaction which we have been feeling about confederation for a hundred years. On the contrary, it is that state of affairs which is an insult to us, Mr. Chairman, because we have always been kept away from top posts not only in the civil service but also in crown corporations.
Following the hon. member for Lapointe, I would like to quote other examples to show, figures in hand, the reality and positive side of our dissatisfaction. For instance, in 1960, the "Conseil de la vie francaise en Amerique"-the President of the Privy Council and the hon. member for Verdun will admit that it is a responsible and first class organization-submitted a brief to the then prime minister in which it was established that there were practically no French Canadians to be found on boards or in departments.

You can see the figures on page 18 of a booklet I wrote which is entitled "La dernier Chance" which you can find here in the library, in both French and English.
Here it is
French
Total Canadians
Department of Insurance	5	0
Export Credits Insurance
Corp.	10	2Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.	15	0Industrial Development Bank	6	0
Canadian Commercial
Corporation	8	0Farm Credit Corporation	6	1Defence Construction Ltd.	8	0Atomic Energy Control Board	8	1Polymer Corporation Ltd.	7	0Canadian Overseas Telecommunications	5	0Northern Ontario Pipe Line	8	0
Mr. Chairman, that is what we object to and we ask all members, in good faith, to agree to insert our claims in the wording of the legislation, in short not to leave to the whims and to the political ups and downs that occur in all governments that followed on each other in Ottawa, the recognition of equal treatment to French Canadians, to the other culture and the other official language of the country.
If French Canadians are to play a dynamic role within the Canadian confederation, they must be treated as equals and not in this underhand manner with the implication that they are always being kept apart.
That was a welcome and praiseworthy undertaking on the part of the hon. member for Levis, a member of the present government, and today I am sorry that he will have to withdraw his amendment under pressure. I cannot in any way accept the reasoning of the right hon. Prime Minister.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I would ask the hon.
member for Sherbrooke to resume his seat. The hon. member for Levis has a question of privilege.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the hon. member for Sherbrooke has just stated to the effect that I am withdrawing my amendment under the influence of certain pressures, I state that the contrary might be true. It may be through certain representations that for the first time, the government has laid down before the house the policy and the guide lines which will henceforth inspire all appointments to all crown corporations.
June 28, 1966

That was accomplished in the house and in no way as a result of pressures or representations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out, first of all, that this is not a question of privilege. If the hon. member wishes to speak once more to these amendments, he has the privilege to do so. But it is clear to me, as I was in the house, that the right hon. Prime Minister asked him or invited him to withdraw his amendment. If that is not pressure, if it is not an invitation or a request, it is actually as a result of the invitation of the Prime Minister that the hon. member for Levis, having taken such action the other day, withdrew his amendment today.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We are getting close to private members' hour. I know that hon. members are emotionally upset about this subject, which should be debated in a cooler atmosphere at some time in the future when an opportunity can be given to everyone to express his views, but I wonder whether hon. members would not co-operate. We are on the last clause of this bill. Could we not pass it, give third reading to the bill and go on with other business of the house?
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I think the best way to co-operate in order that this bill and the amendment may go through quickly, is to let the hon. members who have been recognized conclude, so that they may complete their argumentation. We do not intend to do any obstructing, but if our voice and reaction seem somewhat impassioned, it is with figures to support assertions that we say once more, while standing in this house and looking at all the hon. members: For 100 years, discrimination and injustice have been shown against French Canadians and they have been left out of the main crown corporations and the federal public service. We are here to ask for justice, in full light and in good faith, and that is the reason why the hon. members should at last support an amendment such as this one, which will not create disunity. How can sanctioning a fact that we are merely being asked to accept as usage cause disunity? It is a feeble argument which we cannot accept. That is why, in closing to allow other members to rise, I ask the house to support
Private Bills
this amendment and add that I was pleased to support the subamendment of the member for Lapointe.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the house ready for the question on the subamendment?


Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have risen in this house to speak on such a topic.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock, in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), Water Resources-sale of Canadian water; the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe), Health and Welfare-request for grant for retarded and disturbed children; the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), Canadian Constitution-suggested study by parliamentary committee.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wahn for the second reading of Bill No. S-10, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been discussed on several occasions and I for one would like the opportunity to consider the procedure that is involved here and the basic reason for the proposition we are asked to support.
I object to this bill as it stands and I believe further consideration should be given to it. The argument put forward by this company is that it ought to be given authority to split its shares so as to give a greater opportunity for participation by the public. I note, however, that there are at the present

June 28, 1966
Private Bills
time shares available in the treasury of the company which could be issued at any price desired. They could be offered on the public market if it were felt there should be greater public participation. I am at present gathering together all the documents available on the subject intending to make a full and detailed examination of them so as to find out exactly what is involved in the bill before us. Many hon. members who have already looked into this question appear to be most reluctant to pass the measure as it stands. The argument that the company desires to divide its shares in order that there may be wider participation in its affairs is not good enough, bearing in mind that it still has unissued shares in its treasury.
Let me read clause 1 in which the main content of the bill is to be found. It states:
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 of chapter 34 of the statutes of 1949 (1st session), as amended by chapter 66 of the statutes of 1952-53, each of the issued and unissued shares of the capital stock of the Company of the par value of five dollars is hereby subdivided into five shares of the par value of one dollar each, so that the capital stock of the Company shall be two hundred million dollars divided into two hundred million shares of the par value of one dollar each.
The company has, of course, the right to ask this treatment and we have the right to permit it. But we should also have the right to scrutinize these things closely in order to find out precisely what is involved. I am anxious to do this but I cannot do so at the moment because I have not had time to complete my study of this measure. I intend to do so and to speak on it at some length on a future occasion. I therefore wish to move:
That this bill be not now read the second time but that it be read the second time this day six months hence.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


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


Mr. McNulty:: Mr. Speaker, I object to a vote being taken at this time.
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Peters:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the vote has been called and I wish to speak to the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The amendment is, of course, a debatable one. Any objections to the taking of a vote will be noted at the time when the vote is to be taken. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment is a good one. For some time Interprovincial Pipe Line Company has been making representations to parliament to have a bill passed permitting a split in the company's stock. On a previous occasion the company received parliamentary approval for a ten to one stock split and it is now seeking an additional five to one stock split. In my opinion some of the information it has provided to us does not bear close scrutiny and the company should be given an opportunity to reconsider the matter.
When this bill was first introduced we were told that the stock split was to allow closer participation by the employees of the company and better benefits for them in a profitsharing program. I have here a copy of the questions asked by the company of its employees and the answers to those questions. In the main they were something like the stock question, Have you quit beating your wife yet? If the employee replied yes he admitted he had been beating her and if he said no it meant he had not stopped beating her. Later other reasons were advanced in favour of the stock split.
At present the company has 40 million shares with about 5 million distributed and the balance retained in the company treasury. Under the terms of this bill the number of its shares would be increased to 200 million, which seems an unreasonably large amount of stock to have floating around. I believe the company is at fault in seeking passage of this bill without saying what it proposes to do with the stock now held in its treasury.
I have been told by lawyers knowledgeable in this field that normally when a company asks for a stock split and already has a large number of shares in its treasury or in escrow, it seeks to reduce the number held in that manner. This company has a limited number of shares on the market available for public subscription, with the aim of establishing a good paper value for its stock. It has given no indication that it will release more shares, and I suggest the very same people will own the available stock after it is split five for one as own it today. They will buy four or five shares at $20 instead of one share at $70 or $80 or whatever the present price may be.
If I were buying stock this is the kind of company I would dream about and recommend to almost anyone. It is a company set up to circumvent certain regulations and it only allows a limited amount of its stock on
June 28, 1966

Private Bills
the market. When the company was originally incorporated pressure was applied to have it made not only a transmission line for Imperial Oil but also a common carrier subject to the regulations of the board of transport. As it stands, the company could easily secure new capitalization from Imperial Oil reserves. Its bonds carry an interest rate of about 3 2 per cent at a time when money cannot be procured even at 7 per cent or 8 per cent. Its bonds are mostly owed to Imperial Oil and leaving aside its unissued stock it is largely a captive company of Imperial Oil. It would be very imprudent to write off 3J per cent bonds when only one-third of the operation is covered by stock.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I believe that in 1956 or 1957 when the company was incorporated, its treasury stock was selling at $50 a share. The dividends now are well over $3.50. In fact, the balance sheet for 1963 indicates that at that time the stock was paying $3.50 per share. This $3.50 per share was applied to the original stock which has been split ten times. So an original $50 investment now brings in annually in excess of $35. I do not care how stupid the Board of Transport Commissioners is. It could not allow stock that brings in a revenue of $35 a share on a $50 investment. It could not allow this even to the Canadian government. It would think this was rather an exorbitant profit.
What does the company want to do? It wants to split its stock again. Certainly this will reduce the stock to a reasonable price. A person who holds a considerable amount of stock told me it is quite true that you get $35 on your $50 original investment but if you reinvest the dividends you do not get $35 on them. While this is perfectly true, I believe he will find that in a matter of two or three years, if the stock is split, it will reach the level it has already climbed to twice and will produce a fairly reasonable dividend in addition to the dividends on his original shares, which will produce a cumulative dividend on the original $50 investment far in excess of $35. I forecast it may even double, so he may get his $50 back and still have the original $50 investment.
This is an excellent company but I cannot see that it is justified in coming before us with what it considers to be a good proposal when it is asking the Canadian public to allow it to split its stock on the pretext that this will broaden the base at a time when it has 35 million shares in its treasury. It could
immediately broaden the base by releasing 5 million shares on the market. That would broaden the base and reduce the price of the stock until it came down to the level they want or they had put the amount of stock on the market that they wish.
I believe the sponsor of this bill has a responsibility to point out many things which have not been pointed out. He has had a close connection with the oil industry for a long period of time. He is well aware of the operation of these companies and well aware of how stock splits operate. You can have as much stock as you want at individual prices but if there are no offerings obviously there can be no purchases unless the price jumps up so high that somebody will make an offer.
Just by cutting down the price you do not necessarily broaden the base. I would imagine that if I had the original shares I would find-I am sure the board of directors so recommended to the shareholders-that the shareholders will be allowed to buy a certain number of shares at a predetermined price if the stock split takes place. I am sure there is an arrangement to take some stock out of escrow or else we would only have an exercise in financing.
I think this company is a good bona fide operation and has very sound stock, but I believe the Canadian people are being cheated when it is said that the purpose of this stock split is to bring the price of the stock down to allow an expanded base. This is not true. It cannot be expanded beyond the amount of stock that is available. While I have not looked at the Financial Post in the last few days I would imagine that a normal day on the stock market does not produce a very large turnover in the stock. I would presume this will not change much when the stock is split, if it is split.
I believe the sponsor of the bill should come before parliament and really give us a factual statement why there is not a clause that would eliminate what I would call unnecessary surplus stock. There is no question that this company wants more money for expanded capitalization but they have not asked for that and I do not think it is necessary. I believe they are quite capable of retiring their debt and are quite capable of making a profit in their operation. The way to increase the base, if they wish to do so, is to allow more stock to go on the market. I suggest that if they doubled the amount of stock now available it would not only reduce the price of the stock by 50 per cent but would

June 28, 1966
Private Bills
reduce it by 200 or 300 per cent and might create a few more obligations with the income tax people and others because there would be an undistributed capitalization in this company which would be rather remarkable.
I am of the opinion, as I believe are many other people, that it is unfair to pick on Interprovincial Pipe Line Company when it comes before parliament, except for one very simple reason. It has come before parliament a number of times and parliament has had to exercise great restraint in rejecting out of hand Interprovincial Pipe Line Company's application each time it has been here. There was considerable difficulty in getting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to be a common carrier for other oil companies' products so that a rate could be established at the initial stage. You may have read, Mr. Speaker, some of the representations which were made by provincial governments at the time of the formation of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company and you will be aware of the resistance in this regard.
When the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company came before parliament the last time and asked for a ten to one split they probably assured us and the shareholders that this was necessary to increase the base of the company and increase the number of shareholders. No doubt they also were of the opinion, as they are now, that their stock should be in a range which does not put them in the blue chip level but rather at a normal level. They want it to be an upper class stock but not necessarily on the high level that a price of $80 puts it. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the company would be well advised to consider withdrawal of this bill because I intend to move to insert another clause that will demand the redistribution of the stock it now has and this is not what the company had in mind.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Many persons holding stock in the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company have written to me and said, without exception, that the reason the stock is going to be split is to make more money. They are very honest people and I have no objection to this purpose, but I think Interprovincial Pipe Line Company should at least be as honest and say it is going to split the stock because it wants to make more money and redistribute the dividends in a different manner.
I believe the amendment is a good one and should be supported by all members of the

house. We are having difficulty dealing with legislation in private member's hour. I believe there have to be some changes concerning the introduction in this house of this type of bill. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the difficulty one of the bank bills now before the house had in the other place. Our committee will have the opportunity of not repeating the mistakes made by the Senate and will be able to make its own decisions. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope there is support for this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate for a few moments in this debate. I have been in the chamber during many private members' hours and from time to time have felt an urge to speak but have not done so. I do not rise today in order to irritate anyone in the house, of course, particularly the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). However, I feel that the questions posed and the arguments put forward could be answered and dealt with in committee if the hon. member and his colleagues were willing to let the measure get that far. He posed questions in his speech this afternoon which I do not think can properly be answered in this chamber in all the detail necessary. On other occasions when this measure has been before the house the hon. member has posed similar questions. I think these matters should be dealt with in committee with the officials of the company there to give their point of view and answer questions as they are put.
It is not necessary for me to go over everything that has been said in the debate on this bill since it was introduced into the house last February. This bill was also before the house in the previous session. As the hon. member who just resumed his seat indicated, similar stock splits have taken place in this company on a number of occasions. It seems to me that the company is not operating illegally in any way. I do not pretend for one moment to be a specialist in this kind of legislation or this type of business. I cannot be called an expert in this field by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, I believe this company is acting not only fairly but responsibly.
Perhaps it is fair for me to say that it is a sad state of affairs that the company was incorporated in the way it was, because companies which are not incorporated by act of
June 28, 1966

