1966-06-06

Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, recently in the house and in meetings with other house leaders the government has been asked to indicate the business which it proposes to bring forward in this part of the present session. I should like to indicate that the major items which the government proposes for consideration, in addition to those already before parliament, are the medicare bill; the Bank Act revisions; a bill to amend the crop insurance legislation, and a bill to establish a Canadian dairy commission. These four measures will shortly appear on the order paper.
I	should add, of course, that while these are the items which we foresee offering to the house for its consideration, there is always the possibility that there might be some minor items or that some emergency might arise which will require legislative action. We must also consider interim supply if the estimates have not been completed.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: should like to ask the government house leader what particular stage of completion the government believes we should reach in connection with the four major pieces of legislation to which he referred before a recess is taken. I have in mind particularly the Bank Act revision and the medicare bill.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to answer the question directly, because I have indicated the four measures which the government plans to submit for consideration in addition to all those now before parliament. I should think that at the moment it would be better just to go along and consider as many as we can before we make a firm decision on the precise date of the recess.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-192, to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of criminal records).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Ross Tolmie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is twofold: first, to erase criminal records incurred by minors who, upon reaching their majority, have become respectable members of society; and second, to relieve adults, who have paid their debt to society and taken their place as law-abiding citizens, from the continuing stigma and harassment of past criminal records.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 320-Mr. Caouelie: (Supplementary)
1.	Did the C.B.C. offer, free of charge, periods of time to the various provincial political parties during the last election in each province?
2.	If so, how many hours were allocated to each party in each province?
3.	What is the cost of these hours based on the rates of rental for every provincial party in each province during the last provincial election in these provinces?
4.	What is the total cost of the expenses incurred by each political party during the official period of the last federal election oampaign for the rental of facilities of private television stations, and of the government-owned network, as reported to the B.B.G.?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: The C.B.C. does not sell time for political broadcasting and does not normally attempt to place a monetary value on such broadcasts. However, if commercial rates in effect at the
5980

June 6, 1966
Questions
time of the last provincial election campaign of broadcasting, the cost to each party would in each province were applied to the hours have been approximately as follows:
Lib.	P.C.	U.N.	N.D.P.	S.C.Newfoundland	$ 420	$ 420	$ -	$ 215	$ -P.E.I.	450	450	-	-	-Nova Scotia	1,480	1,790	-	1,170	-New Brunswick	2,180	2,180	-	-	-Quebec	16,000	-	13,255	-	-Ontario	17,500	21,100	-	10,200	-Manitoba	860	1,275	-	860	450Saskatchewan	1,570	940	-	1,890	630Alberta	1,800	1,800	-	1,800	3,600British Columbia	1,450	1,185	-	2,000	2,270


RECOVERY OF C.B.C. PAYMENTS FOR WORK NOT DONE
Mr. Sherman: What has the Secretary of State done with respect to recovery of the $450,000.00 which the C.B.C. paid out last year in "salaries and wages for work not performed", as listed in the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1965?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As the Auditor General's report, in commenting on this matter, acknowledged that "all payments were in accordance with the articles of the various union agreements and our tests did not reveal any discrepancies in their application", no action has been taken or is required by the Secretary of State on this matter.


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNTS DEFICIENCY
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	In each of the fiscal years ending March 31, 1962 to 1966 inclusive, what amount has been charged to budgetary expenditure in respect of actuarial deficiencies in the public service superannuation accounts arising out of pay increases?
2.	For each of the years aforesaid, what is the actual amounts of the actuarial deficiency arising out of pay increases and what percentage or fraction of this was charged to budgetary expenditure?
3.	What is proposed in respect of the percentage or fraction of the actuarial deficiency arising out of pay increases for which no amount has been charged to budgetary expenditures?
4.	What is the total actuarial deficiency in the public service superannuation accounts as of March 31, 1966. for which no provision has been charged to budgetary expenditure?


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.
			Royal Canadian
Fiscal Year	Public Service	Canadian Forces	Mounted PoliceEnding	Superannuation	Superannuation	SuperannuationMarch 31	Account	Account	Account1962	1963	1964	$76,500,000	1965	$ 9,980,200	$13,440,400	$1,038,4001966	$25,900,200	$16,760,400	$1,038,400

June 6, 1366
Increases Authorized in Fiscal Year Ending March 31
1963
1965

Questions
Public Service Superannuation Account
Canadian
Forces
Superannuation
Account
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account

$76,500,000-100%
$49,901,0002-20 %3	$67,202,000-20%3 $5,192,000-20%"
$79,600,000 -20%	$16,600,000-20%
1 This amount was written off to net debt under the authority of finance vote 68e of Appropriation Act No. 4, 1964.
2	Includes increases authorized in the fiscal year 1963-64 until valuation of Account completed in 1964-65.
where deficiency not determined
3	The same percentage of these deficiencies was charged to budgetary expenditure in the fiscal year 1965-66.
3.	The relevant legislation now requires that such deficiencies be amortized in equal instalments over five years commencing in the year in which the increase is authorized. This procedure commenced in the fiscal year
1964-	65. Thus three more instalments are payable in respect of the amortization which commenced in 1964-65 and four more in respect of the amortization which commenced in
1965-	66.
4.	Public Service Superannuation Account, $93,620,600; Canadian Forces Superannuation Account, $53,601,200; Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account, $3,115,200.


PUESHASES FOR INDIAN PAVILION, EXPO '67
Mr. Howard: Was Andrew Tanahokate Delisle, since he was appointed commissioner general of the Indian pavilian of Canada, Expo '67, or just prior thereto, approached by any person to arrange that the purchase of any goods or materials for the said pavilion be made through one person or agency, and, if so, what is the name of any such person, the nature of his representations and did those representations entail an arrangement whereby the said Andrew Tanahokate Delisle would benefit if the said purchase could be so arranged and, if so, what was the nature of such a benefit?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. I am informed by Andrew Tanahokate Delisle that he has not been approached by any person or persons to arrange for any purchase of materials or goods for the Indians of Canada pavilion at Expo '67, prior to or since his appointment as commissioner general of the pavilion.
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS__________


REPORTS TO R.C.M.P.
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Does the R.C.M.P. accept reports of unidentified flying objects and, if so, to which government department are these directed?
2.	Are such reports investigated and, if so, by which government department or departments?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.	Yes. If the object is suspected to be a meteor or fireball it is reported to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. If it is not suspected to be a meteor or fireball it is reported to the Department of National Defence.
2.	Yes. Such reports are investigated by the R.C.M. Police and referred to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys or the Department of National Defence for whatever further action those departments may deem necessary.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Pending legislation by parliament, what action has been taken by the government to integrate the Canada Pension Plan and the Public Service Superannuation Act or other superannuation acts?
2.	Have any loans been made to public servants in respect of their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan?
3.	If so, on what basis, in what total amount, under what procedure and pursuant to what statutory or other authority?
4.	Have any deductions for Canada Pension Plan contributions been made from increased salaries or wages paid in 1966 to public servants for periods in 1965?

June 6, 1966
Questions
5.	If so, on what basis, in what total amount, under what procedure and pursuant to what statutory or other authority?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	See government order No. 51 of April 21, 1966.
2.	and 3. By vote LlOOd of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1966 and vote LlOOe of the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1966, parliament has authorized special accountable advances to or in respect of persons employed in the public service whose remuneration is payable out of the consolidated revenue fund and who are required to make contributions under (a) the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, and (b) the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec pension plan, in the amounts by which the combined contributions required from such persons in respect of remuneration to which an act referred to in paragraph (a) and an act referred to in paragraph (b) both apply exceed 64 per cent of such remuneration in the case of males and 5 per cent of such remuneration in the case of females.
These advances amounted to $4,034,935.77 up to March 31, 1966.
4.	Yes.
5.	These deductions have been made in accordance with the requirements of the Canada Pension Plan and the regulations thereunder and amounted to approximately $210,000, up to March 31, 1966.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many Canadians are holders of Canada savings bonds?
2.	What is the total value of these bonds?
3.	What is the percentage of interest paid to holders?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	It is estimated that there are approximately two million holders of Canada savings bonds.
2.	At May 25, 1966 there were $5,629 million of Canada savings bonds outstanding.
3.	The average yield to maturity offered on Canada savings bonds has varied from series to series. Coupon rates payable on outstanding issues each year also vary according to series. At May 1, 1966 the weighted average yield over the remaining life to maturity of Canada savings bonds outstanding was 5.23 per cent.


CANADIAN EMPLOYEES OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES
Mr. Harley: Further to question No. 994, what are the working classifications of the total number of Canadian employees as shown in column 1 of the answer (a) professional personnel (b) senior administrative staff (c) senior staff level (d) junior staff levels (i.e. clerks, secretaries) ?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The United Nations and its agencies do not employ the classifications outlined in the above question and each of the 15 organizations involved would almost certainly place varying interpretations on what was meant by these descriptions. The resulting statistics would be misleading. In the interests of accuracy, therefore, I would prefer to reply to this question by employing the broad classifications used by the United Nations system and dividing the Canadian nationals employed in it between professional and non-professional staff. The following table shows this division.

June 6, 1966

Questions
Employment of Canadians in International Organizations
Organization	Professional	Non-Professional	Staff	Staff	TotalsUnited Nations	75	93	1681International Labour Organization	17	7	241World Health Organization	60	0	60International Telecommunication Union	1	2	3World Meteorological Organization Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative	21	1	3Organization	0	0	0International Atomic Energy Agency	6	9	15UNESCO	14	3	17International Civil Aviation Organization	24	221	245"International Monetary Fund	13	27	40International Bank j International Development )	16	65	81Association J	International Finance Corporation	1	8	9Universal Postal Union	1	0	1Food and Agriculture Organization	80	11	91NATO International Staff	Classification	Number	Unclassified (Senior Officer)	1	A3 and A4	(Intermediate Officers)	4	B3 (Senior Clerical)	1	C4 (Junior Clerical)	1	Total	7	
'There are also 29 Canadians employed with the United Nations and 9 with ILO on a contract basis as experts for technical assistance work. The two professionals of WMO are also technical assistance experts.
"Revised total from that given in answer to question 994.


PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT FUND
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	As of May 1, 1966, what was the total amount to the credit of the Canada Pension Plan investment fund?
2.	As of that date, in which securities of what provinces, and in which securities of Canada, was such amount invested and what was the amount invested in each such security?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	On May 1, 1966 the Canada Pension Plan investment fund held $84,338,000 in provincial and federal securities. On May 3 a further
$53,058,000 was invested in these securities raising the total held by the fund to $137,396,000.
2.	Only special securities of the provinces, other than Quebec, and of Canada can be held by the fund. They are not negotiable, transferable or assignable. The provincial securities may include a special security of any agent of Her Majesty in right of a province that is guaranteed as to principal and interest by the government thereof.
As of May 3, 1966, the Canada Pension Plan investment fund held the following securities:

June 6, 1966
Questions
	Sub-Total	Total
Jurisdiction	$	$
Newfoundland		2,577,000
Prince Edward Island		431,000
Nova Scotia		4,944,000
New Brunswick		3,859,000
Ontario		79,189,000
Manitoba-development fund	2,077,000	
-water supply board	2,954,000	
-school capital financing authority	3,173,000	8,204,000
Saskatchewan		5,673,000
Alberta-municipal financing Corporation		12,083,000
British Columbia-hydro and power authority		20,036,000
Canada		400,000
		137,396,000


SELECTION OF CENSUS OFFICIALS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What procedure is followed in selecting (a) census commissioners (b) census enumerators?
2.	Are census commissioners and enumerators selected through application or by solicitation?
3.	Is anyone invited to recommend persons for these positions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
4.	If so, on what basis is it decided whose recommendations are to be followed?
5.	What is the remuneration paid to census commissioners and enumerators?
6.	In the case of the 1966 census, what was the date on which census commissioners were appointed?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is responsible, under section 5(1) of the Statistics Act, for the appointment of census commissoners and enumerators.
The appointments were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce following recommendations and interviews by the regional office representatives of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Because of the large number of enumerators required, (about 35,000), the Minister of Trade and Commerce has delegated responsibility for locating, testing and hiring to the census commissioner for the census district to which he or she is assigned. The commissioners solicit and receive applications for positions of enumerator and, after written

tests supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, make the appointments.
5.	Each census commissioner will be paid $1,100. In addition, travel expenses are allowable in accordance with government travel regulations in the rural areas, and an allowance of $20 or $40 in lieu of travel expenses in the urban and semi-urban areas.
Census enumerators will be paid a basic rate of 8 cents for each person enumerated. $1.00 for each farm holding enumerated, 15 cents for each merchandising establishment and from 5 cents to 8 cents per dwelling listed. In semi-rural and rural areas additional allowances are paid in lieu of travel expenses. If instruction regarding population and agriculture is required, enumerators will receive $22. If instruction regarding population only is required, enumerators will receive $12.
6.	Census commissions were not all appointed at one time but the names were announced on April 27, 1966. Since then, further appointments have been made to fill vacancies and replace those who have had to resign.


CENSUS COMMISSIONERS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Coales: 1.	What are the names of the census commissioners selected in Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, and what are the qualifications of each?
2.	What remuneration will they receive and for how long a period will they act?
June 6, 1966

3.	What are the names of the individuals selected by each of the census commissioners to carry out the census, what is their remuneration and for how long a period will they act?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The census commissioners appointed for Cumberland county are: Mrs. W. Baryle McCunn, Mr. K. J. Cochrane, Mrs. Jennie I. Cameron.
The qualifications are: a good education with subsequent professional or business experience in a supervisory capacity, intimate knowledge of the census district, proven executive and organizing ability; tact, good judgment and ability to deal with the public.
2.	Each census commissioner will be paid $1,100. In addition, travel expenses are allowable in accordance with government travel regulations in rural areas, and an allowance of $20 or $40 in lieu of travel expenses in the urban and semi-urban areas. They will be involved in census work part time in April and early May, and full time during the latter part of May and June, until all field work in their area is completed to the satisfaction of the dominion statistician.
3.	Names of census enumerators are not yet available as they are appointed by the census commissioner in their particular area on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Enumeration pay is based on the number of forms completed accurately; a basic rate of 8 cents for each person enumerated; $1 for each farm holding enumerated; 15 cents for each merchandising establishment and from 5 cents to 8 cents per dwelling listed. In semirural and rural areas allowances are paid in lieu of travel expenses. In addition, if instruction regarding both population and agriculture is required, enumerators will receive $22; but if instruction regarding population only is required, enumerators will receive $12. An enumerator will be expected to work full time on the assignment which might last between one to three weeks depending on the efficiency of the enumerator and the population density of the enumeration area.


SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION-PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the amount of the grant in lieu of taxes paid to the municipality of Cumberland for the young offenders' penal institution at Springhill, for the fiscal year 1965-66?
Questions
2.	What was the amount paid in lieu of taxes to the town of Springhill for the young offenders' penal institution at Springhill for the fiscal year 1965-66?
3.	Will a re-appraisal of the amount involved in the grant in lieu of taxes be made on the completion and opening of the young offenders' penal institution at Springhill and, if so, when?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	$280 (relating to municipality's taxation year 1965).
2.	Nil (relating to town of Springhill taxation year 1965). $80,409 approved for payment (relating to town of Springhill taxation year 1966).
3.	Yes. It is expected the institution will be completed during 1966, and that the 1967 grant in lieu of taxes will reflect its increased assessed value.


USE OF PORT OF CHURCHILL, MAN.
Mr. Scott (Danforih): 1.	Has the government received representations from the Hudson Bay route association of Saskatoon, containing copies of the resolutions passed at their 23rd annual convention?
2.	If so, what were the nature of the representations, and what was the nature of the government's responses?
3.	Is the government conducting investigations to ascertain that the seaport at Churchill, Manitoba, is being used to its capacity and, if so, what have been the results of any such investigation?
4.	Is the government conducting investigations to ascertain that the seaport at Churchill, Manitoba, can be used for a longer period of time each year than at present and, if so, what have been the results of any such investigations?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Transport as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	A copy of the resolutions passed at the 23rd annual convention of the Hudson Bay Route Association was received by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Hudson Bay Route Association was assured that its views will be given careful consideration in examining the department's external trade and tourist promotion objectives.
The resolutions directed to the federal government and its agencies involve many aspects of the operation and use of the port of Churchill and its associated railway line. They advocate measures designed to increase the volume of export and import traffic moving over this route.

June 6, 1966
Questions
Those resolutions which involve matters falling within the ambit of the Minister of Transport have been referred to the branches of the department and other agencies concerned, and to Canadian National Railways where appropriate. The Hudson Bay Route Association has been so informed.
3.	The National Harbours Board, who operate the port of Churchill, have under constant review the problem of using the port to its fullest capacity.
4.	The board made arrangements in 1964 with the National Research Council for a study of ice conditions in Churchill harbour. The study was to evaluate the statement that the navigation season could be extended. The terms of reference for the study were enlarged to include a report on how the port would be affected should the flow of the Churchill river be reduced by reason of proposed hydro development. The National Research Council has been conducting field investigations since 1964 and the technical data is being analysed and studied. The work is continuing and no conclusions can be reached until the study is completed.


COMPETITION FOR FIREFIGHTERS, TORONTO AIRPORT
Mr. Scott (Danforth): Did the Department of Transport, or the Civil Service Commission on its behalf, conduct a competition No. 66T775, for the position for firefighters at Toronto international airport at Malton and, if so (a) how many applicants were there in the competition (b) how many wrote the competition and/ or were interviewed (c) what were the qualifications for the said competition (d) what were the results of the said competition?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. (a) 148. (b) 116 were called to interview of whom 33 did not appear, (c) Elementary school education; mechanical ability; mental alertness; evidence of ability to perform the duties outlined; personal suitability; satisfactory physical condition.
Prior to reporting for duty, a candidate must be in possession of a licence that will permit him to drive firefighting vehicles within the area in which he is to be employed.
Candidates will not be accepted who have not reached their 21st birthday or who have reached their 36th birthday (and in the case of candidates having five years of firefighting experience, or having three years of recent progressive experience in a recognized fulltime firefighting organization, their 50th

birthday) before the closing date for receipt of applications.
Continuing employment in this class will be subject to the successful completion of an in-service course in firefighting.
(d) The competition has not reached the stage at which names of the successful candidates are available. It is expected that they will appear in the June 4 issue of the Canada Gazette.


PROTESTS AGAINST SEAL KILLING
Mr. Scott (Danforth): Has the government received representations, letters or cards in protest against the methods being used for the killing of baby seals in the annual seal hunt oil the eastern coasts of Canada and, if so (a) how many such requests, protests, etc., have been received by either The Prime Minister or the Minister of Fisheries, or any government department (b) what action does the government plan in response to any such protests or representations?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes. (a) approximately 5,200. (b) see statement by Minister of Fisheries in Hansard of March 15, 1966, p. 2702.


COMPANIES PURCHASED BY NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	Has Northern Transportation Company Ltd. bought the following companies (a) Yellowknife Transportation Ltd. (b) Arctic Shipping Ltd. (c) Decury Supply Ltd.?
2.	If so (a) what were the reasons for this nationalization (b) how much was paid to the former shareholders in the case of each company (c) what were the valuation standards (d) were the companies integrated with Northern Transportation Company Ltd. or have they become subsidiaries of Northern Transportation Company Ltd.


Arthur Laing: I am informed by the management of Northern Transportation Company Limited as follows:
1.	Northern Transportation Company Limited purchased all the outstanding shares of Yellowknife Transportation Company Ltd., Arctic Shipping Limited and Decury Supply Limited as of April 29, 1965. Prior to consummation of this transaction, it received approval of the committee of the Privy Council under date of April 22, 1965.
2.	(a) The purchase by Northern Transportation Company Limited of the capital stock of the aforesaid three companies cannot be properly regarded as an act of nationalization in view of the fact that the
June 6, 196S



negotiations which led to the transaction were initiated by the management and principal shareholders of the three companies. It is presumed that, underlying the decision of those shareholders to offer the companies to Northern, was the realization that the volume of traffic on the MacKenzie river and along the western Arctic was insufficient to support on an economic and commercially satisfactory basis the operation of competing separate carriers rendering similar services.
(b)	Yellowknife Transportation Company Limited, $1,560,537; Decury Supply Limited, $60,687; Arctic Shipping Limited, $11,385.
(c)	Examination of the record of earnings and an assessment of future earnings by an independent firm of chartered accountants and an assessment of the value of marine equipment by an independent firm of surveyors and appraisers. These independent firms were chosen by Chief Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and were accepted by all parties.
(d)	Operations of the three companies have been integrated into the operations of Northern Transportation Company Limited, but the three companies continue to exist as non-operating subsidiaries of Northern, for the time being.


COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES
Mr. Herridge: 1.	When was the committee on election expenses appointed?
2.	Who are the members of this committee?
3.	What are the terms of reference for the committee?
4.	How many public hearings have been held by the committee, and at what places in Canada?
5.	What remuneration has been paid to each member of the committee to the end of April, 1966?
6.	What expenses have been paid to each member of the committee to April 30, 1966?
7.	What are the names of the staff employed by the committee, and the remuneration paid to each person to April 30, 1966?
8.	What expenses were paid to each member of the staff employed by the committee to April 30, 1966?
9.	What other expenses have been incurred by the committee to April 30, 1966?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The committee on election expenses was appointed on October 22, 1964.
2. The members of this committee are: (a) Alphonse Barbeau, Montreal, Quebec (Chairman); (b) Hon. M. J. Coldwell, Ottawa, Ontario; (c) Gordon Dryden, Toronto, Ontario; (d) Arthur R. Smith, Calgary, Alberta; (e)
Questions
Prof. Norman M. Ward, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
3.	The terms of reference are "to inquire into and report on the desirable and practical measures to limit and control federal election expenditures".
4.	The public hearings that have been held by the committee and the places in Canada are:
Date	Places
December 9, 1965 Regina, Saskatchewan
Professor Norman Ward, The Saskatchewan Hotel.
December 10, 1965 Winnipeg, Manitoba
Professor Norman Ward, The Fort Garry Hotel.
December 10, 1965 Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. Arthur R. Smith, Hotel Vancouver.
December 10, 1965 Toronto, Ontario
Mr. Gordon R. Dryden, The Royal York Hotel.
December 10, 1965 Montreal, Quebec
Mr. Alphonse Barbeau, The Old Court House Building.
December 10, 1965 Halifax, Nova Scotia Hon. M. J. Coldwell,
The Nova Scotian Hotel.
5.	The amount of remuneration that has been paid to each member of the committee to the end of April, 1966 is:
Name
Remuneration
A. Barbeau	$ 7,900.00
Hon. M. J. Coldwell	7,900.00
G. Dryden	6,950.00
A. R. Smith	6,200.00
Prof. N. M. Ward	3,600.00
Total
32,550.00
6.	The expenses that have been paid to each member of the committee to April 30, 1966 are:
Name	Expenses
A. Barbeau	3,722.14
Hon. M. J. Coldwell	2,445.24
G. Dryden	3,119.04
A. R. Smith	3,551.65
Prof. N. M. Ward	659.95
Total	13,498.02

June 8, 1966
Questions
7. The names of the staff employed by the committee, and the remuneration paid to each person to April 30, 1966 are:
Name	Salary
J. E. Archambault	531.70
R. Barbe	17,434.81
J. L. Brown	6,449.76
P. Y. Delage	3,214.57
Y. M. T. Demers	5,319.26
M. M. Dupuis	5,647.98
C. Gauthier	2,005.93
H. Laurier	444.77
J. G. Levasseur	5,557.47
J. P. McCalla	3,811.00
D. McLaughlin	783.43
M. A. Morency	2,727.40
J. S. McEachran	19,656.75
C. A. Nicholls	747.70
H. P. Noble	4,382.76
K. Z. Paltiel	13,354.61
M. C. Rand	2,002.03
J. B. McAulay	2,660.09
R. A. Whitaker	5,905.33
F. Rosenfeld	1,680.16
E. W. Richardson	3,212.05
Total	107,529.56
8. The expenses paid to each member of the staff employed by the committee to April 30, 1966 are:	
Name	
H. E. Alexander	23.72
R. Barbe	2,431.83
J. L. Brown	154.55
Y. M. T. Demers	600.00
J. G. Levasseur	12.80
J. S. McEachran	4,124.32
H. P. Noble	169.45
K. Z. Paltiel	2,439.95
E. E. Roady	166.68
R. Rose	70.51
R. A. Whitaker	148.30
Total	10,342.11
9. Other expenses that have been incurred by the committee to April 30, 1966:
Total	26,722.22


CENSUS COMMISSIONERS, PRINCE COUNTY, P.E.I.
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	What census commissioners were appointed from Prince county to take part in the census this year?
2.	Who recommended them for appointment?
3.	What will their duties he?
4.	What remuneration will they receive?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1.	The census commissioners appointed for Prince county are: Mr. W. A. Cotton. Mr. J. Morrison, Mr. J. B. DesRoches, Mr. A. B. Wells.
2.	The appointments were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce following recommendations and interviews by the regional office representative of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
3.	The census commissioner is responsible for the organization and successful completion of the 1966 census for all enumeration areas in the census district assigned to him. Census commissioners are required to have a thorough knowledge of the census district to which they are appointed; to handle any special problems likely to be encountered; to attend training sessions; to receive, check and distribute supplies; to select suitable applicants for census enumerators, test and appoint the most competent as enumerators; conduct a prescribed training course for the appointed enumerators and instruct them in their duties; to supervise the work of each enumerator during the field enumeration to ensure that it is carried through to a successful completion; to check carefully the work turned in by each enumerator and to ensure that it is complete and accurate before forwarding to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
4.	A census commission is paid the sum of $1,100 when the field work in his census district is completed to the satisfaction of the dominion statistician. In addition, travel expenses are allowable in accordance with government travel regulations in rural areas, and an allowance of $20 or $40 in lieu of travel expenses in urban and semi-urban areas.
June 6, 1966


CENSUS COMMISSIONERS, VICTORIA AND CAPE BRETON COUNTIES, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What are the names and addresses of the census commissioners who have been selected in (a) Victoria county, and (b) Cape Breton county, Nova Scotia?
2.	What remuneration will they receive and for how long a period will they act?
3.	Are these census commissioners presently employed and, if so, what is the name of their employer and what positions do they hold?
4.	What are the names of the individuals selected by each of the census commissioners to carry out the census and what is their remuneration and for how long a period will they act?
5.	How many of the census commissioners and the individuals selected are veterans?
6.	What method was used to select these census commissioners and what are their qualifications to carry out the job for which they have been engaged?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1.	The census commissioners appointed for the constituency of Cape Breton North and Victoria are: Mr. Allison D. Turnbull, P.O. Box 445, Sydney, N.S.; Mrs. Thomas A. McDonald, Burnside Drive R.R. No. 3, Sydney, N.S.; Mr. John H. MacDonald 23 Clyde Avenue, Sydney Mines, N.S.; Mr. Duncan F. Buchanan. Bad-deck Forks, N.S.
The census commissioners appointed for the constituency of Cape Breton South are: Mr. Kenneth N. Macrury, Birch Grove, Cape Breton County, N.S.; Mr. Bernard Currie, 316 King Edward Street, Glace Bay, N.S.; Mrs. Helen Ryan, New Victoria, Cape Breton, N.S.; Mr. W. Reid Ross, 76 Rigby Road, Sydney, N.S.; Mr. Joseph MacArthur, 659 Prince Street, Sydney, N.S.
2.	Census commissioners are paid the sum of $1,100 when the field work is completed to the satisfaction of the dominion statistician. In addition, travel expenses are allowable in accordance with government travel regulations in rural areas, and an allowance of $20 and $40 in lieu of travel expenses in the urban and semi-urban areas.
Census commissioners started work on the cenusus part time in April and early May, and are full time during the latter part of May and June until all field work in their area is completed to the satisfaction of the dominion statistician.
3.	Information is not yet available on all of the persons.
Questions
4.	Names of census enumerators are not yet available as they are appointed by the census commissioner in their particular area on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Enumerators pay is based upon the number of forms completed accurately; a basic rate of 8 cents for each person enumerated; $1.00 for each farm holding enumerated; 15 cents for each merchandising establishment and from 5 cents to 8 cents per dwelling listed. In semi-rural and rural areas allowances are paid in lieu of travel expenses. If instruction regarding population and agriculture is required, enumerators will receive $22. If instruction regarding population only is required, enumerators will receive $12.
An enumerator will be expected to work full time on the assignment which might last between one to three weeks depending on the efficiency of the enumerator and the population density of the enumeration area.
5.	Three of the above census commissioners are known to be veterans. Information is not yet available concerning census enumerators as they are appointed by the census commissioner for each census district.
6.	The appointments were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce following recommendations and interviews by the regional office representative of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The qualifications are: a good education with subsequent professional or business experience in a supervisory capacity, intimate knowledge of the census district, proven executive and organizing ability; tact, good judgment and ability to deal with the public.


MANPOWER SERVICES LIMITED
Mr. Lambert: 1.	In setting up the Department of Manpower and the establishment of a manpower service office, what consideration has been given to the existing positions of the national commercial enterprise Manpower Services Limited?
2.	Has any contact been established with this firm with respect to the confusion which may arise through the similarity of names as Manpower Services Limited has been established in 19 communities in Canada?
3.	Has a legal opinion been obtained from the law officers of the crown with respect to the proposed use of the term "manpower service office" and, if so, has the opinion confirmed any right of usage of the said term by the government of Canada?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1.	Careful consideration is being given, with the object of avoiding a confusion of names

June 6, 1966
Questions
which would be inconvenient for the department as well as for the company Manpower Services (Ontario) Ltd.
2.	Yes, both by correspondence and by discussion.
3.	There is no intention of using "manpower service office" as a name. The only use of the term by the department has been in an informal sense (without capital letters) to express the change of function from "employment office" (also not a formal name). The legal opinion asked from the law offices of the crown has therefore related to the general question of terminology for the department. Discussions and consultations are proceeding before arriving at any detailed decisions on names for the parts of the department.


GROSS FEDERAL DEBT
Mr. Mather: What was the gross amount of the federal debt in 1959 and 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: Gross Public Debt (in millions of dollars) As at	Unmatured	Other
March 31	debt liabilities Total
1959	15,574.1	4,672.7	20,246.81965	18,978.2	7,595.2	26,573.4
Source: Public Accounts of Canada.


AIR CANADA ORDERS FOR JET AIRCRAFT
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Has Air Canada placed orders for the elongated series of the DC8 jet transport, specifically, the model series 60, 61 or 63?
2.	If so, which series, how many, and in and out of what terminals will they operate?
3.	What steps are being taken to (a) strengthen the existing runways to handle the new series (b) ensure against undue noise levels?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advise as follows: -
1.	Yes.
2.	Six DC-8-61 series aircraft on order. They may be operated in and out of the same terminals as present DC-8 fleet-Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax.
3.	(a) and (b) Because of the gross weight of the DC-8-61 being only 10,000 lbs. heavier than present models, there is no significant effect on runway requirements or noise abatement procedures.
[Mr. Munro.l