parliament do not have to go through the laborious procedure of coming before the house when they wish to do something in the interests of the people who own their shares. They do not have to come to parliament on behalf of their shareholders. I have before me, Mr. Speaker, a list of the shareholders of this company, a number of whom are Canadian. They hold one share, four shares, right up the scale to 10,000 shares. This indicates to me that the shares are owned in the proper manner so far as Canadians are concerned and Canadians, being by far the largest percentage of shareholders in the company, gain the benefit in a proper way from any change in the stockholding of the company. Many of the benefits that flow from the activities of this company come from outside the country, and I emphasize "benefits".
Therefore I feel this is a proper request and can see no valid reason for the amendment nor the argument that has taken place for so long. I believe that if the arguments put forward by hon. members are totally and legally valid they can be dealt with in committee. These questions could be raised with regard to any number of companies, but this is not done. This company is being treated in this way simply because it was incorporated in this manner in the first place. Had it been incorporated in some other fashion it would not, as I said before, have to go through this laborious method in order to change its stockholding program.
So far as the hon. member for Timiskaming is concerned and the many suggestions he has made in this regard-and I assume from what has happened today that there will be more-I should like to tell him that there are in my constituency quite a few shareholders in this company. I have a letter here from a senior citizen, one not blessed with many worldly goods. This man owns some shares in this company. As a matter of fact, he has his life savings in the company. I do not know whether the hon. member for Timiskaming is aware of this, but such is the case right across the country.
I would point out to the hon. member that this man is not the only person in my constituency who has written to me in this vein. I have had many similar letters. This constituent puts the question in this way so far as he is concerned:
Please note it is 90 per cent Canadian owned and after reading same-
Private Bills
He is there referring to the 1965 report of the company.
-noting how it carries the oil from Alberta, Saskatchewan to its market in the U.S.A. and Ontario helping all of Canada.
He goes on to say:
When this N.D.P. Arnold Peters says it's as phony as a three dollar bill I can only say to him he knows nothing whatever about the company and has no regard whatever for speaking the truth.
These comments come from a man who obviously is vitally interested in this company. He is interested to the point where it represents an income for himself and his wife. They live very modestly. I know their circumstances well. I think we might well reconsider whether we are doing the right thing in this regard.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question? Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that his constituent is making the point that in not allowing this split the profits will be less than if the split is made? Is the reason for his concern in this matter that he has been deprived of what he would consider exaggerated profits if this split takes place?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I would not suggest that is the case at all. However, I think this question, as is the case with many of the questions raised by the hon. member, could be answered in committee where officials of the company and other interested people would be present. If these matters were discussed by the committee I believe all these questions would be well answered. I have here a tremendous amount of statistical material, Mr. Speaker, which I do not intend putting on the record because I think enough figures and statistics have been put on the record already.
I have read the comments of other hon. members with respect to this bill, as well as the introductory remarks of the sponsor, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn). I will be frank and say that I think this bill represents a request from the company for a perfectly responsible amendment to its act of incorporation. Some members have raised what are to them serious questions concerning the proposal embodied in the bill. It is clear as the debate continues that we are having a tremendous amount of repetition of substance. I would not in any way suggest that this debate should not take place, but surely in view of the questions that have been asked and the observations that have been made we should leave this matter to the standing

June 28, 1966
Private Bills
committee where hon. members could ask questions and receive answers from the officials of the company.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that the entire matter be referred to the appropriate committee where the bill could be the subject of a specific, detailed examination. In all of these matters there comes a time when all that can be said has been said. I think that replies should be solicited from people who are more familiar with the subject matter under consideration. I humbly ask, Mr. Speaker, that we dispose of the amendment and send the bill to a committee where the matter can be discussed.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, the amiable member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) has made some reference to repetition. I noticed he was quoting rather copiously from a speech made earlier in the debate by another member of the house and perhaps he may consider that also to be repetitious.


Eric Alfred Winkler: This speech happens to be my own.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: I understood him to say he was quoting from remarks made by the sponsor of the bill.


Eric Alfred Winkler: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: In that case I apologize to the hon. member. I should like to say immediately that I am more than happy to support the amendment before the house that Bill S-10 should not at present be read a second time but that it should be read six months hence. This motion is in effect saying to the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company in polite parliamentary language that they should go peddle their papers. So far as I am concerned, that is what this house should tell them to do in connection with this bill.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce suggested that perhaps this bill could more properly be dealt with in the standing committee. I am absolutely convinced that this is not a bill which should be passed by this house. I also wish to point out, having been present in an earlier session of parliament, that a very similar bill was put before us concerning Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company which operates in my own province of British Columbia. A similar proposal was made in connection with that company and, if I am not mistaken, the explanatory notes introducing that bill and setting out the purposes of

that company were almost identical with the explanatory notes contained in the bill before us.
This company may be carrying out a perfectly legal operation but I consider it an affront to parliament for such a company to come here and provide us with explanatory notes that are in essence a falsehood. The explanatory notes read in part as follows:
The reason for the proposed subdivision is that the company considers it desirable that the average Canadian investor be encouraged and be given the maximum opportunity and incentive to invest in the equity of a successful and growing Canadian company.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we do not need to go into all the details of the bill in committee to know that that statement is not a true statement of fact. We know perfectly well that the bulk of the shares of this company are in the hands of one or two large oil companies. We know perfectly well that the company has no intention of issuing the rest of the shares in the treasury. We know that they do not intend to provide, through the sale of additional shares, capital for the expansion of their operation. We know perfectly well that that has been provided, as has been said by the hon. member for Ti-miskaming (Mr. Peters), by an arrangement under which this company operates through the issue of bonds. This is the way in which the major part of the financing was undertaken in the first instance and it is the way in which they intend to continue their operations.


Mr. Wahn:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. I think the hon. member should restrain himself somewhat. He first alleged that a false statement was made in the explanatory notes and later he called it an untrue statement. He has given his reasons for saying so; but he must surely realize that if the issued shares are subdivided five for one there will be five times as many issued shares and more opportunity will be given to Canadians to participate in this company.
I suggest he should not allege falsehood in the explanatory notes because they happen to be absolutely true and accurate. If he does not understand them, it is because he does not understand the nature of corporate practice. It is a routine procedure which is being asked for in this bill and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has no right to suggest that the sponsor of the bill, myself, or those responsible for putting this bill
June 28. 1966

before parliament have made a false or untrue statement. I therefore think he should restrain himself.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. The hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni said it is untrue to say there will be more shareholders after the stock is split and now the sponsor of the bill denies it.
I wish to debate that point because I consider that what we are now doing is splitting the existing stock and, without changing the amount of treasury stock allowed on the market, that stock will be exactly the same stock as it is now. Five shares will be issued for every share. This does not make more stock available. Therefore I think the hon. member's question of privilege is not well taken.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I could make a comment on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for St. Paul's and point out where I think the explanatory notes are false and misleading. I do not think restraint is required in this instance, as I am sure the sponsor of the bill realizes. The explanatory notes read in part:
This relatively high market value discourages Investment by the individual investor.
Mr. Johnston, who is the president of the company and who appeared before the committee which also considered a similar bill a couple of years ago, said that 700 to 1,000 shares per day were traded on the market and that that was quite an acceptable number. Today, according to the stock market quotations in the Ottawa Citizen, there were 1,460 shares sold on the market at this so-called "relatively high value". Either Mr. Johnston's declaration or the stock market quotation is false.


Mr. Barneil:: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues have established that the hon. member for St. Paul's did not have a question of privilege. I certainly did not suggest that anything the hon. member for St. Paul's said in this house was false. In fact, it seems to me that in his remarks on what he considered to be a question of privilege the hon. member proved that what I was saying was completely true. He said quite correctly that if the shares were split five to one more shares would be made available for Canadians. However, that is not what the explanatory notes say is the desired intention of the company. The company says that Canadians should be given the maximum opportunity to invest in the equity of a
Private Bills
successful and growing Canadian company. What I am saying is that this statement is intended to deceive the house because we know that in actual fact only a very small percentage of the shares of this company have been put on the market for trading.
I do not profess to know all the details of what is considered to be good corporate practice; I do not consider myself to be an authority on that subject. However, so far as I am concerned, if it is considered to be good corporate practice to come before parliament with misleading statements of this kind, then I do not want to know any more about what is good corporate practice.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
One of the reasons I am concerned enough to speak on this bill is that inherent in it is the whole question of our basic philosophy and outlook toward the conduct of business and what is honest and what is dishonest. I make no bones about the fact that so far as I am concerned private enterprise is entitled to put capital to work, to employ men to produce goods and services and to make a fair and reasonable profit as long as it is on an above-the-board basis. But when practices such as those demonstrated by this bill develop I suggest that this is not something that parliament should condone, whether we like to brag about our support for the free enterprise system or whether we may have serious doubts about a good many of its aspects.
It seems to me that the misleading practices all too commonly accepted by many elements in our society are perhaps typified by the developments which have taken place in recent years in oil and pipe line companies. So far as I am concerned I make no bones about my disapproval of this kind of business practice. It is for that reason that I should like to see the motion before us carried and this bill withdrawn from the consideration of the house.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) in speaking a little earlier referred to the fact that he had received a letter-I assume it was from one of his own constituents judging from the way he spoke-from someone who holds shares in this company. I may say that I received a few letters from various people who are shareholders in this company. I can think of one example of somebody who said he was a farmer and had bought some shares in the company for a very laudable purpose. His idea was that a shareholding in this company and the profits he

June 28, 1966
Private Bills
would derive from share ownership would enable him to assist his grandchildren to achieve a higher education.
The hon. member raised some question why I and some other hon. members were not prepared to give ready approval to this proposal to split the shares of Interprovincial Pipe Line Company. I also had some other letters along the same lines and I answered all the letters I received. But the thing which came home to me as I read them was that these letters and the way in which they were written very neatly proved the argument I am trying to advance, namely, that this company has been successful in hoodwinking the Canadian people into believing the sort of statements found in these explanatory notes. Somehow the many Canadians across the country who hold shares in these pipe line companies were led to believe that there was being developed a free enterprise system within which every Canadian citizen would be a stockholder in the Canadian economy.
Perhaps it is partly because I received this type of letter that as far as I am concerned I am so ready to support this amendment today. I do not like seeing good, honest Canadian citizens, be they farmers or otherwise, led down the garden path by this kind of propaganda, and as long as I am a member of this house I intend to object to the practice.
If the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) says that this sort of thing is good corporate practice, then he and I will have to disagree on this question. I am not saying that in opposing this bill under any and all circumstances I would necessarily be opposed to a company dividing its shares. There are certain companies which do rely on the selling of shares for the raising of the necessary funds to expand their operations for capital construction purposes. There may be an area where this is a perfectly legitimate operation and where they could straightforwardly say that this was what they were going to do. But in my view this is not the situation here and inasmuch as we have the responsibility of considering this proposal I think we should take a good look at it.
This sort of proposition has been before committees previously. As the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned, the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company has been before a parliamentary committee for examination, as also was the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. As far as I have ever been able to follow these matters, and I

frankly admit that I have not read every word of evidence which has been given, the evidence given in committee by the representative spokesmen of the company has all served to emphasize and to prove the very point I am arguing. So I feel it is really quite unnecessary at this stage that this bill should require the time and effort of the members of this house in a parliamentary committee.
I think it would be much better for us to tell the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, in spite of the views which have been expressed by the hon. member for St. Paul's about good corporate practice, that we think they would do much better to go back and busy themselves about moving oil through their pipe line and seeing what they can do about reducing the charges for that service which in the end are paid for by the consumers of petroleum products in Canada. That to me, Mr. Speaker, could be much more closely and correctly described as good corporate practice.
I suggest that if this company would do something to assist legislators and federal and provincial governments in this country to cope with the rising cost of commodity prices at this time, rather than seeking to occupy itself with this sort of phony front so far as its corporate financing is concerned, the members of this house would be in a much better position to say that it was a company that was operating in the interests of the Canadian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. The hour for considering private members' business has expired and the house will now revert to the business interrupted at six o'clock.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-194, to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Arts Centre-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Mr. Turner:: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn the debate and report progress.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: When the hour for private members business was called, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres had the floor. I think the committee should allow him to proceed.
June 28, 1966

National Arts Centre


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, being responsible of this discussion to some extent, since I moved the first amendment to that act, it would be proper that I draw certain conclusions. I will briefly try to stress certain statements made in this house since we started discussing this bill and to clear up certain points because I noticed that some of those who spoke during the debate did not understand very well what it was all about; finally, I shall express my views concerning this bill.
Mr. Chairman, no doubt you remember my suggestion that at least three of the nine directors at the National Arts Centre, be French speaking.
Since then sub-amendments have been moved which I find satisfactory because what I really am after is not a figure but a principle.
As can be seen on page 6223 of the official report, the Secretary of State made this statement which I read in English so as not to misquote:

Over a period of years it would operate as a strait-jacket, and it would mean that there never would be more than three members of French persuasion.

We wanted, at least in the amendment I moved and in the sub-amendment being moved now, that the principle of bilingualism be respected. The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) rose twice during the debate, and spoke very strongly against the fact that we should insist that recognition be given in our statutes to this principle we hold sacred, the fact of two founding nations, of two partners in confederation. His speech could be approved to the end since he spoke of mutual understanding and tolerance; he mentioned the fact that the French Canadians of the riding of Verdun have said it time and time again, which proves that we, French Canadians, do have a sense of co-operation and good feeling. I feel that, to be logical, the hon. member for Verdun could have concluded by saying that, if it is true that French Canadians are tolerant, that they understand mutual good feeling, he recognizes himself that until now they may not have been as well represented in the public service as they are entitled to be. So, let us draw our own conclusions. Let us then lay down principles in bills. Several speeches were then made. The speech of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) struck me this afternoon; he
pointed out that some members felt very strongly about this bill. I think he showed a lot of conviction himself and at one point he said:

As I understand it, if this amendment passes the members of the board will be composed of people who represent the two cultures of Canada.
After all, there are six million Canadians who have ethnic backgrounds other than French and English, who are proud to be Canadians and who want to participate in the cultural life of their country.

After all, we have no objection to that, Mr. Chairman, on the contrary, we accept new Canadians. But when they came to Canada, they had to make a choice. They knew that there were two partners in confederation: the French speaking and English speaking partners. They have chosen one side or the other and in that choice we respect their aspirations, we accept them as fellow-citizens on the same footing and we do not want to get rid of them at all, but it should not be deduced from that argument that French Canadians must be treated as new Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, I think that some members precisely think that the French Canadians should be treated as a new Canadian. And I draw this conclusion from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, on page 6252 of Hansard of June 10, stated referring to Canadians from German or Dutch extraction:
[ English]
They were the earliest of Canadians, which is often forgotten.