CHATHAM, N.B. AIR BASE-TENDERS FOR ELECTRICAL WORK
Mr. Flemming: 1.	Did Defence Construction (1951) Limited advertise and receive public tenders on behalf of Coronet Paving Ltd. for electrical work on Chatham air base, and (a) if so, is this the regular method of securing bids for electrical work (b) if not, why were tenders not called for in the regular way?
2.	What was the name of the low bidder?
3.	At any time after close of tenders, was the low bidder asked by Defence Construction (1951) Limited to reduce his competitive tender and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what was the name, position and duties of the Defence Construction (1951) Limited officer who made this request?
4.	After the close of tenders, did Defence Construction (1951) Limited request the low bidder to come to Ottawa at his own expense for interrogation, and was the low bidder requested to reduce his price?
5.	If this meeting was held, what was the result and who were the officers of Defence Construction (1951) Limited who interviewed the low bidder?
6.	Does Defence Construction (1951) Limited intend to award the contract to the low bidder and, if not, for what reason?
7.	If tenders are to be recalled, what steps will be taken or have been taken by Defence Construction (1951) Limited to protect the now publicly disclosed tender of the low bidder in the event that he is required to submit a new tender?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes (a) No. (b) It was
necessary to call tenders for apron reconstruction at Chatham in the late autumn of 1965 in order for the successful contractor to locate and arrange for the supply of granular materials so that construction could begin as soon as weather permitted in the spring of 1966. Tenders were accordingly called for the apron reconstruction in October 1965. Plans and specifications covering the electrical portion of the project were not complete at that time. Since this electrical work was an integral part of the apron reconstruction project it was essential that the general contractor should have control over this work in order to co-ordinate it properly as part of the apron reconstruction project. The contract with Coronet Paving Ltd., the prime contractor, awarded on January 31, 1966, contained a provision that tenders would subsequently be called on behalf of the contractor for the lighting system when the plans and specifications were available. Tenders, therefore, were called in early February 1966, closing March 2, 1966, for this electrical work.
2. Alfred T. Mockler, New Denmark, N.B. was the only bidder.
Juno 6, 1966

3.	Yes (a) his price was approximately 50 per cent higher than DCL's estimate, (b) Mr. A. B. Sainthill, chief, tender review section.
4.	and 5. No, however, at Mr. Mockler's request a meeting was held in Ottawa and Defence Construction (1951) Limited was represented by Mr. J. H. Stitt, assistant chief engineer, Mr. A. J. Forsyth, chief estimator, and Mr. E. A. Weaver, senior electrical estimator. Mr. Mockler's bid price was reviewed in detail and he was advised that DCL could not justify his bid price.
6.	No. See (5) above.
7.	None. New tenders will be based on a modified scope of work.


POLLUTION STUDY OF RED RIVER
Mr. Schreyer: Has the international joint commission or any agency of the government of Canada involved itself in a study of water pollution of the Red River?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Mines and Technical Surveys, National Health and Welfare and Secretary of State for External Affairs as follows:
In 1962 the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission requested the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to undertake daily water sampling of the Red river and analyse the samples for chemical quality. A sampling station was established at Emerson, Manitoba and samples have been taken on a continuing basis. Bacterial pollution determinations are not made but surveillance of chemical changes that may indicate pollution is being maintained.
Yes. In October 1964, the governments of Canada and the United States requested the International Joint Commission to investigate pollution of the Red river. The commission has established a technical advisory board, on which two senior officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare are the federal representatives, one being the co-chairman.
At the request of the Canadian and United States governments on October 1, 1964, the International Joint Commission is investigating the quality of the waters crossing the international boundary in the Red river with a view to recommending any necessary remedial measures.
Questions


URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	How many urban renewal projects are at present in progress in Canada?
2.	How many are in progress in each of the ten provinces?
3.	How many projects has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved for each year since 1960?
4.	Where are these projects for each of these years located?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1 and 2. Preparation and implementation of urban renewal schemes approved under the N.H.A.
Number of projects underway at May 27, 1966, by province
Prepara- Implementation!1)
Areas	tion of Schemes	of Schemes
Newfoundland	5		
P. E. Island			-
Nova Scotia	2	2New Brunswick	2	1Quebec	5	3Ontario	9	8Manitoba	2	1Saskatchewan	1	1Alberta	3	1British Columbia	2	3CANADA	31	20
P) Includes activity approved prior to 1960.
3.	Preparation and implementation of urban renewal schemes approved under the N.H.A.
Number of Projects Approved, by Year 1960 - May 27, 1966
Year	Preparation	Implementation
	of Schemes	of Schemes
1960			3
1961			1
1962			2
1963			3
1964	4	41965	26	41966	7	2Jan.-May 27 TOTAL	37	194. Preparation and implementation of ur-	ban renewal	schemes approved under the


N.H.A. COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1966
Questions
Location of Projects Approved 1960 - May 27th, 1966
1960, Saint John, N.B., Sarnia, Ontario, Vancouver, B.C.; 1961, Winnipeg, Manitoba; 1962, Montreal, P.Q., Hamilton, Ontario; 1963, Halifax, N.S., Montreal, P.Q., Ottawa, Ontario; 1964, Hamilton, Ontario, Kingston, Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Vancouver, B.C.;	1965,
Corner Brook, Nfld., St. John's, Nfld., Amherst, N.S., Dartmouth, N.S., Moncton, N.B., Hull, P.Q., Montreal, P.Q., Trois-Rivieres, P.Q., Kitchener, Ontario, London, Ontario, Mountjoy Twp., Ontario, Port Arthur, Ontario, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Sudbury, Ontario, Torontor, Ontario, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Regina, Saskatchewan, Calgary, Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Burnaby, B.C., Victoria, B.C.; 1966 Jan-May 27, Sydney, N.S., St. Jerome, P.Q., Westmount, P.Q., Neelon and Garson Twps., Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, North Bat-tleford, Saskatchewan, Calgary, Alberta, Medicine Hat, Alberta.

Mr. Stefanson: Has the government any plans to build R.C.MJ1. detachment barracks at Stonewall, Manitoba and, if so (a) has land been purchased (b) when will this project be proceeded with?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It
is not intended to proceed with crown construction of R.C.M.P. detachment quarters at Stonewall, Manitoba. An agreement has been entered into for construction of detachment quarters at Stonewall by private enterprise, for long term lease to the force. The new building is expected to be ready for occupancy by August 1, 1966.


AIRPORT EXPENDITURES, CASTLEGAR, B.C.
Mr. Herridge: What has been the total expenditure on the Castlegar, B.C. airport since its establishment up to March 31, 1966, by the Department of Transport, and the amount provided for in the estimates, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Total expenditure to March 31, 1966, $233,369; amount provided for in 1966-67 Estimates, $299,000.


REPLIES TO LETTERS TO FOREIGN OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
Mr. Irvine: 1. How many replies have been received as a result of letters sent to subsidiaries in Canada of

foreign owned companies by the Department of Trade and Commerce on or about March 31, 1966?
2.	How many such companies were circularized?
3.	What are the follow up plans for those companies that have not as yet replied?
4.	What were the over-all item by item totals of all reports received in answer to questions 1 to 9 on form "A"?
5.	What were the over-all itemized totals of replies on "geographical allocation of expenses and other items of the reporting companies", questions 1 to 15 inclusive?
6.	What were the over-all itemized totals in reply to form "B"?
7.	What were the over-all itemized totals of all replies to questions regarding "geographical allocation of liabilities and capital items of reporting companies"?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The letter of March 31 to foreign owned companies in Canada did not request a reply. Acknowledgments have been received from some 250 chief executive officers, some of which represent several companies.
2.	3,950.
3.	Answered by 1. See below.
4.	5, 6 and 7. Questionnaire forms requesting certain information on operations and financing, on a confidential basis, were sent to the 300 largest foreign owned subsidiary companies on or about May 24 and additional companies will be circularized shortly.


POST OFFICES CLOSED
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): How many post offices were closed during the past ten years in each of the provinces?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Post Offices Post Offices			
Province	closed	established	N ewf oundland	55	114Prince Edward Island	8	4Nova Scotia	393	29New Brunswick	254	9Quebec	353	361Ontario	402	472Manitoba	91	65Saskatchewan	242	66Alberta	249	137British Columbia	210	178Yukon	2	6Northwest Territories	5	12Total	2264	1453Post Offices closed	2264	Post Offices established	1453	Net decrease	811	
June 6, 1966


STRENGTH OF RESERVE FORCE
Mr. MacRae: What was the effective strength of the Canadian reserve force as of March 31 of each of the following years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. 1963,	59,678;	1964,
53,207; 1965, 36,554; 1966, 33,179.


ADVERTISING AGENCY, ARMED FORCES RECRUITMENT
Mr. Nasserden: 1.	Has an advertising agency or agencies been engaged by the government for the recruitment program of the armed services?
2.	If so (a) have contracts been let (b) what is the total costs of these contracts (c) what is the name of the agency or agencies engaged?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes.
2. (a) Yes; (b) Approximately $760,000; (c) Vickers & Benson Ltd., Toronto.


BAN ON USE OF STILBESTROL
Mr. Noble: Will the Department of National Health and Welfare ban the indiscriminate use of Stilbestrol in the feeding of livestock used for food since the United States Food and Drug Administration have recently recognized Stilbestrol as a cancer causing agent and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Department of National Health and Welfare has no evidence of the indiscriminate use of stilbestrol in the feeding of livestock. Market surveys of the meat of cattle administered feed containing stilbestrol have been made and no residues of the drug have been found in the edible tissues of the treated cattle.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lambert: 1.	What are the names of the (a) census commissioners (b) assistant commissioners or area supervisors, by constituency, for the seventeen constituencies in the province of Alberta?
2.	When were they appointed?
3.	On whose recommendation (s), by constituencies, were they appointed?
Return tabled.
Questions


CASEIN PRODUCTION
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many factories produce casein (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec?
2.	For each year since 1960, what was the value of the casein produced and in what quantity was it produced (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec?
3.	For the same years, how much casein was exported and to what countries?
4.	Since 1960, has casein been imported into Canada and, if so, in what countries was it purchased?
5.	What is the annual consumption of casein in Canada?
6.	At the present time, is there any surplus casein in storage and, if so, in what quantity?
Return tabled.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to place a question before the Minister of Labour. I would like to ask the minister to inform the house whether any progress has been made in the longshoremen's strike in Montreal; and can he also inform us of the present status of negotiations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the mediator, Judge Lippe, spent some hours in Ottawa yesterday. He gave me an interim report of developments up to the end of last week. He has returned to Montreal faced with some very difficult decisions, because I will not say proposals and counterproposals have been made but certainly suggestions for a possible settlement were being made right up to Saturday last.
The mediator proposes to have the parties meet again tomorrow, if at all possible, when he has sorted out these various things, to which I have referred as suggestions rather than as counterproposals. In any event that meeting, if it does not take place tomorrow, should take place Wednesday morning.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A brief supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether the minister has considered or is considering bringing the parties to the capital.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As I have said before, I have great confidence in the mediator and his ability to mediate and narrow issues. I had the parties come to Ottawa once, and unless I

June 6, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry have a recommendation from the mediator with regard to a move such as my hon. friend has suggested I do not think it would be fitting for me to request them to come here, while the mediator is working along the lines that he is at present.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as chairman of treasury board. I should like to ask the minister whether the job classification revision being done in the civil service, and particularly in the customs and excise branch, is having the effect of materially reducing the salaries of certain categories before they have had any opportunity to negotiate under the new collective bargaining legislation.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, a program of reclassification is being carried out by the Civil Service Commission. A substantial number of customs and excise officers are included in the first phase of the reclassification program, the application of which to some 50,000 civil service positions was announced a few weeks ago. In no case is the salary of an employee reduced. If the classification of a particular position is too high according to the standards established under the new classification system, the position is red-circled, which means that the employee retains his existing salary range until the established salary rates for the new classification of the position catch up. No reductions in salaries are involved.
I might point out incidentally that the reclassification is being carried on in consultation with civil service organizations which are, I understand, generally in agreement with the objectives of the program.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he has received a telegram from the executive of the Vancouver branch of the customs and excise officers association protesting that some 97 men who are affected will each have a reduction of some $1,533. May I also ask the minister if he would consider leaving this matter of reclassification until it can be dealt with through the collective bargaining process which the government is setting up.


Edgar John Benson: The system of reclassification has to be carried out in order to establish units under the system of collective bargaining. To my knowledge there is no reduction in the salary of any employee as a result of the reclassification system. May I also say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not received the telegram mentioned by my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam, either in my capacity as Minister of National Revenue or in my capacity as vice chairman of the treasury board.


Mr. G. L. Chaiierfon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a supplementary question which I wish to direct to the Minister of National Revenue. The minister said the reclassification has to be completed in order to establish bargaining agencies. Can the minister say whether any of these red circle positions can be referred to the bargaining agency after it has been set up?


Edgar John Benson: Undoubtedly the red circle positions, as long as they exist, will be discussed in collective bargaining to the extent that the employees concerned are included in bargaining units. Incidentally, the bargaining units will be determined initially by reference to the classification system.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE CHANGE IN DATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has made any decision as yet on whether he will be going ahead with the federal-provincial conference which was to have been held next week in Victoria?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. The matter is now under consideration in the light of recent developments.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I
ask the Prime Minister then if he can tell us on what date we might expect the by-election in Nicolet-Yamaska to be called?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


George Louis Chatterton: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the possibility that the conference which was to have been held on June 16 may
June 6, 1966	COMMONS
be postponed, and in view of the reply given by the Prime Minister last Thursday with regard to scholarship and bursary programs, can the Prime Minister, in order to satisfy the concern of the students, assure us that this program of bursaries and scholarships will be proceeded with regardless of such a possible postponement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker; and I would hope that if there is a postponement it will only be a short one. However, we will proceed with our consultations with the provinces on this and other related educational matters.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that I did not hear the Minister of Public Works mention legislation on scholarships and bursaries while he was outlining the work that was to be dealt with prior to the recess, is it the government's intention to deal with this matter before the recess in view of the fact that any bursaries and scholarships to be of value next academic year will have to be dealt with soon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is legislation on the order paper respecting student loans, but the question of bursaries and scholarships was not included in those matters which it was hoped we could deal with before the summer recess because these were matters to be discussed with the provinces at the forthcoming conference. It was not thought likely we could deal with this until resumption of the session in the fall.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the Prime Minister. In order that scholarships and bursaries might be available by September, would the government consider negotiating with the provinces specifically with regard to that phase, so that legislation can be introduced before the recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that suggestion. We had hoped that at the forthcoming conference we would be able to exchange views which would expedite the final decision. If that conference is to be postponed for any length of time-and no decision has been made about that-then I agree that we should proceed at once.
DEBATES	5995
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



INABILITY TO RECOVER COSTS IN SUPREME COURT ACTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that Mr. Charles Gherardosi, a constituent of mine, won a precedent shattering judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada on March 11 last but is unable to collect his major costs because he appeared in person, without legal counsel, would the minister consider an amendment to the Supreme Court Act to rectify this type of injustice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if the question is of national interest or importance, except perhaps in view of the fact it was posed by the hon. member for Kootenay West.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: In
the absence of the Minister of Transport perhaps I could put this question to the Minister without Portfolio. It has to do with the separation of air routes on north Atlantic flights which have been the subject of some questioning recently. Did the Canadian government reject the seven point compromise solution presented by the F.A.A. of the United States and approved by the international federation of airline pilots as well as the Air Transport Association of the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see how this question is so urgent that it should be asked at this time.


Robert William Prittie: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the discussions are continuing in Washington this week, and the question has been asked a number of times in the last few months. Negotiations are going on at the present time.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Public Works will not mind if I put this question to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the announcement about the building of a

June 6. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
national defence headquarters in this city to Mr. Sharp: The government has not yet a height greater than any building we may had an opportunity of thoroughly studying now have in Ottawa. May I ask if this is the Dr. Donald's report, and we have not yet final decision and, if it is, will the govern- reached a decision as to when it would be ment reconsider it in the light of the desira- appropriate to publish it. bility of the peace tower continuing to dominate the skyline of this city?	HATE LITERATURE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this question is not so urgent it should be put verbally at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I may make the suggestion that the Prime Minister take the question as notice and answer it another day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; and I hope the hon. member will not mind if I take up this matter with the Minister of Public Works.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. A. J. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make to the house concerning a report that it has been agreed by the NATO countries that the military headquarters in France will be relocated in one of the Benelux countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I have not had word to the effect that any decision has been made on this matter. I have seen the reports in the press this morning. As soon as there is anything to report, and assuming that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not returned, I will be glad to make a report to the house.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has yet received the Donald report.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I
ask a supplementary question. Will the minister make that report available, or at least pass on its contents to the interested parties, the union and the company in Cape Breton?


INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice when we can expect legislation against the publication and distribution of hate literature, as recommended by the Cohen committee report.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has completed its study of the Cohen committee report on hate literature. Recommendations on the matter are before the government. I do not know exactly when legislation will be before the house.


PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Public Works could indicate what has happened to the legislation regulating pensions which come under federal jurisdiction, which the Minister of Finance said last Thursday he had recommended to the Prime Minister. Why was it not included in the list of business announced today?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I was unable to hear the legislation to which the hon. member was referring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the legislation that the Minister of Finance recommended, which would regulate private pension plans which come under federal jurisdiction.


George James McIlraith: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the
June 8. 1966	COMMONS
Minister of Public Works did not announce that the legislation setting up the Canada Development Corporation would be introduced prior to the summer recess, am I to take it that the Minister of Finance does not intend to proceed with this legislation until late fall?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, while this is very important legislation, I think it is more important that we proceed with the items which have been announced by the house leader.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Due to recent developments concerning construction of the Grande Hermine, would it be possible for me to have the correspondence ordered by this house three weeks ago?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we will facilitate that return at the earliest possible moment.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
Lester Bowles Pearson: the third reading of Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate I rise for the purpose of making only one point, which I wish to direct to the attention of the government by way of an objection to this kind of legislation. If I may put it without misunderstanding, I want to issue a warning that should this method be repeated in the future we will do more than record a mere objection but will do our very best by proper parliamentary means to prevent the passage of legislation in this form.
I refer, of course, to the practice incorporated in this bill of what I think can best be described as omnibus legislation; that is to say, the introduction of a single bill affecting a very large number of established statutes. This is not a new problem in this House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. We in the official opposition on a number of occasions in earlier years have recorded our very strenuous objection to this method of legislation.
DEBATES	5997
Government Organization [DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I recall especially during the years 1953 to 1957. I think it is accurate to say that if hon. members will consult the Hansards of that period it will be found, generally speaking, that our objections in principle were accepted and the government of that day agreed to refrain and did in fact refrain from the practice of omnibus legislation. When our government was in office from 1957 to 1963, although I do not and cannot claim that our record was perfect in this regard, it was certainly the exception rather than the rule for any omnibus legislation to be introduced. Certainly the instances when more than one bill was affected were rare in number, and the number of bills or statutes affected by any one bill in each case were very small.
The dimensions of the problem that I am dealing with today may be recognized when it is seen that Bill No. C-178 has to do with eight new departments of government. I call them new departments because, while it is true that only six are new in name, two others, namely the Treasury Board and the Department of State are so substantially reconstituted as in effect to amount to new departments. As I say, this one bill sets up eight government departments. The same bill amends in very substantial ways five existing statutes; the Department of Public Works Act, the Department of Forestry Act, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys Act-these last two named are partially repealed-the Financial Administration Act and the Salaries Act. Then if you refer to the first part of schedule A you will find that this schedule transfer responsibility for administration of 54 statutes to new ministers or departments as compared with the present situation. Schedule B lists, in addition to the changes I have enumerated already, 30 acts which are amended or repealed in whole or in part, including the complete repeal of three existing statutes.
Mr. Speaker, surely there can be few more important pieces of legislation than those setting up new departments of government and constituting such a substantial reorganization of government administration. I submit that it is objectionable in principle and bad in practice that all those changes affecting such a wide spectrum of the operations and responsibilities of government should be incorporated in one statute. What is the man to do who is advising clients? What is the citizen taxpayer to do who wants to know, when dealing with the government, what is
June 6. 1966

Government Organization the authority and responsibility of the minister and department with whom, he is dealing? He will no longer be able to turn to the statute bearing the name of the department, in many cases. If he wants to deal with the department of energy, mines and resources he will not be able to find a statute entitled "An act respecting the department of energy, mines and resources". If he wants to deal with the Treasury Board he will not be able to refer to a statute called, perhaps, the treasury board act.


Edgar John Benson: There is no department of the treasury board.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the citizen taxpayer wishes to deal with the Department of Forestry, or with the new department of forestry and rural development, he will not find an act entitled "The department of forestry and rural development act". I could go on through the bill giving examples of the difficulties which Canadian citizens are going to be confronted with in finding specific statutes dealing with the authorities and responsibilities of ministers or departments of government.
Sir, I might go on to speak of how the government, by this omnibus schedule consolidating and listing changes in so many acts previously administered by one minister and transferred to another, has further compounded the difficulties of the Canadian citizen. I submit that it would be most desirable if there could be in every case an appropriate statute corresponding to the name of the government department to which it refers, where the duties and responsibilities of the minister and the department will be set out. In that statute there should be the collection of acts administered by or under the responsibility of that department. This would be the proper and responsible way to legislate.
It is true that it might take a little longer to get such legislation through the House of Commons, but I doubt it. We had, in effect, six or seven separate debates at the committee stage of this bill. I doubt very much if in the over-all picture it would take appreciably longer to get the legislation through the house, were the legislation properly organized and separated as I am suggesting. And if it did take longer, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is our responsibility as legislators and members of parliament-and it should be the responsibility of the government-to introduce legislation in that form. If doing that makes