Well, Mr. Chairman, my ancestors did not arrive here in 1753, but in 1629, that is 125 years before 1753. Therefore, we have, and I say so, and this is true for most of my Quebec fellow-citizens, the right of first occupancy. We also have a right of co-signatory to a pact accepted and ratified several times since 1763, and that is what we want respected, while we note that, for the last 100 years, this was not done as we had a right to expect.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to digress here and say that I would not want to put passion in my documentation. I want it to be known in this house that I am a Canadian, and that I believe in Canada's unity, unity in diversity, while respecting of course the rights of all. I do not believe in separatism, Mr. Chairman, but I know, for instance, that in my province, we have angry young men who are

June 28, 1966
National Arts Centre
not satisfied with the lot we have had for the last 100 years and who today are demanding not only statements of goodwill, but legislation to guarantee precisely those rights of the other partner of confederation, and also guarantee that confederation is going to stay alive. Unless this mane, thecel, phares, is seen written on the wall, Mr. Chairman, what will happen is that our angry young men in the province of Quebec will have their way. They took 10 per cent of the vote in the last provincial election and it is neither impossible, nor visionary, to think that in a future election, they might take even more, unless we give them what they are entitled to and what they are demanding with the eloquence we know. Since that time, I have seen that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made statements which I found disturbing, and I want you to note that I do not blame him nor accuse him of ill-will. But nevertheless, according to what I read in he Devoir for Tuesday, June 21, he is reported as saying in Toronto:
The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons stated Sunday before an audience made up of Canadians of Ukrainian origin his opposition to the creation of any political "third force" to represent Canadians who are not of Anglo-Saxon or French origin.
I recognize that the hon. Leader of the Opposition showed courage by saying that in Toronto, and I give him credit for making a courageous statement. But a little further on, the report says:
The Conservative leader also rejected the suggestion of two nations within Canada.
This is not so good.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I do not blame the hon. Leader of the Opposition for not understanding the point fully, since he comes from a place which is quite a distance from Quebec, and perhaps nobody has bothered to give him adequate explanations, but the fact remains that there are two nations here, which are partners in a covenant, and the one I represent intends to demand respect of this covenant, or else, and the hon. premier of the province of Quebec has very frankly said so recently, it would be equality or separatism. Therefore, this is the point that should be considered at this time, and that is the aspiration that should be met if anyone thinks it is the right of French Canadians. Otherwise, they should be told, so that they will know what attitude to take. I am still quoting he Devoir:

Mr. Diefenbaker attacked particularly an amendment to the National Arts Centre Act now before the House of Commons. It would provide for a recognition of the linguistic duality etc.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with those who spoke before me and who said that understanding is not established through legal texts. I hold the same opinion, Mr. Chairman, but it is obvious, after a century, that the expected results have not materialized, and thus we are forced to demand guarantees, written texts in black and white.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I missed the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon. It has been summarized for me three or four times and I believe the hon. Prime Minister is full of good intentions. I would go further, Mr. Chairman. I believe the Prime Minister is the one who did the most for bilingualism and an understanding between the two nations which are members of this confederation. I could list a whole series of fine achievements and I am one of those who has the chance to say, in the statements I make all over the province, that, of all Canadian prime ministers, without meaning to belittle them, the present Prime Minister is probably the one who has shown the most clear-sighted understanding of the problem between the two races.
But that is not what we are discussing at the moment. I think that those who insist that this answers our wishes do not understand what we want very well. We do not doubt the good will of the present government; we are sure it will do everything in its power to be fair, but we say, for example, that when the present Prime Minister is no longer there, when the present government is no longer there, even if it is unpleasant for the party in power to hear these things-they know that one day they, too, may assume the shadowy role of the opposition-who is to say that the other government will understand the province of Quebec? Whether they like it or not, I appeal to the conscience of my colleagues. I am not appealing to their narrow-mindedness nor to their prejudices, but to their conscience as Canadians, and I know that all my colleagues here are Canadians who wish Canada well and want it to be united. I tell them once again: In Quebec, there is a large number of what we call angry young men who realize that good will and sound arguments were not enough to do
June 28, 1966

National Arts Centre
them justice and who demand to be considered as full partners within confederation. To say such things is not to show oneself as a racialist, as someone suggested. Racialism means a race that wants to dominate another. We do not want to dominate another race; we are aware that we are minority here, and when the vote is taken, we know that we shall not secure a majority. We know that pacts entered into in the past granted us certain sacred rights, for instance, participation in the government of the country, since we pay taxes as everybody else and take part in the life of the country. We demand therefore that those rights be spelled out in our legislation.
Mr. Chairman, since a vote may be taken on the subamendment, I want nevertheless the discussion held in the house to resound once again in the conscience of all my colleagues anxious to preserve Canada's unity. Whether we like it or not, the claims now being made in Quebec seem legitimate to us since they respond to aspirations which are quite natural and fundamental and will have to be met. Otherwise, separatism that we fear so much will take over.
Therefore, let us see where we stand. There is no question of racialism, but it is a matter of sanctioning something once and for all, if we believe in the two nations which make up confederation. The thing is to decide whether our belief and our conviction should actually be reflected in our legislation. And it must be determined that mutual understanding is no longer simply a pious wish but something positive.
And to emphasize what I said earlier and prove that there is no narrow-mindedness or separatism in our province, although some of us argue their case passionately-it will be understood that this is the outcome of a century of frustrations and, to a certain extent it is understandable that they should raise their voices at a given time-nevertheless I want to prove that we are not fanatics, since we, in the province of Quebec, elect English speaking people. In my county, Mr. Chairman, we once elected a Jew, a Mr. Hartt, who was returned several times, even after being expelled from the legislature. A Mr. Ryan was elected, and if I went back over all the names of English people and Jews for whom French Canadians voted, there would be a long series of them.
But, Mr. Chairman, it seems that some people here want to do like the ostrich. The hon. member for Lapointe mentioned that
French Canadians considered they did not have fair representation in the various government departments and agencies, and that is true. I do not say this is necessarily due to an uncompromising attitude; I know that French Canadians did not always apply, but this is a fact which strikes the generation in 1966. I went to the trouble of listing, from the telephone directory, for certain departments and crown corporations, the names of the main officials, connected with the departments or management, and I found fantastic things.
In the Department of National Defence, out of 25 names, I find five which are French; I agree that some may have French names but I include them. In the Department of Industry, I find that, out of 45 names, three are French; I note that, in most cases, those people are in junior positions. In fisheries, out of 71 names, I note eight with a French name; I even count in those who have French names but speak English. In the Post Office Department, there are 71 of them, of which 16 are French. Mr. Chairman, I could go on like that ad infinitum. In the Department of Defence Production, I see 44 names, three of which are French. In the Department of National Health and Welfare, 52 names, 12 of which are French. In the Department of Transport 22 names, of which 19 sound French. In the Department of Public Works, the situation is not so bad; there is one third, 45 English speaking and 15 French speaking. Then with one third, we are satisfied.


Mr. Mcllraith:: That is not right. That figure is not the correct one for the Department of Public Works.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I am willing to listen to the minister when he corrects me.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not want the hon. member to make a misstatement of fact about the ministry for which I am responsible.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I am pleased the hon. minister corrected my figures, because I am not anxious to find fault with the minister or with the government; on the contrary, I have just said that, like many others, I admire what they have done until now. But I get my information where I can. I have the telephone directory, nothing else; so, if the hon. minister wants to correct my figures, he will find someone who is very pleased to stand corrected; let him correct my figures, by all means.

June 28, 1966
National Arts Centre
Mr. Chairman, I shall leave my enumeration at that. Had we discussed the crown corporations, it would have been the same thing. When we discuss these things, these facts, let us do so without undue passion, and establish whether we believe or not in the two nations which are part of our confederation. Do we believe or not that they have equal rights? Have we decided or not to do justice to both nations?
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Back home, in Quebec, we have set an example. In my city, the second largest French city in North America, we have an English speaking minority. We speak English to them, we write to them in English. They have their schools, they are members of our clubs, members of our societies, they are treated as full-fledged fellow-Canadians. If they have not had the opportunity of learning French, we go to the trouble of speaking English to them, because we gave ourselves the trouble of learning English, Mr. Chairman, precisely because we believe in the "entente cordiale" in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I have somewhat raised my voice, for after all I had intended to speak with equanimity, very calmly, and to bring forward only facts and figures supporting my case. But I shall have to support the subamendment, for even though I believe the good intentions of the house should be sufficient to secure good understanding between the two ethnic groups, I have to admit that a whole century has not brought about the expected results; I cannot but see that a great number of our young people advocate separatism because they are dissatisfied, and realize that justice is being denied; I am therefore bound to conclude that now is the time to set down these things in black and white in the statutes.
I am asking once more my hon. colleagues in power not to have a chip on their shoulders. We are certainly not requiring these things solely to embarrass them. We simply want them to realize facts that are staring them in the face and that if nothing is done, we shall rush headlong into a catastrophic situation, namely separatism and the breaking of Confederation, and that I do not want, Mr. Chairman, and I am ready to struggle against it to the bitter end.


John Napier Turner: I move:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again either later this day or at the next sitting of the house.


An hon. Member:: Later this day.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-174, to provide for the establishment of The Company of Young Canadians-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose on Thursday, June 16, clause 15 was under consideration.
Clauses 15 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I may have missed what happened the last occasion this piece of legislation came before the chamber, but previously a question had been raised as to whether the executive director should be separate from the council. Since the hon. member who originally raised the matter is not present tonight, I think I should ask whether a compromise was reached. If the minister has already answered this question, then I apologize for taking up the time of the committee.
This problem of deciding upon who an executive director should be has caused considerable difficulty in another organization with which the committee is familiar, namely the C.B.C. The top three appointments to that agency were made by the governor in council and were not subject to any control by the executive.
When this question was raised previously the minister showed sympathetic interest in it, though not indicating that he would do anything about it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, something happened subsequent to the debate to which the hon. member is referring. Clause 10(1) was amended to provide that the governor in council would appoint the executive director, but on the recommendation of the council, which is two thirds elected by the members themselves, and would hold office during pleasure and with the consent of the council.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the minister for the explanation he has given. This is a compromise that will be watched with interest, because it has application in other fields.
June 28, 1966


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, when speaking on his estimates the President of the Privy Council was asked a question concerning the salary of the executive director, and he replied:
The present estimates provide in the ease ol the director for a salary scale between $18,000 and $22,000, but for this year $20,000. In the case of the associate director, the salary provided is $15,000 to $18,000, but for this year $15,000.
Subsequently the Canadian Press ran a story to the effect that the interim executive director, Mr. McWhinney, receives a salary of $20,000 a year. This was very much to his embarrassment because his salary as interim director is $13,500, while the interim associate director receives a salary of $9,500. The estimates to which the President of the Privy Council referred were prepared last fall and were therefore tentative. I want to make this clear because of the embarrassment caused.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


John Napier Turner: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)



CROP INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-208, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act-the Minister of Agriculture.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that this bill would not be called. The committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development is now meeting. Not only is it unfair, but it is ridiculous to bring forth this legislation while the committee is meeting. Therefore I would ask that this not be proceeded with now. I understand the committee is meeting until 9.30 p.m. and that appearing before it are representatives from western Canada. I think it would be unfair to take up in the house the matter of crop insurance while the committee meeting is going on. I understood the committee had this assurance.
Crop Insurance Act


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there was not any understanding in this regard, but if the hon. member feels that some of the members who are on the committee wish to speak on this, we would be agreeable to putting it over. I have not, however, had any representations from any members of the committee that they wished to speak on this subject. It was on the order paper and the announcement was made last night that it would be heard today.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we really can operate parliament, with a committees system, if we are going to have a committee meeting and at the same time take up in the house legislation in respect of which members in committee are engaged. Certainly the minimum requirement should be that the legislation should not be proceeded with in the house while the committee is discussing another aspect of the same field. If we wish to proceed with it, it is all right with me, but I do not think it is very reasonable.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the committee is not sitting at the moment. In any event, surely the committee must not take precedence over the house. However, so that the hon. member will not have any sense of grievance, we will ask to withdraw the right to proceed now with this item, and proceed with the Canada assistance legislation. I am concerned with getting legislation over to the other place quickly. If it should be the wish of the whole house that we proceed with the superannuation legislation first, in the expectation that it would be very brief, we might wish to call it. I am in the hands of the house on that. Of course, it would be on the understanding that the debate on it would be very brief, because last night I did give an intimation that we would proceed with the Canada Assistance Plan late this afternoon.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: I think we could be through the superannuation legislation in three quarters of an hour, or possibly less.


George James McIlraith: Is that agreeable?


Gordon Minto Churchill: So far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we can proceed with the superannuation legislation. I believe we will be speaking rather briefly on it. The bill might go through in an hour and a half.

June 28, 1966
Pensions



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill C-193, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act and the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act-Mr. Benson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: May I point out to the
committee that there are some amendments to the French version. These amendments are printed in Votes and Proceedings of June 22 at page 685.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the amendments be adopted now.
On clause 2.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the committee that I have several amendments with which I could deal either at the beginning of the proceedings or on the clauses as we go along. These amendments are a result of a recommendation of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons with regard to appeals to Treasury Board in the case where the Minister of Finance is empowered by the legislation to make particular decisions. I would be prepared to move these amendments at this time or wait until we reach the various clauses.