it a little less convenient to get the legislation through the house, the government is not entitled to raise that as an excuse for imposing a very much greater inconvenience on the Canadian people.
We considered very carefully whether at this stage we should move an amendment to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole with instructions to divide it into the appropriate seven or eight parts. However, on reflection we came to the conclusion that the more appropriate course to be followed at this stage would be to register in the most emphatic terms our objection in principle to this method of legislation, and to refrain from moving an amendment at this stage.
Having served this notice, let me make it clear that should this course presently being followed be followed in future, there will be the most strenuous and, if necessary, protracted efforts to divide legislation into its component parts in order that the proper interest of both parliament and the Canadian people may be served.
On this occasion, however, I content myself, on behalf of this party and the official opposition with saying that having registered our objection, we intend to allow the bill to carry on division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my words at this stage will be very brief. I should like to support the protest that has been made by the hon. member for Kamloops. Indeed, it is appropriate that I should do so, since I made the same protest when we were debating this bill on second reading. My speech on that occasion occupied less than a page, and began on page 5514 of Hansard for May 25.
I indicated then that we thought it was unfair and inappropriate to have legislation governing a number of departments gathered together in one statute, as distinct from the general rule, which is to have an act for each separate department. We share the view of the hon. member for Kamloops that though this is something we feel strongly about, it is not something which calls for an amendment or for the dividing of the house.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I should like to ask, however, that someone on the government side make a comment on the matter at this point. When I spoke on this subject on May 25 I suggested that the alternative to going back and re-doing this legislation in several separate bills would be for the government to request the commission
June 6, 1966

which has the job of revising the statutes to do the necessary work so that when we get the next issue of the Revised Statutes of Canada the separate pieces of departmental legislation would be in separate places.
The Minister of National Revenue responded generously to my appeal on May 25, using these words as recorded in Hansard at page 5515:
We would certainly be glad to pass along the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If what he says can possibly be done we will see that it is done.
Well, a couple of weeks have gone by and I wonder whether the Minister of National Revenue, or the Minister of Justice, or the Solicitor General, or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who seems to be showing an interest, have done something about it and can tell us that an assurance has been received that this is something which the commission revising the statutes can do for us.
I need not spell out the argument X put forward on May 25 and which the hon. member for Kamloops has advanced today so convincingly, but I think we would appreciate an assurance that the legislation respecting each department of government will appear in a separate place in the statutes of Canada when they have been revised.


Edgar John Benson: I reiterate the assurance I gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on May 28-


Stanley Howard Knowles: May 25.


Edgar John Benson: On May 25. May 28 was my birthday; I remember that date. I took up the hon. member's suggestion at the time, verbally, with my colleague the Minister of Justice, and he assured me this could be done. I appreciate the argument put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops. Perhaps, in retrospect, it would have been better to bring in half a dozen bills dealing with this matter, but the government did not feel that debate would be in any way inhibited by the introduction of one omnibus measure; and I do not believe, if we look back on the debate, that we could reasonably prove that debate has in fact been inhibited in any way.
As to the question of the departmental arrangements, let me simply say this. Looking at the statute for one particular department would not give one full knowledge of what is going on. I would refer hon. members
Yukon Act
to the Canada Year Book, which one can consult to find out what responsibilities fall to particular departments of government. This information is given fairly fully, together with a list of statutes falling within the ambit of particular departments.
The hon. member for Kamloops said something which made me very happy when, in the course of his remarks, he drew attention to the importance of this legislation. I say this because, as I recall it, his leader and several other members of his party were minimizing the importance of this legislation not too long ago, and saying it did not carry out anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


YUKON ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Laing for the second reading of Bill No. C-147, to amend the Yukon Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Dinsdale.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Lamberl:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Had I voted I would have supported the amendment.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Speaker, I now am brave enough to declare that I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Secretary of State.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Mr. Nielsen:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be
read a third time?


Erik Nielsen: By leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Laing: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson for the second reading of Bill No. C-181, respecting employment in the public service of Canada.
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, since ten o'clock last Tuesday I have been suffering the horrible frustrations of an undelivered and uncompleted speech. When the debate was adjourned I had just expressed approval, an approval in which all my colleagues on this side and my friends on the other side may well not concur, of the extension of civil service procedures and the merit system to prevailing rates employees.
Very briefly, I should like to discuss the application of the merit system as it applies in the new bill. A feature of the new bill which bothers me is the endeavour to import into the definition of merit certain selection standards based upon such factors as residence, language, age "or any other matters that, in the opinion of the commission, are necessary or desirable having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed." That clause in my opinion gives the commission the right to drive a horse and cart through the merit system. Since 1918 the merit system
June 6, 1S66

has been sacrosanct. Now the commission is given full authority to say that merit is not merit; it may be colour of eyes, curl of hair, warmth of smile or whatever the commission in its whim decides.
But let no one be under any illusion as to the desired purpose. This provision is intended to regularize what the commission has already done in importing language into merit, and all the other words are a cover. Under the old Civil Service Act such factors as residence and language were matters of job requisites, conditions precedent, if you like, to appointment. These features are retained in the new act but the new act is very different in adding something to them. Residence, language, age and other factors are made selection standards in the assessment of merit. In my view this constitutes a conflict of words. What it means is that merit is no longer merit. It is no longer to be determined by objective tests and objective standards. Merit is always to be subjective. I want to warn the government and the commission that they are embarking upon a dangerous course which may well destroy the whole merit system.
The present government policy on bilingualism in the public service is causing the most extensive demoralization I have ever seen. Anger is coupled with grave anxiety and deep consternation, and in my opinion recruitment of the best minds will fall off. I do not intend to repeat this afternoon what I said in the house on March 8. My position is very clear and unequivocal. Where performance of the work or effective service to the public requires a bilingual officer, it should be specified as a job requisite, a condition precedent, and none but bilingual persons should be appointed. But to give a preference for bilingualism in the assessment of merit for a unilingual job is a pure travesty of the merit system. The mere fact that the government has had to exempt the scientific, technical and professional fields from their policies on bilingualism is the clearest evidence of its immaturity, of its lack of present practicality, of its dangers to the whole public service.
Because I have tried to be frank and open in my approach to this problem I have been branded as anti-French. Having spent a considerable part of my life in endeavouring to bridge the gaps between races in this country, I resent that suggestion and resent it deeply. No French speaking person who has ever known me has ever believed me to be unsympathetic. Expression of realistic, honest and knowledgeable opinions in this field
Employment in the Public Service
should not lead to abuse of those persons, and I hope I am one, who will prove to understand the basis of Canadian unity best. Basic and realistic national understanding is something that I believe I can help to achieve if the political neophytes will wait until they understand the basis of Canadian unity better.
I think members of the house generally will welcome the retention of the veterans preference. It has served an important national purpose. On the other hand, the utility of the preference in its existing form is diminishing year by year and my hope would be that the special joint committee might have discussions with the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations about methods of making the theory behind the veterans preference more effective in the years ahead.
One of the fields in which the government has shown no disposition to experimentation is in the definition of political partisanship or in the definition of political rights of public servants. Representing, as I believe I do, more public servants than any other member of the house, I express my conviction that the present provisions are obsolete and unrealistic. The problem is to establish a balance between the essential impartiality, the imperative non-partisanship of the public service as a whole, and the ordinary political rights of citizenship in a democratic country.
The old act and the new act do not succeed at all in this regard. Personally I like what has been done by the legislature of Ontario and I hope the Ontario legislation, and indeed that of all other democratic jurisdictions, will be very carefully studied by the special joint committee.
This bill and all the companion bills have one general fault. The powers to enact regulations are much too broad and sweeping and the authority to delegate is much too general. The old act specified clearly and definitely the regulatory powers and in what fields those powers existed. The new act authorizes in blanket terms such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and give effect to the provisions of the act. Perhaps I was educated in the law at a time when Lord Hewart's "The New Despotism" was the popular text, but such a blanket delegation of regulatory power is an anathema to me. When this is coupled with the almost unlimited right to delegate to deputy heads it makes a total joke, if I may describe it in that way, of the old maxim upon which we were trained, namely, delegatus non potest delegare.
June 6, 1966

Employment in the Public Service
Under this bill those venerable words "civil servant" will pass from our vocabulary. On the whole I regret the passing of this designation. This nation has been brilliantly served by those who felt privileged so to describe themselves. But in the past decade the government service has undergone a vast transformation; the work has become more specialized, more complex, more technical. Each succeeding decade will accelerate that trend. In my view it is of prime importance that the new bill should give scope for growth and so that precedent may be built upon precedent.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
So, with some grave reservations which I have endeavoured to express, I support the bill and with others in this party look forward to fruitful and exhaustive discussions in the special joint committee designed to improve the bill in principle and in detail.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the general outlines of the three bills with which we are dealing were first indicated to us I confess that I had some misgivings, and that some of the questions which bother the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) were of concern to me as well. However, such study as I have been able to give to the government's plans for reorganizing our public service lead me to believe that we are moving in the right direction. I look forward, along with my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), to being a member of the special joint committee which will deal with these three bills. With the two of us there I can guarantee that all the appropriate questions will be asked and I trust that some of the suggestions that we will have to make will be considered and perhaps adopted.
Nevertheless, even though there are questions to be asked and reservations to be made, I think that the general plan of dividing the problem into its three constituent parts is a good one. As I understand it, the job of deciding what kinds of people are needed and what jobs are required in the particular departments will, in the final analysis, come under the direction of the Treasury Board.
I understand that departmental heads in their capacity as managers of their functions will play a much more significant role in these decisions than has been the case in the past but that the total picture is one in which the decision as to the kind of establishment

we will have will be made under the direction of the Treasury Board. I believe this makes it possible for the set-up in our various departments to be more tailor-made to the needs of the departments, and on the whole I think this is good. In the main, of course, this function will be dealt with legislatively by the amendments that we will be making to the Financial Administration Act. They come before us under Bill C-182, the second reading of which follows this one.
Then there is the second main problem, that of staffing the various establishments. As I understand it, that is to be the main function of the public service commission which we will be appointing by the passing of Bill C-181. In so doing we are replacing the Civil Service Commission by a public service commission, and it is clear that the functions will change considerably.
At first glance it might seem that the work of the former Civil Service Commission is being greatly reduced, but I suspect that with the growing complexity of our job in the public service the job of staffing and the job of meeting our requirements will continue to grow and that the public service commission will find that it still has plenty of work to do. I also dare to believe that the more restrictive role of the public service commission will enable it to give even greater attention to the function that it must fulfil as the guardian of the merit system. Since, as I say, it will be responsible for staffing and for promotions, this will be the body that will be finally responsible for seeing to it that the merit system is intact and that both appointments and promotions are completely free of patronage, partisanship and partiality.
I was glad that the Minister of National Revenue, when he introduced this bill the other night, gave us a few minutes of history and told us something of the half century of service given to this country by the Civil Service Commission. I share his view that when that half century has been rounded out in a year or two appropriate tribute should be paid, but I think it is also proper that in the course of this debate we note with gratitude and appreciation what the Civil Service Commission itself, with the various people who have comprised it over the decades, has done both for the public service of Canada and for the building of the life of this country
As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is not just a change of name; it is a very real change we are making as we move from the era of the
June 6, 1966

Civil Service Commission into the era of the public service commission. However, I suggest that the role that is being given to this body is a key one, a significant one, and I approve of the change that is being made.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the third element in this picture is the general question of salary and wage rates, of working conditions and all those things that are to become part of the process of collective bargaining. We have already provided for this in the public service staff relations act, which is Bill C-170, but I make the assertion that the success of this new tripartite arrangement depends very largely on the success of the practice of collective bargaining.
I am glad that all three of these bills are going to the same special committee so that we can look at them in their relationship to each other. However, I suggest that unless the collective bargaining is genuine, unless the representatives of the employees have a say in the working conditions and in the wage and salary levels of the employees, this new tripartite system that we are evolving will not be the success that we had hoped it would be.
Some of us indicated, when we were dealing with that other piece of legislation, Bill C-170, some of the shortcomings and flaws that are in it. As a matter of fact, if we think back to that debate we realize that perhaps there are even more criticisms that we should have made of it, but we will have the chance to make those criticisms when the bill is discussed in the special joint committee.
Looking at the package as a whole, Mr. Speaker, and dividing the problem of our public service into its three functions, first, the make-up of the establishment and putting it under the Treasury Board, second, the staffing of the establishment and the protection of the merit system and promotions, and putting that under the public service commission and, third, providing for salary rates and working conditions to be the subject of genuine collective bargaining, we think this general picture is good. We hope that the improvements that need to be made in each of these bills will be considered seriously by the committee to which they will be referred.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In the course of the debate on Bill No. C-170 I made reference to what I regarded as a most unfortunate development, namely, a provision in that bill against political freedom on the part of public servants even more severe than anything we have yet seen in any
Employment in the Public Service federal legislation. As I pointed out, the bill not only took a stand against some of the things we believe should not be agreed to, such as a check-off for political parties or what have you, but it also went so far as to deny any union of public servants that handled, even on a voluntary basis, any money for any political party the right to be certified or to engage in the collective bargaining in any way whatever. In my view that went too far. I pointed out, of course, that it was based on a provision in the old Civil Service Act and that that provision was being carried forward into the bill now before us, the public service employment act.
However, I was pleased when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), in closing the debate on second reading of Bill No. C-170, stated on behalf of the government that the position set out in these bills is not necessarily final. As I understood it, he said that if in the special joint committee there was agreement amongst the parties represented there to lessen these restrictions or, perchance, to provide complete political freedom for public servants, the government would be prepared to amend the bills accordingly. I make very strongly the plea that this type of change be made in the committee that will deal with these bills.
After all, in this whole matter we are dealing not with servants or slaves but with Canadian citizens who work for all the citizens of Canada. One of the things we are trying to do by the changes that are being proposed, in particular by establishing collective bargaining, is to assert the equality of those who work for the people of Canada with the people for whom they work. We are trying to assert that equality by giving them the right of collective bargaining. I submit that those who work for all of us are not second class citizens in any way and should have the same political freedoms that are enjoyed by all the people of Canada.
I am satisfied, even though we shall have to make changes in these bills, that in the main they represent a forward step. Let us not accompany this forward step by the kind of backward step that is in these bills in the denial of the political rights of public servants. As I say, I welcome the statement made by the minister. In my view the government should have gone farther. I do not think it is good enough just to do as this government seems to do so often these days, throw things out and say, if you have some suggestions we will look at them. We think the role of
6004	COMMONS
Employment in the Public Service government should be one of giving leadership. A government that has been prepared to give some kind of a lead on the right to collective bargaining should also be giving a lead on political rights for our people.
We think that this is one of the most important things to be settled by way of amendment to these bills when we get them before the special committee. As I say, there are other changes that may have to be looked at. In the main, however, we support the general program. We welcome the fact that these three bills, Bill No. C-170, this Bill No. C-181, and Bill No. C-182, will be referred to a special joint committee where we can go into them thoroughly and I hope bring back even better legislation than we have at the present time.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on Bill C-181 to express our views and say that we are happy about the introduction of this bill to create a public service commission. I think it will be an improvement over the old Civil Service Act.
It seems that appointments will be made by competition, etc. I think that will give one more guarantee that the very thought of patronage will be discouraged in the public service. Even if people tried to make us believe today that patronage no longer exists in the public service, Mr. Speaker, we would not be convinced, because we have proof every day that this evil exists. The government is not always necessarily to blame, because that evil often comes from a lower level; but to have a healthy government, it is necessary at all costs to destroy by all possible means that idea of patronage, so that the appointment and selection of public service employees can be made according to their qualifications.
I think that we will be surer of that with this bill than with the former legislation. When I talk of qualifications, I must say that I was very surprised to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). As a matter of fact, that is why I took the floor. We have been led to understand that an amendment would be moved to make it possible, first of all, to find out whether or not the candidate is bilingual.
We are happy about this and we congratulate the government for bringing that amendment to the legislation. Bilingualism will at last be a matter of priority and I feel that

DEBATES	June 6. 1966
between two men-one bilingual and the other unilingual-having the same rating and qualifications, the bilingual one should get the preference, because it must be admitted that in the eyes of some hon. members a bilingual man is worth more than one who is not.
The English speaking group must understand that. For 75 years we have been fighting to have the very meaning of confederation understood and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) now tells us: The meaning of confederation must be considered.
Well, the basis of confederation is bilingualism. As long as certain groups do not understand that, there will be quarrels. The French speaking group is always ready to make concessions but the other group is never willing to understand.
But today, fortunately, the majority of English speaking people are beginning to understand the meaning of confederation. But there are still too many people saying: It will be a disaster if we preferably accept unilingual personnel. And in fact, that is precisely what they mean by that word.
I claim that due to such a principle, it has been a disaster since the inception of confederation and when through this bill preference for bilingual employes is achieved, then will we be thinking in accordance with confederation, we will be truly living according to confederation and disputes will cease.
The reason I am rising to speak in this debate is to congratulate the movers of this bill which is truly in the spirit of confederation.
We applaud such a bill and we are convinced that when it is applied we shall witness the achievement of the pact of confederation as we have been hoping for 90 years.
Remember, once again, that Canada is a bilingual country. You will have to realize that and pay the price. We have been paying for something else for 90 years. It is high time sincere members of the house get together for a move along these lines.
The hon. member for Carleton says he is happy to see what is being done in Ontario. He would like the Canadian government to imitate the Ontario government in the civil service. But the Ontario government precisely is on a one-way street. Count the number of jobs now held by French Canadians in the Ontario public service and you will see it is very small indeed. A self-styled English province cannot be taken as an example for a
June 6, 1966

federal piece of legislation which will extend to the whole of Canada which is bilingual country.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Would the hon. member permit me to point out that I was discussing a totally different subject when I spoke of the examination of legislation in Ontario. What I was discussing then was the question of political participation of public servants, which has nothing to do with the subject of bilingualism.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the explanation the member for Carleton just gave me, because in his flight of oratory, he seemed so much to connect bilingualism in Ontario to that question as it affects the whole country that I thought he was pleading the cause of Ontario, with regard to linguistics, on behalf of the federal parliament.
As I said earlier, all members must at all costs pass this piece of legislation unanimously. If they want to contribute to confederation in a constructive way, let them pass this piece of legislation unanimously, especially the part dealing with bilingualism. Then, we shall all have accomplished something worthwhile for our country, Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have one small point I should like to draw to the attention of the committee that may sit in consideration of this bill, and it concerns the matter of appeals. I have found in the past that the machinery for appeals does not give quite the assistance necessary to public servants across the country. I think there should be set up with-in the civil service commission or the public service of Canada a division similar to that of the pensions advocate under pensions legislation for war service, consisting of men who are qualified to assist entrants to the civil service or those seeking promotion, and to handle their appeals.
I know that they are entitled to counsel, but this is awkward at times. We also And on many occasions that witnesses are away and the responsibility is thrown entirely upon the appellant. I think that something can be done to assist these appellants by way of setting up a section similar to that of the pensions advocate. I realize that staff associations offer
Employment in the Public Service some help but there should be some provision made within the civil service commission itself.


Mr.   J.-T. Richard@Ottawa East: Mr. Speaker, may I say I do not intend to speak for more than a few moments, but I should like to repeat in a few words what I said the other evening when we were discussing the other bill to which this is a companion. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I agree that this legislation is a good package, but like all other legislation its effectiveness will depend on how its terms are carried out.
I do not intend to make any remarks on particular clauses of the bill because I think our main purpose must be to see that the public servants of Canada are provided with the best legislation to enable them to realize their goal. It should surely be the desire of all members of this house to see that appointments are made on the basis of qualification and through promotion. Other matters will depend a great deal on collective bargaining, the bill providing for which we have already sent to a committee for study. I hope that the type of collective bargaining provided in the bill will be a little better than that which we have now under labour codes and that it will be suitable to the civil service.
If I may make one point in that regard, I hope that the day will come soon when there will no longer be a number of bargaining agents dealing with this question. The sooner the civil service has one or two main unions only to speak on behalf of most or all of its members, the easier it will be to satisfy the proper claims of civil servants in this country.
I am not going to say anything about political partisanship nor about matters raised by some other hon. members. I think it would be much better to let those who appear before the committee express their views on these matters so that we may draw the proper conclusions in the interests of all civil servants.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make one comment on a point which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) made with regard to the powers in respect of demotion or discharge, with right of appeal to the civil service commission.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And competitions.
June 6, 1966