Thomas Miller Bell: I suggest it might be done when we are considering the various clauses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think that is the sensible way to do it. The minister might like to indicate to us in a general way what they are, but I think we should follow the usual practice of making the amendments when we are on the particular clauses. Perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, might tell us the numbers of the clauses which have been amended by the action of the joint committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think it might be better practice to amend the clauses as we come to them. As we come to a clause which is to be amended I will so indicate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could you tell us the numbers of those clauses now?
[Mr. Churchill.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: I might read from the Votes and Proceedings of June 22. The report of the committee said this?
Your Committee has agreed to report the said bill with the following amendment:
Amend the French version of the said bill by striking out the words "service public" and substituting therefor the words "fonction publique" in the title and wherever those two words appear in the said French version of the said bill.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I was aware of that; I was a member of the committee. But I thought by this time someone would have a list for us of the numbers of the clauses where we do this.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps we could have a list made at the table while the hon. member for Carleton is taking part in the debate.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been very carefully considered by a joint special committee of the Senate and House of Commons under the distinguished Commons chairmanship of the hon. member for Ottawa East. Therefore the comments which I want to make of a general nature will be very brief indeed. I only want to say that the bill is less than adequate in a number of features: First, in that it has no escalation clause. The principle of escalation was accepted in the Canada Pension Plan and it is the submission of those of us on this side that it ought to be accepted in the superannuation acts.
Second, there is no provision for increases to retired civil servants. I do not propose to discuss this at all tonight, but would mention to the Minister of Finance that his estimates will not have an easy course through this committee until that issue is settled. Third, I think it is clear that many public servants will suffer as a result of the integration of the superannuation acts and the Canada Pension Plan, particularly in two respects. The present civil servant who has a vested right to his full pension, whether or not he accepts employment after age 65, will now suffer a diminution in his pension by .7 per cent per annum, the amount of his Canada Pension Plan contributions, if he takes any employment after retirement.
I think this is a breach of faith. At this late date I do appeal to the minister to have a change of heart in this respect. I do suggest that here is a complete breach of contract, and certainly a breach of faith, in relation to those who are now in the public service. Second in this respect, there is under this bill a substantial increase in contributions. At the present time a male civil servant contributes
June 28, 1966

6J per cent lor 35 years and then his contributions cease completely. Let us suppose that a male civil servant enters public service employment at age 18; he then contributes for 35 years and has concluded his payments by age 53. What of the future? At the present time he makes no further contributions. Under this bill and under the Canada Pension Plan he must still contribute after age 53, 1.8 per cent of his salary to the Canada Pension Plan without any improvement whatever in benefits at age 65. So the present civil servant making on the average a salary of, say $6,000 a year between the ages of 53 and 65 will contribute about $108 a year for 12 years, or a total of $1,296, without any improvement in benefits.
I think this very brief illustration demonstrates what a travesty this provision makes of the oft repeated statement that no civil servant will suffer from the integration of the superannuation acts and the Canada Pension Plan. That assertion simply is not the fact. I would have no complaint whatever if this provision applied to all who join the public service hereafter, but I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is a clear breach of faith for those who are now in the public service. Then, sir, I should like the minister to make clear to this committee of the whole, as I believe he did to the special joint committee, that the lock-in provisions will not be proclaimed until legislation providing for genuine portability is enacted.
The provisions relating to pensioned officers, warrant officers and petty officers who enter the public service in future are less than satisfactory. The minister outlined to the special joint committee what are the minimum proposals of the government. I make an appeal to him tonight to go far beyond that minimum. In what he outlined before the special joint committee, I think he does less than justice to those who have served Canada well in the armed forces.
I venture to suggest that the minister should take a look at what I understand to be the position of personnel of the R.C.M.P. He told us that approximately $4,200 of the pension of a retired officer in the armed forces would be exempt, and I am now told that if the R.C.M.P. situation were treated as equivalent about $5,900 would be exempt. When we come to this clause I hope the minister will have something to say specifically about it. I appeal to him tonight to put a percentage value into the bill, to bring, as
Pensions
one of the witnesses said before the committee, merit as well as length of service into the matter.
This bill has been considered at considerable length in the special joint committee. It is a bill of very great importance and if it were not for the fact that the committee wishes to deal with it expeditiously I would have a great deal more to say. On certain special clauses I will have brief comments to make and perhaps some amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when we were at the second reading stage of this bill the initial suggestion of the Minister of National Revenue was that we might go straight from second reading into committee of the whole house on the bill. I think it is appropriate to express a word of appreciation to the minister for having responded to the requests that were made from the opposition side of the house, that this bill be referred instead to a special joint committee.
I am sure he will now agree, and those of us who were members of that committee will certainly agree, that it was an excellent idea to have this bill considered by the special joint committee to which it was referred. Those of us who were on the committee were able to present our various points of view; we were able to argue over our differences and reach various understandings. I am satisfied that because of the time we spent in the special joint committee, time will be saved here in committee of the whole house.
The bill has 94 clauses, apart from any that might be added here in committee of the whole. Hon. members realize that if we were to have a discussion on each of those 94 clauses a good deal of time would be taken. As the matter stands, it will be possible to call and pass most of the clauses without any discussion in committee of the whole, but I think it should be put on the record that the reason there will not be discussion here is that we had full discussion in the special joint committee.
By way of general comment I should like to say that the bill carries out the intentions of the government with respect to the integration of the various government employee pension plans with the Canada Pension Plan. The bill has reduced to legislative form what the government wanted to do in this connection. But, as the minister knows, I am still not sold on the extent to which the government has carried through its policy of what is almost complete integration. It is still my view that the Canada Pension Plan was

June 28. 1966
Pensions
brought into being for two main purposes. On the one hand its purpose was to provide pensions for employees who had no other pension; on the other hand its purpose was to enable people who already had pension rights and benefits to augment those rights and benefits.
To a considerable extent this right to add anything to their pension position as a result of the passing of the Canada Pension Plan is being denied to our government employees. It is true that for a period of time it will be possible for many retiring employees to have a little more pension than they might otherwise have had. As we worked it out in the committee, the marginal benefit will rise during the first ten years but then will decline until the 35th year, following which there will be practically no marginal benefit whatsoever. It is perfectly true that as a result of the integration, civil servants will not be paying any more than they were paying previously; in fact they will be paying precisely the same amount. However, my complaint is that civil servants are being denied the right to pay anything additional into the Canada Pension Plan-as other people in many jobs can-and they are therefore being denied the concomitant right to have additional pension benefits when they retire.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Surely we have had enough experience with pensions and with their inadequacy in the years after they have been put into effect to realize that there is still room for improvement in pensions, even when they are as good as are the pensions provided for government employees.
I was interested in the comment made by one of the staff associations which appeared before us. The spokesman for that group wanted to make it clear that what they had agreed to was not to integration per se and for all time, but to this particular formula of integration. This particular staff association said that in future if certain adjustments were made it might wish to look at them again. The wishes of the civil servants may have been ascertained by the government, but I believe that many of them now want to take another look at this matter. I think the day will come when civil servants will prefer to have additional benefits from the Canada Pension Plan, rather than the almost complete integration which is contained in this piece of legislation.
During the course of our discussions in committee we came upon one or two instances where it seemed to us that rights

which civil servants now enjoy are being interfered with. I make this statement in the light of the general assurances that were given when the Canada Pension Plan was under debate, that integration would not have this effect. One particular case that we discussed at some length was that of the civil servant who retires, let us say, at the age of 62 after his full 35 years of work, and is entitled to draw his full pension under the Public Service Superannuation Act. When he reaches the age of 65 that pension is reduced by a formula that is spelled out in the act, on the assumption that at that point he will start drawing his Canada Pension Plan benefit.
It is clear that if he is retired and is not working at anything else, and if the Canada Pension Plan benefit is not sufficient to make up for the reduction in his public service superannuation annuity, the shortfall will be made up. However, the employee who retires at the age of 62, and at the age of 65 is still working somewhere else and therefore does not qualify for his Canada Pension Plan benefit, will still have his public service superannuation annuity reduced and the difference will not be made up. We went over this matter very thoroughly and very good arguments were given to us by the experts who appeared before our committee. It has to be admitted that those arguments carried a great deal of weight. Nevertheless it is still a fact that here is a right which civil servants previously had but which they are now losing as a result of this integration bill. I am referring to the right to retire on full pension after 35 years of service, say at the age of 62, to go to work somewhere else and not be subject to a reduction in the public service pension.
I am not raising this matter on behalf of people whose pensions are so large or whose position is so affluent that they do not need to find other employment. I am thinking, rather, of the post office workers and others who, although they retire early, receive a level of pension that makes it necessary for them to find other employment. I say that this is at least one case in which the general commitment, that integration would not take away the rights that civil servants already have, has in fact been interfered with.
There are one or two other anomalies of this kind which we will have to deal with as we go along; but as I have already said, Mr. Chairman, because of the very thorough examination we made of this bill in the special
June 28, 1966

joint committee it will not be necessary for us to speak on each of the 94 clauses in the bill now before us.
I should like to express once again my appreciation of some of the improvements that have been made in the Public Service Superannuation Act while we have been considering this bill. For the most part they are technical improvements, an ironing out of a few anomalies.
It is also to be noted that the civil servants in general seem to like the term insurance arrangements that were brought in a number of years ago, and it is to be noted that these arrangements have been improved in that the amount of insurance that civil servants can carry has been increased, and the amount of the minimum benefit that obtains from the point of discontinuance in employment to death has also been raised. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to observe that a piece of legislation which caused quite an outcry when it was brought into this house a number of years ago has now been accepted as a desirable feature.
The only other comment I wish to make is to express once again my very deep regret that at a time when the government was reconsidering the Public Service Superannuation Act it did not seize the opportunity to make two other changes. I believe that on the one hand the government should have changed the formula regarding pensions for widows. At present a widow's pension is 50 per cent of what her husband's would have been. Some of the organizations suggested that these pensions should be raised to a much higher level; I think 75 per cent was the figure suggested in most cases, although some went even higher than that.
It seemed to me that at least 60 per cent, which applies to the pensions of widows of members of parliament, might have been written into this legislation. I regret that this was not done. I hope that, since the minister has said he has a number of amendments to present while we are going through this bill, he might even yet propose an amendment to make this improvement with regard to the pensions of widows of civil servants.
My other regret is that the government did not seize this opportunity to make the necessary amendments in the Public Service Superannuation Act to improve the pensions of civil servants already retired. We now recognize the need to escalate pensions. The government has recognized this in the case of the 23033-442
Pensions
Canada Pension Plan, and it has recognized it in the case of the Old Age Security Act. I do not think there is any question but that sooner or later we will have to recognize it in the case of retired civil servants. I am not going to speak at length on this aspect of the matter, lest someone raises a point of order as to whether or not the matter is before us. That is the trouble, Mr. Chairman; it is not before us and it ought to be.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I welcomed the response of the Minister of National Revenue to a question which I put to him on June 17. The minister said that he would have no objection to giving the joint committee on the public service a term of reference from the House of Commons to enable it to discuss this whole problem of the adequacy of the pensions of civil servants already retired. He knows me and I know him. He knows that having given me what I regard as a commitment, I shall hold him to it.
I have had to accept the condition that we cannot get at this matter until we have disposed of the other pieces of legislation that have been referred to that committee. But the committee is dealing with them. As a matter of fact, the joint committee on the public service is meeting right now; it was called to meet at eight o'clock tonight to discuss the three other bills. When the committee has disposed of those bills on collective bargaining, I will call upon the Minister of National Revenue to keep the commitment which he made on June 17 by bringing before this house a motion to give the joint committee on the public service a term of reference to enable it to discuss this very important problem.
Even if I disagree with some of the elements of the integration program that is before us, Mr. Chairman, I must confirm the general view that our pension legislation for government employees is by and large good legislation. Precisely because we have made the kind of improvements to our pension legislation which make it something of which we can be proud, and precisely because it does provide a good basis for retirement pensions for our public servants from now on, I think we should do the same thing for those who have already retired. There is far too much in parliament of this doing something for those who are with us now, for those who can lay some kind of an appeal before us, but of trying to forget those who were our employees in the past. This is an

June 28, 1966
Pensions
unfinished piece of business in our public service pension arrangements which must not continue to remain unfinished.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the commitment which the minister made on June 17. I hope it will not be long before that matter is before the joint committee on the public service, so that that committee will be in a position to make an appropriate recommendation back to the House of Commons. As the hon. member for Carleton said, we may wish to say something on a few of the clauses as we go through the bill; but precisely because we have had such a thorough discussion of this legislation in the joint committee, it need not take as long as it might otherwise have taken to deal with this important bill here in committee of the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Deduction from annuity.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause about which there has been much discussion in the joint special committee. I have already referred to the situation, particularly as it relates to those civil servants at present in the service who have been given the commitment that there would be no diminution of benefits. When these people remain off the labour market after age 65, this is true. But if a person with a small pension takes a job which qualifies him for the Canada Pension Plan, then he does not enjoy the benefits which prior to the passing of the Canada Pension Plan he would have received.
This matter was discussed in detail in the committee. I have no desire to reargue it at all, but I do want to record at this time the feeling of the house in this connection, and I therefore propose to move an amendment to this clause. I recognize that the amendment would not be fully adequate, but it would at least express the opinion of hon. members.
There is one other matter in connection with clause 9 to which I should like to refer. Subclause (4) brings within the purview of the act those who served with certain international organizations or in civilian war service. Many members of the house, but more particularly my hon. friend from Halifax, Mr. McCleave, were responsible in 1961, and perhaps earlier than that, for bringing to the attention of this house the position of the civilian firefighers. This is a case of casting bread upon the waters; it has now fully

returned, and I want to pay tribute to what the hon. gentleman from Halifax did at that time, which has been productive now.
Without arguing the particular situation further, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subsection (Id) of subclause (1) of clause 9 be deleted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment which has just been moved by the hon. member for Carleton is to meet the point that I raised a few moments ago. This amendment was moved in the joint committee and was lost there, and I do not know whether it will do any better here. In the meantime, I wonder whether the government has come up with any other way to cope with this problem?
Let me say again that I recognize that years from now, when everyone is on the same footing, the way the clause is framed might be quite adequate. It may even be adequate now for new employees who are coming into the public service. However, despite all the excellent arguments which were made by the very competent experts the committee had before it, it seems to me that present employees who knew before integration came into effect that they could retire at the end of their 35 years, even if they were only 60 or 62 years of age, and draw their superannuation for life without any reduction, are being short changed in being presented with a formula which reduces their pensions at age 65.
Surely those who were in the service before this integration bill was introduced should be given the kind of protection that this amendment proposes. I see difficulties in the amendment, but as I said in committee, unless the government has come up with some other way of meeting this problem and establishing complete fairness, I shall have to vote for the amendment.
* (8:10 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, there is no point in repeating arguments that were put forward to the committee with respect to this amendment. I should like to say that this matter was agreed to by the advisor committee. The joint council of the Civil Service Association was fully informed of this matter and was, I presume, in agreement with this measure because no objection was raised.
Really, what the amendment is trying to do is amend the Canada Pension Plan. Anyone who retires under the Canada Pension Plan and continues in employment, and has a
June 28, 1366

certain level of income, may find his Canada Pension Plan benefits reduced or completely wiped out during the period in which he works. That is so if the person working is between 65 and 70. On the other side of the coin there is the fact that Canada Pension Plan benefits may increase during that period due to continued contributions.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Bell, Carle ton) negatived: yeas, 27; nays, 33.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before the clause carries there is one other question I should like to put to the Minister of National Revenue. This clause of course is the heart of the bill. I refer to the fact that it provides the formula under which pensions of retiring civil servants are determined once integration is in effect. It is quite clear from this clause that when a civil servant ends up with his two pensions-with his superannuation annuity and the Canada Pension Plan benefit-those two pensions are guaranteed together to be not less than his superannuation annuity would have been. A benefit that flows from this, of course, is that the total amount of that pension at retirement will be X dollars, but the Canada Pension Plan portion of that retirement allowance is subject to the escalation provided in the Canada Pension Plan itself.
We shall reach a point where civil servants will be retiring with a twofold pension, one part of which is subject to escalation. There is no doubt about this. May I ask the minister whether the government has given consideration to providing that the superannuation pension benefit itself will also escalate, so that we will not in future have the sort of problem we now have with respect to retired civil servants.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, when this matter was being considered the government gave a good deal of thought to it. It was decided that in this particular type of plan

and this is a funded pension plan in which funds build up and from which benefits must be paid out-any consideration of escalation would have to be done separately from this legislation. If it were considered, then indeed one would have to consider the level of contributions of government and civil servants in order to support such a pension based
Pensions
on escalated benefits. The government considered this matter and decided that in this particular piece of legislation this would not be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is another piece of unfinished business.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated, the escalation feature of the Canada Pension Plan, certainly in my view, is the most important single feature of that plan. That feature is a breakthrough in thinking.
I can remember during the first years when I was a member of the house being told that such a feature was an actuarial impossibility and that no pension plan could be devised which could incorporate such a feature. I for one look forward to the time when this feature will be common to all retirement plans, unless some other plan can be devised in which the purchasing power of the dollar remains fixed for all time. Certainly the government has not suggested it could fix the purchasing power of the dollar nor is it prepared to take steps to bring that about.
I should like the Minister of National Revenue to be more specific as to whether future consideration will be given to the question I have raised, and whether this is something that will be considered this year, next year, some time, or never? The minister said that the idea of escalated pensions had been rejected in respect of this particular legislation. Yet his reply was such that it held out some hope of furtheration. Can the minister be more specific as to what he and the government are thinking about in this respect.


Edgar John Benson: I was not in the house when my hon. friend was here at the beginning of his career. I know that people were saying that no pension plan could be attached to a wage or cost of living index. As the hon. member well knows, I cannot commit any future government or this government as to what is to be done with regard to civil service pension plans in the future. I can say that in my personal opinion the thought of escalating pension plans in the civil service based on the cost of living index or on some other index, is not ruled out. One must of course realize, when he goes into this kind of pension plan, that it becomes more costly per dollar received back than the normal pension plan where no escalation is built in. I cannot say more than that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1966
Pensions
[DOT] (8:20 p.ra.)
On clause 19.
Edgar John Benson: In conformity with the request of the committee that provision be made for appeal from decisions of the Minister of Finance in certain circumstances where no appeal is at present provided, I should like to offer this amendment:
That Bill C-193, an act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act and the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act, be amended as follows:
(1) by inserting, immediately after line 11 on page 26 thereof, the following paragraph:
"(Id) prescribing the period within which and the procedure by which any person dissatisfied with any decision or direction made by the minister under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 11, section 12 or subsection (3) of section 13 may appeal that decision or direction to the Treasury Board and authorizing the Treasury Board to make any decision or direction in relation thereto that might have been made by the minister under those provisions;''


Thomas Miller Bell: It would have to be moved by the Minister of National Defence.


Edgar John Benson: Then it will be moved by my colleague the Minister of National Defence.


An hon. Member:: Does he agree?


Mr. Hellyer:: I so move.


Mr. McCleave:: On behalf of the official opposition I wish to thank the Minister of National Revenue for adopting a suggestion which originally came from the hon. member for Carleton and which was presented to the committee by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and myself. We think this is a reasonable way of dealing with appeals, that is, by referring them to Treasury Board. However, we would suggest to the minister that the experience relating to this amendment and a subsequent amendment be examined in a few years time with a view to setting up a different type of tribunal, should this seem desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 39 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 40-Computation of length of service.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue would like me to call a halt

at this point, so that he can indicate to the committee what it is that clause 40 does. Is this not the clause dealing with the anomaly which now exists affecting service personnel who are not allowed to count their wartime service for pension purposes when they retire?


Edgar John Benson: That is true. This is particularly important this year when a great many servicemen who enlisted during the second world war complete 25 years service. Although they enlisted during that war and continued in the service, they could not count their wartime service toward their pension benefits. This clause has been included so that these people may, deservedly I believe receive their full pension benefits for wartime as well as peacetime service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is true, is it not, that if this legislation is passed in the other place and receives assent within the next week or two it will be in effect this very year?


Edgar John Benson: That is true. As I say, it is important because this year a large number of servicemen will have completed 25 years service.


Richard Albert Bell: Many hon. members have made representations on this subject and I think all are gratified that this injustice has been rectified.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Some of us have been receiving a large number of representations about this question of wartime service and pension benefits. I have also received representations-and I confess I have not been able to understand them very well-about differences in arrangements as between members of the three former elements of the armed forces. Could the minister give us an assurance, or, better still, could the Minister of National Defence give us an assurance that these amendments will take care of the situation we have been hearing about recently?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, this amendment applies equally to the three branches of the armed forces. It is in my opinion long overdue. This has been the subject of one of the major complaints I have received from men who have served in the armed forces and whose careers began in wartime service. I should like to say that this amendment was recommended to the Minister of National Revenue by the defence department and in particular by the associate minister who has been piloting it through its various stages before its inclusion in the bill.
June 28, 1966


Mr. Hopkins:: As a member of this house who has a large military establishment in his constituency, I should like on behalf of the armed forces to express appreciation to the Associate Minister of National Defence for accepting this suggestion. During the past few months I have received a number of letters on this subject from people in the armed forces, particularly from those based at Camp Petawawa. This correspondence has been passed on to the associate minister. On their behalf I wish to thank him for putting forth a change in the legislation, so that members of the armed forces who will be retiring shortly will be given credit in their pension plan for active service during World War II.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 50 inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 51.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence will be moving the following amendment:
That clause 51 be amended by inserting, immediately after line 33, the following paragraph:
"(db) prescribing the period within which and the procedure by which any person dissatisfied with any decision or direction made by the minister under section 12 or subsection (3) of section 13 may appeal that decision or direction to the Treasury Board and authorizing the Treasury Board to make any decision or direction in relation thereto that might have been made by the minister under those provisions;"


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw to the minister's attention an anomaly that pertains to the amount of money that can be earned by either a former serviceman or former mounted police officer who subsequently enters civil service employment. The minister indicated to the committee that these people would be allowed to earn at least up to $4,218 per year without there being any deduction from the salary in their new position.
I would like to draw to the minister's attention that a sergeant major in the R.C.M.P. who has served 35 years and retired, would be entitled to a pension of $5,912.90, and we understood from the evidence of Dr. George Davidson, given to the committee, that he would not suffer any reduction in that $5,912.90 when going into the public service. In short, there is a discrepancy of approximately $694 between those two amounts.
Pensions


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I have received the same letter as my hon. friend with respect to the position of the R.C.M.P. What Dr. Davidson said in committee, and Mr. Clark as well-and this is something I have looked at pretty carefully-was that the R.C.M.P. under regulations were treated the same as people in the armed services under section 17(2). This does not guarantee that people have the same amount of pensions in the R.C.M.P. as they have in the armed services, so that if an
O.R. in the R.C.M.P. got a higher pension he would still be exempted under 17(2) because he is treated the same as an O.R. in the armed services.
I undertook at the committee, and I am willing to undertake again, that the regulations which the government will promulgate as a result of the passing of this legislation will be such that no officer entering the civil service will be treated any worse than a staff sergeant, which is the present highest level of pension for an O.R. coming into the government service. I would not like at this point to undertake anything beyond that in saying that officers will be treated better. The position of the R.C.M.P. in comparison with people in the armed services will continue to be reviewed.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have just two sentences to utter. The minister knows that I wish what he proposes were in the legislation. I ask him to take very seriously what he said to the committee, that what he proposes is the minimum, and I ask him to give with the greatest degree of generosity. One third sentence: I think generosity should indicate that these armed force pensioners should not be penalized in any way whatever.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows how generous this government and I are.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 52 to 57 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 58.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence will move the following amendment:
That clause 58 be amended by inserting, immediately after line 18, the following subsection:
"(2a) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the period within which and the procedure by which any person dissatisfied with any decision or direction made by the minister under this section may appeal that decision or direction to the Treasury Board and authorizing the Treasury Board to make any decision or direction in relation thereto that might have been made by the minister under this section."

June 28, 1966
Pensions


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 72 inclusive, agreed to.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
On clause 73-Regulations respecting leave of absence.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence will be moving the following amendment:
Immediately after line 27 on page 59, insert the following paragraph:
"(be) prescribing the period within which and the procedure by which any person dissatisfied by any decision or direction made by the minister under Section 13 or subsection (3) of section 16 may appeal that decision or direction to the Treasury Board and authorizing the Treasury Board to make any decision or direction in relation thereto that might have been made by the minister under those provisions;''


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 74 to 88 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 89-Contributions by employees.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 89 is one of two or three clauses which deal with the pensions of members of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees Provident Fund. This of course is in line with other cases of integration which are being effected. I rise merely to say what I said in the joint committee, that this reference to railway workers prompts me to remind the government that along with the need to do something for retired civil servants whose pensions are inadequate, something also will have to be done for retired employees of the Canadian National Railways.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should like to re-emphasize the remarks made by the last speaker. Many of the retired pensioners live in the Halifax riding and their plight indeed does deserve action.
Clauses 90 to 94 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, although
there are a number of subjects concerning which I think action still is needed and concerning which we might continue to speak on this clause, I wish to raise at this point only one. I refer to the representations which have been made to the government for a

change in the formula under which the pensions of widows of civil servants are calculated. We had some discussion on this matter in the special joint committee, due to the fact that this was drawn to our attention by some of the delegations which appeared before us.
During the proceedings of the committee I made reference to a copy of a letter which I now have before me, written by the Minister of Finance to Mr. Fred W. Whitehouse, National Secretary-Treasurer of the Federal Superannuates National Association. This letter from the Minister of Finance was written on May 25, 1966. I think, since it contains only three paragraphs, I might be permitted to read it:
Dear Mr. Whitehouse:
I have received your letter of May 13, 1966 concerning the question of the upward adjustment in the pensions of retired civil servants and their widows.
I am familiar with the earlier correspondence on this subject which you have had with my predecessor in office and also with the Prime Minister. This matter has been considered by the government on a number of occasions and I must advise you that I have nothing to add at this time to what the Prime Minister said on April 28 in the House of Commons as printed in Hansard, page 4424, of that date.
If I may interrupt myself before I quote the third paragraph, I should like to emphasize the obvious. This correspondence relates to two subjects; one, raising the pensions of civil servants already retired and, two, changing the formula under which the pensions of widows are calculated.
In the paragraph which I have just quoted it is clear that the Minister of Finance said to Mr. Whitehouse that he has nothing more to say on the question of raising the pensions of civil servants already retired. I regret that that is the position of the government. I do not intend to let it stand as it is, but at the moment that is it. But, Mr. Chairman, when we come to the final paragraph of this letter we have something in a different vein, regarding the question of changing the formula under which the pensions of widows are calculated. Let me read this final paragraph. I ask the minister to listen to it, and to note the contrast between this paragraph and the one which I just read, which said in effect: nothing doing, on increases of pensions of persons already retired. I now read the third paragraph:
The other question of an increase in the basic formula for the benefits payable to widows of former civil servants under the Public Service Superannuation Act is one which has been considered in the over-all picture of contributions and
June 28, 1966



benefits under the act. The government's decision in this regard will be indicated when the amending legislation is given first reading by the House of Commons.
Yours sincerely,
Mitchell Sharp.
I draw this to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue. I would draw it to the attention of the Minister of Finance if he were here. Here the Minister of Finance said to this official of this association representing retired civil servants that the government will not do anything at all now about the pensions of civil servants already retired, but then went on to say, regarding the benefits payable to widows of former civil servants that the government's decision in this regard will be indicated when the amending legislation is given first reading by the House of Commons. This letter was written on May 25, 1966, and the resolution preceding Bill C-193 was then on the order paper and due to be debated soon; as a matter of fact it was given first reading only a couple of weeks later, on June 6.
The contacts I have had with these people in the Federal Superannuates National Association were such as to indicate that they felt that whereas nothing was going to be done for the civil servants already retired, there was an announcement coming with regard to the basic formula under which pensions payable to widows are calculated. I will read again that governing sentence:
The Government's decision in this regard will be indicated when the amending legislation is given first reading by the House of Commons.
It was given first reading on June 6 this year, and then we learned that nothing was being done.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Surely, Mr. Chairman, if when this letter was written the case of the widows who seek an improvement in their basic formula was in the same category in the government's mind as the other one, the same answer would have been given to both points. But no-to the one point, a clear, categorical no; to the other point, "You will learn our decision when the bill is given first reading in the House of Commons." I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue what happened between May 25 and June 6 to the government's decision with respect to the formula under which the pensions of widows of civil servants are calculated.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty obvious from the legislation that the
Pensions
government decided not to change it at this particular time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is obvious. As a matter of fact I had received this letter before we debated this matter on June 6. I thought from the letter that it was certain to be in the bill and it was a rude jolt to me when I asked the Minister of National Revenue, on the day when we had the resolution but did not yet have the bill, whether it was in there, and he told me that it was not. He is always such a generous, big-hearted man that I could hardly believe it. I suggest that it is not good enough for the minister simply to stand and say that obviously the government's decision was negative. Surely if at that point the government drew a distinction between these two issues and said with respect to raising the pensions of those already restored, "No change", but with respect to this basic formula, "Wait and see", the government is under some obligation to come through with a decision in favour of these people. Since we have not got it, may I ask the minister if the matter is under further consideration.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the matter and the position of retired civil servants, and of course the matter of widows of retired civil servants, is under constant consideration; and, as I indicated in the committee, this matter is being actively considered by me, the Minister of Finance and other members of the government. But I think that all that is indicated in the kind of argument my hon. friend is trying to make is that at the time the letter was written the first matter had been decided and the second matter had not been decided, with respect to this particular legislation. With respect to this particular legislation the matter was later decided and as the hon. member can see, an amendment in this regard was not included in this legislation. I do not think I can add anything more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that this is an unusual kind of letter to write if that is the case. If the government had not yet made up its mind, for the minister to write a letter to encourage these people to believe that something would not come in one case, and to tell them that something might come in the other, is not really fair.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?

June 28, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


Edgar John Benson: By leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the biU.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-207, to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need.
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, we listened with interest last evening when the minister spoke on Bill C-207, enlarged on it and made some explanations in regard to it. This bill will to a large extent bring together a lot of loose ends in this department. Pretty well everything that is in the act was previously covered and the bill will now bring everything together under one head.
The bill is concerned with the war on poverty that was started by Mr. Kent; it was his brainchild. It is now carried on by Mr. Phillips with six or seven assistants. It is the same, largely, as the war on poverty in the United States. It has not reached the grand plan for the great society yet, but maybe it will someday. About a million people are now receiving assistance in Canada. The minister proposes to pump an extra $85 million into this program in the current year. Public service and welfare expenditures at all levels across Canada have now reached $500 million. This amount does not seem to be disproportionate. As a matter of fact, if we are getting value for the dollar I would question, when we have a gross national product of approximately $52 billion, whether it is enough to accomplish what we are setting out to do- if we really are setting out to do it, and I hope we are.
Fundamentally this program will cover food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies, etc. The great majority of this amount, in fact 95 to 100 per cent, will be put right back into circulation. Therefore this money is in no way being put aside; it is

put right back in circulation; it is in the life stream of currency and there is no loss in this respect.
The minister noted that the plan would make funds available to improve the staffs in municipal as well as provincial welfare departments and mentioned that in the province of Ontario they are now establishing regional offices. I think this is all to the good, but I am wondering whether this grand plan may be to build elaborate offices and staff them with people, well trained people perhaps, and spend a great many dollars in this connection which should be spent at the grass roots and on the people we propose to help. I think this aspect of the matter is worth watching, and I am well aware of the fact that we are very short of social workers now.
The minister stated that about one million people are on assistance now. This is a striking fact in comparison when you consider the brief submitted by the Ontario Federation of Labour. If this brief is correct, and I have reason to believe it is fairly accurate, if this is so, and we have only one million people on assistance, then surely there must be many people not receiving assistance in this country that need it.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The Ontario Federation of Labour stated in their brief that a million and a half people are living in destitution, and two million and a half lack the necessities and comforts of life. I am sure the minister is as well acquainted with this brief as I am. The yardstick that was used was a family of four living on an income of $2,000 or less, and individuals living on $1,000 or less. These people were considered destitute. Then there were families of four living on $3,000 and individuals living on $1,500, all of whom were deprived of many ordinary necessities. Of course the individuals living on $1,500 are poverty stricken, as are the families of four living on $3,000. There are those who will say that many live on less, but there is a vast difference between the million that are on assistance and those who need help, and points up many problems.
I suggest to the minister that the amounts that he has set out may not be sufficient. Let us consider who are the people included in the categories I have mentioned. They are the older workers, the pensioners, the unemployed and the underemployed. They are the school dropouts, the undereducated, the widows and the fatherless children. It is to be noted that about 5 per cent of the children
June 28, 1366

born in Canada are born out of wedlock. Included in the category of people needing assistance are the disabled, the sick, the retarded, the mentally ill, as well as the rural farmers and the migrant workers. The federation of labour concluded that 6.5 million Canadians live below the hard line which separates poverty and affluence. It was stressed that the most important cause of poverty was the lack of education.
I think that in considering this legislation we should bear in mind that the more education we give to our younger people, the greater number of people over the age of 45 will become unemployed-due to automation and the better trained young people. We should go into the home of the unemployed, or the underemployed worker so as to discover the real cause of their problem. Is the cause of their poverty lack of education or functional illiteracy? When we have discovered the reason for these people being on welfare, then re-education or retraining should be considered. If it is found that this state of poverty is chronic and is not due to some physical disability or sickness, then I think we should take a good look at the environment in which these people live. This is graphically illustrated in the figures put out by the welfare department, which show five or six generations of people who have been living on relief and welfare. The welfare of the children should also be considered because according to the surveys that have been made in the United States they are often undernourished and 80 per cent of them have problems of one kind or another, some physical and some emotional. They need a medical examination and they all need to see a dentist and an oculist. Apart from their physical problems some of those children have a lower than normal I.Q. and if they are given an opportunity to get some pre-elementary schooling most surveys indicate that their I.Q. will go up by about 10 per cent and that they will be able to catch up in from a few months to a year. Physically they will develop, and they will develop mentally a whole year in a few months.
This is the type of work that we should be doing under the Canada Assistance Act, if there is to be a war on poverty. It is not enough to spend money in helping those people; efforts should be made to change their environment and mode of life.
I now wish to speak on the problem regarding older people. We find that the prob-23033-443
Canada Assistance Plan lem of unemployment becomes a serious factor in people over the age of 45. The statistics show that the unemployment rates are higher in people between the ages of 45 and 65 than they are between the ages of 22 and 45. I am sure nobody knows that better than the minister, as he was minister of labour. The reason for this is the increasing change in education and technology. People at the age of 45 did not have the chance to acquire education which our younger people now have, and this problem must be met. They must be retrained to give them a chance to earn a living.
I now wish to speak of the older citizens. I do not think that they should retire at the age of 65 if physically fit. I would suggest to the minister that under the Canada Assistance Act provision should be made for retraining of people at and over the age of 65, and they should be given a creative type of work so as to enable them to take part in the growing economy of this country. This is a very important problem and related directly to their employment and happiness.
I now wish to read a few lines from the final report of the special committee of the Senate on aging, where it is said-in relation to the above:
That employment has important psychological values as well was stressed continually in the evidence received by the committee. Said the Jewish Vocational Service ol Toronto in its submission: "Work gives form, dimension and meaning to the life of the average citizen". And there was Mr. W., a retired widower, on an income of $150 a month, who, when the chairman asked him what he missed in retirement, replied, "Mostly getting up and going to work in the morning, catching the bus at a certain time-and just general routine".
This is one of the most important problems in the study of geriatrics. I have stated this before and the minister is well aware of the fact that half the people in Canada today are 25 years and under.
I wish to say to the minister that if this government have vision they will be looking to the years ahead when half the population of Canada will be 30 years of age and over. I was looking at the figures given by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which show that there are more deaths than births in Canada today in the last report. I cite this as an indication that not only from the economic point of view but for their own peace of mind we must keep our older worker working. He is happy working. Then he is part of the team and part of Canada. He has his

June 28, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan home, and I feel that this we owe to these people, namely to arrange programmed employment.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Further, Mr. Speaker, the record shows that if we keep this man working and keep him happy, we keep him out of hospital and out of homes and institutions for many years, and in many cases for most of their lives. This we owe the people.
I now want to speak for a moment about our older people. The minister said last night that social service workers would call at their homes; this is one of the things he envisages. This is a very worth-while measure. Social workers visiting homes will keep many people in their homes year after year. If a meal is prepared for them once a day, or their beds are made or their houses cleaned, these people can stay on for years in their own homes.
Conversely, Mr. Speaker, I have seen cases where this has not been possible, cases where people were taken to rest homes where I have seen them deteriorate, and deteriorate very miserably. This objective of the minister is very worth while. I hope the Canada assistance plan will provide not just handouts; I hope it will do something constructive for the social life of the country; otherwise it will be a miserable failure.
Finally, there is one point in connection with this act which I just cannot understand the minister, though he seems to take a reasonable attitude to other points. I refer to the question of raising the old age pension. I know he will say that this matter is being raised once again, but I would recall to him the fact that people who are directly concerned are people who cannot help themselves very well.
Somebody said the other day that there are bout 750,000 of these pensioners; I believe that statement was made either in this house or in a committee. It is said that it would cost $800 million, or something like that, to give them an increase. I do not agree with those figures. Some of these people are already receiving assistance, and if they receive another $25 a month, this will amount to $300 a year. With 750,000 old age pensioners, the total amount involved in my book is $225 million. So I cannot follow the figure of 800 million.
I should just like to refer to an article in the Globe and Mail for June 23 which deals with this point. I am sure the minister must 
have read this article, and I would be surprised if he did not feel that he should grant an increase to these people. What changed his mind, I do not know. I am not going into the case of those whose working lives were half over by 1940. They were then earning less than 50 cents an hour, and the dollar of that day is worth about 33J cents today in purchasing value. For all these years the government have stolen from them by inflation, and before I leave this house for the adjournment I must make a plea to the minister for heaven's sake to do something for these old people.
The Globe and Mail article reads, in part, as follows:
While there are, of course, some well-to-do old people-
You know how many there are; 1J per cent of them in 1961 had incomes of $10,000 and over.
-every form of analysis we made or had made for us supported the very poor . . . Two-thirds of the population aged 65 and over had annual incomes under $1,500. It found that about half of the people in this age group needed help.
Today the people in this group number about 1.5 million. That means that three-quarters of a million old persons are in need of help. The Canada Pension Plan will do nothing for them at all. The Canada Assistance Plan, when it comes into being, is supposed to help them if they can prove, each of them, that they need help; but, as Mr. Davis pointed out, to compel that many people "to undergo an individually administered needs test would be at once a costly and demeaning procedure."
The minister himself recognized this point, and I should like to put on record what he said. I am not sure who twisted his arm, but speaking at the Nova Scotian Hotel in Halifax on May 25 when he addressed the Canada Hospital Association annual meeting he had this to say:
But, by the same token, I also know, as I'm sure you do, of people who have put off seeking needed medical attention because they just didn't have the money to pay for it. This is a matter of individual dignity and personal pride-
I suggest to the minister that he is making two classifications of citizens in the country today; those who are 70 and over and those who are young in their forties or thirties. On the one hand he is saying that this procedure is not demeaning to the older people; then he is saying: Come and let us know about your needs. I should like to know the psychology behind what is going on in the minister's mind on this point. I know he is a personable chap and does not want to hurt these older citizens; but I honestly feel that there is a
June 28, 1966

technicality in making motions at this time to correct this situation. If this were not so, I would propose a motion. However, we will watch it very carefully and see if the minister will not change his mind, and grant the $100 per month to those on old age pension.
Personally, I feel we must do something for the old age pensioners. I realize the minister said he has taken a look at the guaranteed incomes program, but that there are roadblocks in the way. If there are blocks in the way, in difficult legislation, all he has to do is bring in a parallel clause in the act to give these elderly people $100 a month. I would tell the minister that with the way the dollar is eroding in value at the moment, within ten years the government will have to supplement the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore there is nothing so awful about giving the old people enough to keep them going until 1970. All I ask for is some generosity toward a deserving people, who helped maintain and build this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The practice of this house is to follow the procedure of going from a speaker from the official opposition to a speaker from the New Democratic Party, and then on to the other parties, before returning to the government side. This is the second occasion this week that this practice has been departed from in the house. I think the procedure which has been adopted in the past should be followed. The hon. member from Winnipeg is prepared to speak at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I apologize. This is the first round on second reading. Perhaps I can call on the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) now, and I will see the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) when the other speakers have had their turn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was just a case of inadvertence which put the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) on the record for a sentence or two.
Canada Assistance Plan
The measure that is now before us is a very important piece of legislation. Like many bills that the Liberals manage to bring before parliament, it has in it both good and bad. The Liberals, indeed, seem to be past masters at this sort of thing. I think they enjoy putting the members of the House of Commons into a dilemma. The minister may think that is what he has done on this occasion. I suggest, before this debate is over, it will be necessary for him to rethink some of the fundamentals of this legislation.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The things in this bill that are good are in fact so welcome that a case can be made for speedy passage of this legislation, so that it might be put on our statute books without further delay. But, by the same token, the shortcomings of this legislation are so severe that we shall have to give them very serious consideration at this second reading stage of debate and also in committee of the whole on the clauses of the bill.
I have already said that the things in the bill that are good are extremely welcome. I must also say that in my view this bill introduces into our social legislation in Canada a step which, for the 1960's, is very retrograde, and is one that I hope will not be with us when this legislation is finally passed.
I suppose the fact that this bill does present us with a dilemma is well demonstrated by the open conflict last week between two experts in the social welfare field. I refer to the present general secretary of the Canadian Welfare Council, Mr. Reuben Baetz, and this predecessor in that same office, Mr. Richard Davis.
As hon. members are aware, during the sessions of the conference on social welfare that was held last week in Vancouver, these two gentlemen made pronouncements on this legislation. Mr. Davis expressed extreme regret that the bill did not cope adequately with the needs of senior citizens. He went so far as to say that because of the bill's shortcomings, the legislation would never get off the ground. Mr. Baetz on the other hand, conscious as he is of the things in the bill that are good, felt annoyed by what Mr. Davis had said and felt it necessary to call a press conference in which he sang the praises of the legislation, urging that it not be delayed.
I know that last evening the Minister of National Health and Welfare quoted the Canadian Welfare Council as being in support

June 28, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan of the legislation. He was perfectly justified in using the words he did in praise of his bill, because that is the official position of the Canadian Welfare Council. I think, also, that some attention has to be paid to the concern expressed by Mr. Davis. A little later in my remarks I shall also refer to the quotation that the Minister of National Health and Welfare gave us last night from the most recent brief of the Canadian Labour Congress. He knows what he did. He indulged in an old trick. He read three of four sentences out of that brief, but carefully refrained from reading the two or three sentences immediately preceding the ones that he read to this house. However, I shall come to that a little later.
I have already said that there is much in this legislation which is good. Despite the fact that I may wax a little warmer when I get to the things that are disappointing, I do want to take a few minutes to express my appreciation of the importance of certain aspects in social welfare legislation that are placed before us in Bill C-207.
In the first place I am delighted to see an increase in federal financial participation in welfare programs. As a matter of fact, when one studies this bill carefully, when one has in mind the difficulties that obtain in the federal-provincial field, he can be very pleased that federal money is being made available for most of what are known as the areas of welfare work in this country.
I think the general formula that is provided, under which the federal government will pay 50 per cent of all welfare costs as defined in the legislation, plus 50 per cent of the amount that a province spends in excess of a figure in a base year, is reasonable and realistic. This is good. I am glad that more federal money is being made available to the provinces for social welfare work. I am glad that as Canadians represented by the federal authority, we are participating in social welfare work across the board.
It is also good that a step is being taken toward the superseding of the means test by the needs test in those areas where we now have means tests. I hope that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare quotes me again on this point, as he did on one other occasion, that he will note what I am saying. I am glad to see means tests that we now have in certain areas being superseded by what are called needs tests. That does not mean that I think the needs test is the last

word; neither do I approve of the introduction of a needs test in an area where we now have no test whatsoever.
In the area where means testing now takes place, however, the government is suggesting that we move out of that into an arrangement under which a person in need is to have his budgetary requirements assessed, to have his resources assessed, and then to be given such financial or other assistance as he needs to meet his situation.
It will be argued as to whether this is only a semantic difference. I think I would cast my lot in with the social welfare people generally and say that it is good to move from the means test that we now have in certain areas to needs tests in those areas. Another thing that is good about this legislation is that it recognizes at the Canada-wide level new areas of welfare work which are extremely important. I need not take time to name all such areas, but things like day care, and homemaker services stand out.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I welcome also the provision in this legislation for health care for persons in need for any of the reasons spelled out in the bill. I welcome the idea that money should be available to people in special homes, where needed. I am glad to see the federal government getting into the area of mothers' allowances and child welfare programs, at least on a financial basis. I think the work activity projects ought to be commended, as is the move to participate in Indian welfare programs. The whole idea that we should get away from the categorical concept of need to the general concept of need is certainly all to the good.
I can well imagine that social workers who are concerned with social welfare problems up to the point of retirement look upon this legislation as a most welcome document. It is highlighted by the provisions for staff training and development. The minister may say I am making a better speech than he did in support of the legislation. But he knows that my time is not yet half gone, and the other side of the story is yet to come.
Even with respect to the things in this bill which are good, I do not want the minister to think they are perfect, or the last word. After all, as his parliamentary secretary said in one of her outstanding speeches, it is not a grand new design; it is just juggling things around, tidying things up, and so on. It still leaves to the provinces the taking of the initiative in these various fields. Not one cent will go
June 28, 1966

directly from the Canada Assistance Plan to any person in Canada who is in need. The money will go to the provinces to assist them in their welfare work, and where the provinces decide to pay extra money to people they can get a share of what they spend from the federal government, in accordance with the formula. But there is no dollar benefit from this legislation flowing to any individual in Canada.
The other comment I should like to make about this whole piece of legislation in the welfare field up to the point of retirement is that, though it is good, though it is better than what we have had, it is really not in line with the latest thinking in the welfare field. I believe Professor Titmus was perfectly right in the statement he made in Vancouver last week-that if you go on making people think they are poor in order to get welfare benefits, you are not really doing a job.
I think the phrase "guaranteed income" is no longer the fantastic, futuristic notion that some people think it is. I believe it is the next step, and it is a step which should be taken soon, not just with respect to old age but with respect to everyone. I see the day coming not far off when we shall see proposed and acted upon, not just a guaranteed income of the kind the other place suggested for older people, namely that incomes be assessed and shortfalls made up, but that cash allowances will be paid to everybody, people being categorized as to age and so on. Then the income tax will be adjusted to take it back from people who do not need it.
There is all the difference in the world between making up what people have got, giving them welfare or relief because of their shortfall, and just giving money or allowances to everybody and then, by the income tax, taking it back from those who do not need it. I shall have something to say in a few minutes about the trials and tribulations of some of our older people who are attempting to live on their old age pension. But despite the fact that it is a crime we should ask these people to get along today on $75 a month, it is still to be noted that our older people today on a pension, which is theirs as of right, show a different attitude than the older people showed 30 years ago when pensions were given on the basis of a means test.
I have had contact with these people long enough to notice the difference. I remember what they were like 20 and 30 years ago. To get the old age pension carried a
Canada Assistance Plan stigma; it was almost a disgrace. Today, people 69 and over can talk about their old age pensions with pride and with pleasure. Many of them have to pay a good chunk of it back in income tax, but we removed, to an extent at any rate, the stigma which went with relief or make-up payments when we took the means test off the old age pension. This was one of the greatest steps the parliament of Canada ever took, and I was thrilled to have a part in doing it. I still think the principle of making cash allowances first and then making recoveries by income tax from those who do not need the allowance is far better than the welfare method even when the means test is superseded by the needs test. It is this type of thing I wish the government was doing at this time.
I know how much the Liberals dislike our saying on this side of the house that it takes them far too long to do these things. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) was somewhat annoyed with me when I reminded him, when at last he brought in a labour code, that he was fulfilling a promise which had been made by the Liberals before he was born. That is the trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite. Eventually they do bring in needed reforms, but they do so decades too late.
Today the government should be giving parliament and the country direction with respect to the whole idea of a guaranteed income. I can sing the praises of this bill as far as it produces a new look in the welfare field; but do not let the minister go to sleep with pleasant dreams because I said that. I would prefer him to have another sleepless night realizing that after all his labour he has brought forth a program which does not meet the needs of the 'sixties and 'seventies.
Up to this point I have been talking about this bill in relation to the welfare field up to the point of retirement. I have said that in general it is good, though I have pointed out it could have been a great deal better had hon. gentlemen opposite accepted some modem thinking. But when one looks at what this government is doing with respect to people who are in their years of retirement, I say that this Liberal administration, with all its talk about progress is asking this house to approve of a retrograde step. By this, I mean it is asking us to introduce for our retired people something we got rid of in 1950-a test on the basis of what they are getting from

June 28, 1968
Canada Assistance Plan the state. The minister says this test is different-a needs test instead of a means test. He says that may be these people could get even more money under this arrangement than they might get under a flat rate increase.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I emphasize that it is only a "maybe". It depends on the province taking the initiative. It depends on the province looking at the money that is available and deciding in which of the areas it is going to spend it. But even if there are funds available for supplementing the pensions of retired persons, I say this business of re-introducing a test-call it a means test or a needs test-is a retrograde step for Canadians to take.
One of the most important steps that this parliament ever took was when it removed the means test from the old age pension at age 70, and it is good that we are gradually bringing the eligible age down to 65. But by this Canada assistance legislation the government is saying no to all of the pleas that have been made from this side of the house, and by my good friend from Brantford, and I am sure by others in the Liberal caucus, for an increase in the flat rate of benefit under old age security. It is saying: No, we are going to make a welfare supplement available on the basis of a needs test.
No matter how much or how little individuals in need may get relief because of the money proposed to be provided under this measure, I think we will rue the day that we reinstituted a testing program, so far as our retired people are concerned. In his statement last night the minister made the assertion that no industrialized country in the world has been able to solve this problem without social assistance, and he indicated that there are three ways in which something could be done for older people. One was a flat rate pension, a second was social insurance, and the third was social assistance.
The minister said that no matter what you did under the first two, the flat rate program and the insurance program, you could not avoid falling back on social assistance. I give the minister credit for saying, and in fact I quote him, that we should minimize our reliance on social assistance.
But I suggest that even if there is validity in the argument he used, and I do not agree with him, he is not living up to his own dictum, that we should minimize our reliance on social assistance, because he is leaving the old age security payment at $75 per month,

and in effect asking that most of our senior citizens rely on social assistance. Apart from that, I wonder if the minister realizes how critical a comment he made last night with respect to the Canada Pension Plan. I do not speak as one who opposed the Canada Pension Plan. I fought for it harder than some people on the Liberal side of the house, and insisted that the house stay in session until it was passed.
But one of the things the Liberals kept telling us during the election before they assumed power, and in their propaganda about the Canada Pension Plan, was that the combination of the Canada Pension Plan and old age security would provide adequate retirement benefits for the Canadian people. Last night the minister stood up and said, "No, it cannot be done. The flat rate program and the insurance program are not enough. We are going to have to rely on social assistance for a supplement."
I say by that comment the minister criticized the Canada Pension Plan as not providing all that its proponents said it would, and at the same time he criticized the Old Age Security Act for not providing more than the present $75 a month. Despite his statement that we should minimize our reliance on social assistance, I say to him that by this measure he is asking the old people of Canada to maximize their reliance on social assistance, because these old people we are talking about do not have the Canada Pension Plan to fall back on. All they have is the flat rate benefit.
The minister is saying to them, "We cannot do anything for you under the Canada Pension Plan because that legislation was not designed for you, and we cannot do anything for you under the Old Age Security Act because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will not give us the money to raise the pension. Your only recourse is to fall back on social assistance, and so we are providing that, with the old means test re-introduced."
Granted, the name of the test is being changed. It is being dressed up a bit, but it is still a case of asking our older people to rely on social assistance for a chance to live. I submit that this element in the legislation is the one that enables me to stand here tonight and praise the good things that are in the bill, and also to say that it contains a retrograde step that the parliament of Canada should not be asked to take.
I hope that before this legislation has had the consideration I trust it will get in the
June 28, 1966

next day or so, we will persuade the government that it cannot stall any longer on the question of raising old age security payments to $100 a month.
At the resolution stage I twitted the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) about the fact that he had not made any reference to changes in the Old Age Security Act. He said he had, but of course a reading of his speech shows he had not. I suggested he was actually ashamed of the failure of this proposed legislation so far as old age security recipients are concerned.
I want to say for the minister now, even though he himself made some reference to the matter last night, that there are some things in this bill for old age security recipients. There is health care without the necessity of a needs test, and there is the possibility of care and maintenance in homes. But all of these things are of the character of welfare. They are not the dignified, uplifting kind of thing which we did for the senior citizens of Canada in 1950, when we took the means test off the old age security pension and said to our old people: When you reach the point of retirement you get your state pension as a matter of right.
I do not want us to go back on the excellent position we took then. Neither does my hon. friend from Brantford, if he does not mind my mentioning him again, because he made the same plea on a late show not many nights ago. Let us not go back on the dignified stand we took when we got rid of the means test. I suggest that is what this legislation is asking us to do.
I referred earlier to the difference of opinion at Vancouver between Mr. Baetz and Mr. Davis. Although I know both of these gentlemen I have not spoken to them since that exchange took place, and if I seek to interpret their difference of opinion it is my own interpretation, and they might not agree with it. I think their dispute is one that highlights the very nature of this bill. Mr. Baetz wants it. He wants it with the least possible delay because he sees the good in it, the good things 1 have tried to point out tonight.
Mr. Davis is not unmindful of those good things, but he has worked with the Senate committee on aging. He has spent many years in the welfare field. He has been concerned with old people for a long time, and he says the bill will not only do nothing for our older
Canada Assistance Plan people, but in effect is taking a very retrograde step, the very step I have been discussing tonight.
Instead of the minister standing up and giving us the official position of the Canadian Welfare Council, as though nothing else should have been said-and what he said was perfectly true-along with that he should have paid some attention to what Mr. Davis had said and admitted that although this bill has much in it that is good it is not coping with the old age pension-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Has his attention been drawn to a Canadian Press story from Vancouver in which Dr. Davis, upon whom he relies, is reported in quotes as follows:
The Canadian Assistance Plan is an excellent piece of legislation as it stands now.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know of that statement by Dr. Davis and I was just pointing out that the difference between these two social workers is an understandable one. They both agree that the welfare aspects are good. I suspect Mr. Baetz is not happy about the old age part of it either, but Dr. Davis is deeply concerned about what it does not do for the older people. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is awfully good at this business of pulling quotations out of the hat and giving them to us. Last night he quoted the Canadian Labour Congress.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, just as a point of explanation, I should like to say that I do not wish to misrepresent Dr. Davis. He said what I think I quoted him as saying about the Canada Assistance Plan being excellent as it is, but that he would call for a parallel piece of legislation dealing with what my hon. friend is mentioning. I think the difficulty in the argument being made by my hon. friend is that he fails to separate the issues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: June 28, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
which welcomed the advent of the Canada Assistance Plan. The parts he quoted are on the record and there is no need for me to quote them again. For the most part they were unqualified approval of the general nature of the Canada Assistance Plan, with a particular reference to the change from a means test to a needs test. I should like to point out two things; first, this was before the Canada Labour Congress had seen the bill and, second, even with regard to the parts which appear to have its approval, it suggested there should be a different formula for the sharing of costs and that it should be on a sliding scale along the lines of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. The minister did not read that. However, the important thing to which I want to draw the attention of the house is that the minister started reading at the middle of page 24 and did not note the paragraph just before that, particularly the last few sentences just before the point at which he started to read.
The previous paragraph speaks of the tremendous difficulty our senior citizens have in trying to get by on the $75 pension under the Old Age Security Act. The Canadian Labour Congress said this;
There can be no disputing the fact that the aged in Canada have not been enabled to share in the growing prosperity of the country. They have been sidetracked from it to live as best they can on the limited income maintenance programs which now apply to them.
Then listen to this; this is the last sentence before the minister started to quote from the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress:
We urge you to amend the Old Age Security Act further, not only to make the benefit available immediately as of age 65 but to raise the benefit itself to $100 a month.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Canadian Labour Congress wants the government to do.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the Old Age Security Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, and that is what the Canadian Labour Congress wants to be used as a vehicle to meet the needs of our older people. The Canadian Labour Congress did not regard the Canada Assistance Plan as a vehicle to deal with old age at all, and yet the minister last night tried to quote the Canadian Labour Congress as though it was asking for this.
Mr. Speaker, as an opposition member I think I have made it pretty clear that there are things in this bill that are good, but also I

am terribly conscious, as I think are most of the people of Canada, of what this bill does not do-its shortcomings. Therefore I think the very suggestion by Dr. Davis which the Minister of National Health and Welfare quoted is what parliament should demand. I am just as anxious as anyone else to have a summer holiday, but I think we should stay here and demand, until we get it, a parallel piece of legislation which will deal with old age security at the same time as we deal with the Canada Assistance Plan.
Therefore, to bring this about, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That Bill C-207 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the immediate introduction of concurrent legislation providing for an old age pension of $100 a month, without a means or needs test, for all persons 65 years of age and over.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to have an opportunity to consider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). May the house grant permission to the Chair to reserve judgment for the time being, and continue with the debate on second reading.
Mr. B re win: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been suggested to me that I read the amendment and then reserve judgment on it. It is moved by Mr. Knowles, seconded by Mrs. Maclnnis:
That Bill C-207 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the government should give consideration to the immediate introduction of concurrent legislation providing for an old age pension of $100 a month, without a means or needs test, for all persons 65 years of age and over.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you said judgment would be reserved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has risen on a point of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what your intention is with regard to making a ruling, but I should like to reserve my right to argue that this particular amendment clearly and definitely is out of order. It is surprising that it should have been brought forward, because it is so blatantly out of order.
June 28, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to argue the other way.


An hon. Member:: So do I.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think before judgment is rendered the opinion of members of the house will be requested.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the fact that we might not have a decision on the amendment until tomorrow, I should like to call it ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 6(2) I move that this house continue to sit until eleven o'clock this night.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I object.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will read standing order 6, subsection (2):
A motion that the house continue to sit after the hour specified in section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion.
Are there any members of the house who object to the motion as put by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith)?
And more than ten members having risen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion will not be put before the house.


Michael Starr: They want something-but they don't want it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Great Canadians, all those people down on the left.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader could tell us what we might expect tomorrow as the business of the house.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get a pattern for finishing the business before the house. We have had very good co-operation from the official opposition in getting business through. I do not know how to indicate the business for tomorrow, other than to say that hon. members should be prepared for us to call any of the items on the order paper or the notice paper, in any order.
I should like to suggest that tomorrow we consider sitting longer hours in order to get the business done, because the government is trying to put forward the legislation in an orderly way and in accordance with information that we have transmitted to all members

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of the house. I think that is the best way I can put it at the moment.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we in this party agree heartily that we should sit longer hours tomorrow in order to endeavour to put through the business of this house.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order that is being raised, Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no one more interested in our obtaining a formal recess than I, and I think there is considerable agreement in this respect. But I think it would be unrealistic for us to consider this matter unless there can be agreement-and it has to be, I would think, by way of agreement-that this be done, and everyone in the house knowing exactly what we intend to do before the recess. If that can be done, I think members of this party would agree to the extension of hours; otherwise I think we had better not count on extending the hours, except by motion, before the end of the month.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the late show originally arose out of the proposed visit by Mr. Stewart Udall, Interior Secretary of the United States, to Canada to confer with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin), or the minister of energy and resources. When the minister was queried on the purpose of this visit he informed the house that the purpose of his meeting with Mr. Udall was primarily to discuss pollution problems.
I wanted an assurance from the Canadian minister that he would assure the American secretary that Canadian water was not for sale. My remarks would almost appear to be redundant now because Mr. Udall, as reported in the Globe and Mail of June 24, 1966, seems to agree with my position that Canadian water should not be for sale to the United States. Mr. Udall is reported as saying:
We've suddenly begun to realize in the United States that if we do the right job in pollution control, we are going to increase our water resources enormously . . .
We are not looking hungrily at Canada's water resources. We are looking at our own.
June 28, 1966
6996	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I am delighted to know that the Secretary of the Interior of the United States made that statement because it seems to me that the United States, in order to solve their water problems, rather than looking at Canadian water resources to solve their problems, must look at their own water resources in terms of pollution and the prevention of the disposal of waste into water systems. In dealing with our own resources in Canada I think it is important to lay down some basic principles which should guide us in the years ahead.
In the few minutes allowed to me I would like to outline them quickly and briefly. My remarks do not apply to international waters such as the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence river or the two rivers which cross the international boundary between our two great countries. Quite obviously it is in the interests of Canada as well as of the United States that our two countries should collaborate and co-operate to the fullest extent in the development of those water resources and in the control of pollution in them. I would point out that the Columbia river treaty is an excellent example of how our two nations working together can develop a water resource. However, I am deeply concerned about water that is solely and exclusively Canadian. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in the years ahead this water should be used solely and exclusively for the benefit of Canada and Canadians. I wish to quote a statement made by Warren G. Magnuson, Washington State's senior senator at a conference in Wenatchee, Washington as quoted in the Vancouver Province of April 4, 1966. It reads:
Warren G. Magnuson, Washington State's senior senator and chairman of the senate committee on commerce, drew cheers from the many Washington and Oregon delegates when he gave his answer to the demands of the arid U.S. southwest for Columbia water:
"If we need it, you ain't going to get it."
He went on to say further:
"Until we know how much we need, it is foolish to plan about how much we are going to give away", said Magnuson. And he warned against believing the promises of Arizona and California that they would give back Columbia water if it were needed in the northwest.
I suggest that the water policy laid out by Senator Magnuson for the state of Washington with regard to the arid states in the United States such as California, Idaho and New Mexico is a policy equally applicable to Canadian waters when we consider its sale, diversion or exchange with the U.S. arid 


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have heard about the "Bas-ford" plan. Perhaps I could also use my three minutes to make a few remarks in reply to the hon. member, even if the question has disappeared.
In order to have a sale you need, besides an object, a seller and a buyer. A seller is somebody who is legally able and willing to deprive himself of the object; and a buyer is a person who is eager to acquire the object and willing to pay the price. In the case in point, the export of water to the United States, these conditions do not exist, at least at the moment, and will not for quite a few years to come. Canada is obviously not a seller, as has often been said both by this government and by previous governments.
The United States is obviously not a buyer. The Nawapa plan to which the hon. member referred is not U.S. policy, and Secretary of the Interior Udall on his last visit to Ottawa made this very clear. I do not want to repeat the quotations which the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has put on the record.
United States policy at this time is to inventorize, to recycle, to depollute and to ascertain their supply and needs. Whether the United States will ever ask Canada to sell them water, I do not know, and neither does anybody else. If we are wise however, as soon as possible we must find out what would be the position of Canada in such an eventuality.
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, we do not know whether we have something to sell. We do not know how much water we have and we do not know how much water we need. We know only that we are not willing to sell before we have a good idea what our needs are, and this is something toward which we are working. I cannot describe here the action taken by the federal government and by my department in particular in order to inventorize the quantity of water, in the oceans, lakes and rivers. I cannot analyze the past record and the projects we have in mind.
Another point I might make is this. No decision with respect to the export of water could conceivably be taken without the consent of the provinces of Canada. As a resource, water is essentially a provincial responsibility. For those people who might not trust the federal government, there is an extra security.
DEBATES	6997
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I am quite sure also, Mr. Speaker, that no decision will be or could be taken in Canada with respect to the export of water to the United States without taking into account public opinion. If it were ever decided to sell water, we will surely hear a lot from public opinion in this matter.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: What about the Columbia?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Obviously the hon. member is preoccupied with that subject.
We are already hearing a lot from public opinion. At any rate, those are my views, Mr. Speaker. We have relatively ample supplies of water and we must use those as well as possible.



HEALTH AND WELFARE-REQUEST FOR GRANT FOR RETARDED AND DISTURBED CHILDREN

Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, several days ago I raised the question of treatment for mentally retarded and disturbed children. More than two years ago, the Hall Commission recommended that, within six months, mental care be included under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, and that a crash program of services for mentally retarded children be established. In two years there has been no mention of any such action from the government.
Care of retarded and disturbed children is now the joint responsibility of municipalities and the provinces, but the job has grown far too large for them. The situation in Hamilton is typical. The mental health clinic there handles referrals from medical sources, from schools, welfare agencies, juvenile court and probation officers, at roughly double the rate they can handle. They can provide diagnostic assessment only, not treatment. As of June 1 this year, 72 referrals were awaiting assessment and diagnosis. Of these, 36 cases were considered urgent, and 10 were emergencies.
This is only part of the picture. Referring agencies in Hamilton are aware of the acute problem, and refer only the worst cases. Studies of urban mental disturbance, from a huge variety of sources, indicate that there are approximately 7,000 mentally disturbed children of shool age in Hamilton-a staggering figure. These children need not only diagnosis but treatment. At this time, the mental health clinic can give no treatment at all.
June 28, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I should like to put on record an article from the Hamilton Spectator of June 23, 1966. I quote:
Hamilton doctors will continue sending young children to the Ontario Hospital unless the city supplies adequate child mental health services.
That warning came yesterday from Dr. Grant Beacock, mental health research chairman for the Hamilton Social Planning Council.
The planning council advised board of control yesterday to take prompt action-recommending a major increase in the city's child mental health clinic staff.
When the clinic was set up in 1948, Dr. Beacock said, it had an authorized staff of 5.5., including professionals and clerical workers.
The authorized staff is still the same size, although the city population has grown by 50 per cent, he pointed out.
The actual staff, Dr. Beacock said, is two fulltime and one half-time.
That is why serious cases sometimes wait two months for treatment and chronic cases go to the Ontario Hospital, health authorities have reported.
The staff should be brought up to an establishment of 15, the social planning council recommended, almost triple its present strength.
Added personnel would cost the city an extra $100,000 yearly.
The present staff shortage is having a crippling effect on the clinic's operations, the council told board of control.
"The situation is so bad," said Dr. Beacock, "that Dr. William Hogg, one of the best child psychiatrists in the country, is doing most of his own social work and psychological work.
"He's even writing his own letters in longhand because he hasn't got secretarial staff."
Board of control has been made aware of the situation, a social planning spokesman said.
A request for more staff was rejected in 1962. Another request, contained in the health department's 1966 estimate, was chopped from the budget by the board.
The board promised to "study" the latest request.
A controversy over the treatment of youngsters at the Ontario Hospital arose from astory in The Spectator last month that a 10-year old boy was in an adult ward with alcoholics, homosexuals and mental patients.
The Welland boy, known as Grant, is still confined to the adult ward and a meeting of experts from various agencies is planned for tomorrow to discuss the case.
The boy, considered unmanageable, was turned over to the Welland Children's Aid Society, but they did not have the facilities to handle him. He was certified by doctors at Welland Medical Health Clinic for admission to the Ontario Hospital.
Treatment centres for retarded and disturbed children in Ontario are desperately overcrowded, and children in urgent need of care and treatment can only be put on waiting lists. The obvious answer is more facilities and more people; more hospitals, schools and clinics; more psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, social workers and therapists.

[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
All of this means more money, but this kind of expansion is beyond the resources of most municipalities. It is long past time for the federal government to recognize its responsibility in this field, and to follow at once the recommendations of the Hall Commission in this field.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The federal government recognizes the responsibility it has in the field of assistance to mentally retarded children. I may say that when the government was approached by the Canadian Association for Mentally Retarded Children a meeting was arranged between representatives of the Department of National Health and Welfare and Dr. Alan Roehr, the national director of the association.
I might mention that Dr. Roehr is a personal friend of mine and it was my privilege to speak to meetings of the association in Winnipeg, Toronto, and Fredericton. I had at that time an opportunity to discuss with Dr. Roehr, and others concerned with the mentally retarded, the problems they face and the projects they have in mind. I am thinking in particular of the crusade for Canada's mentally retarded.
The hon. member will be interested to know that the Department of National Health and Welfare, together with the other departments which offer assistance in this field, are meeting with Dr. Roehr and other association representatives in an endeavour to find out just how the federal government can assist further in this most important program. I might also say that existing programs include the mental health grant, the child and maternal health grant, categorical assistance programs and programs under the civilian rehabilitation branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION-SUGGESTED STUDY BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I put the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson):
In the light of recent electoral developments in Quebec and the strong views on the need for constitutional change that have been expressed from time to time by the new prime minister of Quebec, will the government reconsider the urgency of the appointment of a committee of the house to study from a federal viewpoint the question of constitutional change for Canada?
June 28, 1966

I am grateful for the opportunity to explain my reasons for suggesting that it is an urgent matter and one of vital importance to the future of Canada and of parliament. For a long time the various members of this house have indicated their view as to the need for such a committee. Only recently the Prime Minister indicated that the matter was under consideration.
The other night, on June 21, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister gave what seemed to be a dusty answer to a similar question put by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard)-an answer which, if it were taken seriously, would not only imply that no constitutional committee would ever be appointed, but indeed that there was no point in appointing any committee of this house. Fortunately the Prime Minister indicated on June 23 that the government view went no further than to consider it was not desirable to set up a committee on the constitution at this time-I quote the words of the Prime Minister.
I concede the government may well be entitled to consider the appropriate timing of the appointment of such an important committee. Undoubtedly there are reasons why the government does not desire to appoint such a committee at this particular moment, for example the fact that various royal commissions whose reports may touch on constitutional issues are due to report soon.
I wish to present the reasons of urgency for dealing with this matter soon. The Prime Minister speaking in the Throne Speech debate in January, spoke of the need for new frameworks within which each region of Canada can develop according to its own particular requirement as part of a strong, united country. The interim report of the B and B Commission has referred to the present situation in Canada as the gravest crisis in our history. Quite recently the province of Quebec had an election, and its new prime minister is an expert constitutional lawyer. Perhaps I should not say that in the presence of the parliamentary secretary, because constitutional lawyers seldom recognize the expertise of others in the field.
However, Mr. Daniel Johnson in his recent book "Egalite ou Independance" put forcefully the need for constitutional change if confederation is to be maintained. In it he made a number of suggestions, some of which were rather drastic, but at least he made it
DEBATES	6999
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion clear that the question of constitutional change cannot be bypassed, put off and ignored indefinitely.
I am alarmed at the prospect that at coming interprovincial conferences the government of Canada will be confronted with constitutional demands and that piecemeal concessions may be made and confederation undermined. It is vital that the government be supported by the informed opinion of members of this house from all parties and all regions of Canada. Consideration of the constitutional future of Canada is not a partisan matter or the property of any party, not even of the government party of the moment.
One last reason for urgency is that any such committee will require ample time for hearing experts and studying the problems involved in detail. If we are to take advantage of the spirit of our centenary, we must use the hundredth year of Canada's existence to reaffirm our national unity by making the constitution of Canada a Canadian document appropriate to the second half of the twentieth century. This will require a creative and constructive effort by the parliament of Canada. An all-party committee can be an important instrument in that process.


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister: For some time now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has been a firm and earnest proponent of this kind of parliamentary committee to examine the constitution, and I was hoping tonight he would show some good constructive reason why this committee should be established. I am afraid he has not done so.
Surely if such a committee were to be of some service it would have to establish a consensus among Canadian parliamentarians as to what kind of constitution we want, and I do not think the hon. member has shown that this kind of committee would be of any use in bringing ideologically closer together members of this house, some of whom believe in federalism, some of whom believe in special statuses for provinces, and some of whom believe that all forms of direct taxation should be given over to the provinces. I do not think that this kind of committee would create this kind of consensus. It would merely be a forum in which the constitution would be turned into some kind of political football and become the subject of partisan debate.
7000	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Members of the opposition who are asking for this committee remind me of men walking in the dark who do not know where they are going and who want to hold hands with other people because they are afraid of getting lost alone.
On the other hand, even assuming some kind of consensus could be reached in this parliament, I do not see of what service it could be in the kind of federal-provincial debate which is taking place presently.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Surely the premier of Quebec, to whom the hon. member for Greenwood referred, will not come to the parliament of Canada to ask by what kind of constitutional wisdom he should be enlightened; on the contrary, the kind of debate which might occur in our parliament will be only of strategic interest to him, through knowing what our divisions and weaknesses are.
DEBATES	June 28, 1986


Francis Andrew Brewin: Oh, oh.


Mr. Trudeau:: If the hon. member for Greenwood can give us good reasons for this kind of committee, I would be prepared to listen to him, but he has stated the question in a way which shows there is division in Canada. With this I agree; but I think this is the precise time when we should not throw the constitution open to this kind of debate. I think this is the time when the government should be, and I believe is, taking the leadership in indicating the constitutional processes it wants to see followed. It is changing the constitutional applications slowly, and I think this is the right way to so it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. gentleman has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Wednesday, June 29, 1966