Employment in the Public Service


David Lewis: Yes, competitions and all the rest of it. I will have something more general to say about this on another bill which will be coming before the house. What distresses me about the provisions of this bill, as in the companion bill, is that there is no tie-in with the collective bargaining act.
If you take away from the collective bargaining process the right of grievance on demotion or promotion or improvement or, conversely, if you leave within the collective bargaining act the power to grieve on such matters and then in a companion piece of legislation give the civil service commission the ultimate authority to make the decision but do not tie the two together and provide for arbitration so that the employee affected may have something to say, then you are creating a very difficult situation.
I appreciate that the intention may be that the grievance procedure will operate and that as a result adjustments may be made by the civil service commission. But nothing is said in the bill about this. So far as the words of this bill and those of the earlier bill are concerned, the civil service commission is given the ultimate authority to have the final say and is not bound by the decision arrived at through any grievance procedure or rendered by any arbitration board.
I just rise to raise that point now because the question also arises in connection with the bill which I understand we will next be considering and which involves a large range of subject matters.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the general principle contained in this bill and in the other two bills dealing with the same subject. We in this party have always believed that civil servants should have the same rights as other citizens of Canada. I do not believe in having second class citizens, whether on the basis of race, religion or type of employment. It does not matter whether a person works for a private or public employer, whether he works for the federal or a provincial or municipal government or for one of the many boards appointed by those bodies.
I am not critical of the government's intentions, which I think are excellent. We are entering a new field of legislation in this country. For the first time we are introducing legislation which spells out the right of employees to band together and bargain collectively. Of course, employees have been

banding together for many years but up till now civil service employees have had to come to the government cap in hand saying: "Please raise our pay", or "could you increase the vacation period", or "could you look into the way employees are hired and fired". The government could either agree with these requests, disagree with them or ignore them completely as it frequently did for reasons having nothing to do with the employees.
To the extent that the government now recognizes the right of federal civil servants to belong to organizations and to bargain collectively, I completely support what it is attempting to do. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the government in its desire to spell out all possibilities has brought in legislation so lengthy and so complicated that it will lead to trouble for years to come. I have had some experience with labour unions and collective bargaining, although not as much as some other hon. members. I know that the minister wishes to do a good job. We wish, however, that he had consulted the permanent officials of the federal Department of Labour and had drawn on their experience in collective bargaining. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that on the basis of available experience it has been shown that the more detailed legislation covering collective bargaining is, the more trouble you run into.
Why must we have this lengthy, detailed, extremely complicated legislation comprising three separate bills with hundreds of clauses and subclauses? Why are civil servants not treated like all other employees who come under the jurisdiction of the federal government? Why should they not be subject to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, with the same rights as employees of the railways, banks, airlines, telegraph companies or other industries which come under the jurisdiction of the federal government?
I am not trying to be critical but with the tremendous detail that the government has gone into in drafting these bills in an attempt to find answers to difficulties in advance of their arising, I submit that other difficulties have been created. I was going to say that the government almost does not believe in the principle of collective bargaining but I shall not say that not wanting to be unfair to the government or to the minister.
Believing that the minister wants to do the right thing I can only assume that he, along with the government, does not understand what collective bargaining is. To my mind
June 6, 1966

collective bargaining is simple to define. It means that wherever there are differences of opinion between the employer, in this case the federal government, and the employees, in this case the civil servants, having to do, first, with the nature and extent of the rights and responsibilities of the employer, second, the conditions of employment and emoluments of employees and, third, the redress of wrongs, those matters should be resolved by collective bargaining agreements whether the employer is a public employer and the employees are public employees or whether the employer and employees are in the private sector.
If what I say is correct, all else can be worked out when difficulties arise. I predict, Mr. Speaker-and I do not want in the future to say: "I told you so"-that the minister is creating a tremendous amount of work and many problems for the government which are completely unnecessary.
Collective bargaining in the public sector should be no different from the private sector where legislation already in existence covering the situation is working relatively well. I predict that this bill, because it is unnecessarily complicated in its present form, will by the very nature of things create difficulties. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is here and I do not wish to speak unkindly. It seems to me, however, that the government by what it has done here has created virtually permanent employment for lawyers.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: It may be very worthwhile employment for the lawyers but I do not think it helps collective bargaining. The lawyers representing the government and the employees will have constant meetings and consultations interpreting and reinterpreting the legislation.


Eric Alfred Winkler: At how much an hour?


David Orlikow: This, I think, is completely unnecessary. The government has not been able to rid itself of the old concept that it must not only look after the people of Canada but must also look after its own employees and protect them. I do not think that the government, any more than any other employer, has to protect its employees. Once collective bargaining legislation is passed, employees have a responsibility and duty to look after their own interests. They do this by forming the organizations which they
Employment in the Public Service think they need and through those organizations they discuss their problems, whether they have to do with salaries, conditions of work, holidays or anything else. They do that through negotiation.
Through this bill we are creating endless difficulties and endless confusion. I say this regretfully. I think the government has started off on the wrong track and that this will lead to endless difficulties for itself and for its employees.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is another question I should like to discuss. Clause 31 deals with the manner in which employees may be dismissed if they prove to be incompetent. To me this would seem to negate the whole principle of collective bargaining. What does the clause say? It says in effect that when an employee proves to be incompetent the deputy head of the department-I presume it means the deputy minister-shall have power to dismiss him. There is nothing wrong about that. Then there is a provision that should an employee feel he has been improperly dismissed or demoted he has the right to appeal. But to whom may he appeal? He is allowed to appeal to the commission.
As I say, this seems to me to negate the whole principle of collective bargaining. When an employee has a difference of opinion with his employer he tries to settle it, first of all, through discussion. Should this fail, he resorts to writing. But when neither of these approaches results in an agreeable settlement it seems to me the employee must have the right to carry his appeal to an independent board.
Apart entirely from the composition of the board or the competence of its members, as I read this bill it appears to me that the commission is appointed by the government and is in fact a government agency. I may be wrong. I admit that when dealing with a bill of this length I get lost in some of the details. But if I am right this one clause goes a long way in my opinion toward wiping out principles for which every hon. member has indicated support.
I wish to deal now with one other clause, that relating to public servants actively engaging in politics. I have been an elected representative in just about every form of government. I began as a member of the Winnipeg school board. I later served on the Winnipeg city council and in the Manitoba legislature before coming here. I know that a
June 6, 1966

Employment in the Public Service few of our civil servants, deputy ministers, for example, have a great deal to do with the establishment of policy and its translation into practice.
I could understand the government saying that no deputy minister should be permitted to become actively involved in politics. But, as I said earlier, I do not believe there should be second class citizens of any kind. In a democratic system we should not only give people the right to participate in politics but we should encourage them to do so. I think the provisions of this clause constitute a complete denial of the rights of a very large number of people. I think we should say to our civil servants: when you have finished your work at five o'clock, six o'clock, or when you are free on Saturdays or Sundays, you have the same right to participate in politics as anybody else. Far from containing the present prohibition, I believe this clause should spell out the right of civil servants to participate actively in politics and work for candidates of any party they choose.
One of the major shortcomings of the democratic system in the sixties is that government is becoming so complicated that fewer people are taking part. Rather than telling people that they must not participate we should be doing everything possible to encourage them to participate on a voluntary basis. Instead of saying that civil servants cannot take part in politics under penalty of being dismissed we should say to them: you have the right to participate fully and to work for any candidate you wish in your own time. Second, we should say to every civil servant: if you wish to run for office you may do so provided you take leave of absence for the duration of the campaign, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal.
I do not know how many federal civil servants would wish to become involved in politics. The former hon. member for Carleton was a controller in the city of Ottawa before he was elected to this house in 1963. I do not know whether he was elected controller when he was a federal civil servant. But even if he was not elected while he was a federal civil servant I can see no reason why he should not have run for office.
I can think of many civil servants in Ottawa and elsewhere who would make excellent members of the city councils and the municipal school boards to which we so often elect lawyers and businessmen. I believe civil servants are at least the equal of lawyers and


businessmen. I believe they should be encouraged to run for office rather than forbidden to do so.
The minister said earlier that in committee the government would seriously consider the suggestions made. I do hope the minister and his colleagues will look approvingly on this suggestion and encourage our civil servants to be active politically. It is not a matter of which party they support or for which party they choose to run. Let them run for any party they wish. Let them be as active as they please. I say this because I believe that the civil servants of Canada not only at the federal but at the municipal level should have the same right to engage in politics as have all other citizens of this country. Until this goal is achieved there will continue to be people who are really second class citizens and, as I say, I am against such a state of affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? I must advise the house that if the minister of national welfare speaks now he will close the debate.


An hon. Member:: Expect no welfare from him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should have referred to the Minister of National Revenue.


Edgar John Benson: National revenue is necessary for the welfare of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I said in closing the debate on second reading of Bill C-170, which forms part of this three-bill package, there will be an opportunity in the joint committee when the three bills are before it to examine in depth the various questions hon. members have raised at this stage of the proceedings. For this reason my remarks will be brief indeed. I will limit them to one or two matters on which I believe some clarification is needed immediately lest hon. members and others concerned accept as a true interpretation of this legislation what in fact is the result of a misunderstanding of the proposed arrangements. It is my hope that any misconceptions on this matter will be corrected without delay.
It has been suggested that the transfer of responsibility for classification from the independent commission to the Treasury Board, who in turn could delegate the power to
June 6, 1966	COMMONS
departmental heads, would lead to political and bureaucratic patronage in the classification of public servants. It was also suggested that over the years the Civil Service Commission, because of its independent status, had been in a position to prevent abuse in this regard.
I should like to make abundantly clear to all hon. members of the house that what is envisaged is the transfer to the Treasury Board of the responsibility for the classification of positions and not for the appointment or promotion of individuals to these positions. In other words, the Treasury Board will establish positions, as it has done since the Civil Service Act of 1961 came into force, and it will also determine the level of these positions. Its role will stop there. It will be up to the public service commission to approve both original appointments to new positions and the promotion of individuals to positions whose level may have been increased by the Treasury Board. In short, the role of the commission in regard to the individuals will remain unchanged; their appointments upon entry into the public service or to newly created positions or to positions that have been reclassified will all be accomplished under the jurisdiction of the commission on the basis of merit and on the basis of merit only.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question. Is the hon. gentleman indicating that if a position such as, shall we say, director of traffic 1 is reclassified as director of traffic 2 that position will immediately be vacated and that a promotional competition will be held?


Edgar John Benson: This will come under the jurisdiction of the public service commission. They will decide who will fill the new position of director of traffic 2. If a new position is created which is sort of an upgrading it will be necessary for the commission to decide who will be the person to occupy that position ultimately.
In response to a question raised on the subject of appeals I would like to assure the house, Mr. Speaker, that nothing in Bill C-181 is designed to remove the existing right of employees to be represented by counsel or by other individuals in presenting appeals to the Civil Service Commission. The changes in wording that gave rise to the question were introduced solely because, in the opinion of the legal draftsmen, the Bill of Rights made it unnecessary to have specific provision in
DEBATES	6009
Employment in the Public Service this bill for the right to representation. If, after their study of the matter, the joint committee should come to a different conclusion, the government will be prepared to consider changes that might more effectively express the intent.
There is another suggestion that was made in relation to appeals. It was advanced that appeals on appointments resulting from closed competitions and on recommendations for downgradings and releases on the grounds of incompetence should be made not to the public service commission but to another independent body.
The substance of the appeal provisions of Bill C-181 is, with one exception, unchanged from that of the Civil Service Act of 1961. The one exception is of course the transfer of appeals dealing with matters of discipline to the adjudication process provided under Bill C-170. The reason for this transfer is simple. Because discipline will be the subject of collective agreements it is only reasonable that grievances resulting from disciplinary actions be heard by the same administrative tribunal that will hear grievances resulting from the interpretation of all the other sections of collective agreements. Indeed, any othe arrangement would inevitably lead to confusion.
I should like to make a few other brief remarks. There have been some allegations with regard to the independence of the Civil Service Commission which will become the public service commission. I believe that over the years the commission has proven it has acted independently from government. I believe it will continue to act independently from government, and I believe that allegations as to its impartiality in respect of its authority, as raised by hon. members such as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), are completely unwarranted. I believe the public service employees have complete confidence in the present Civil Service Commission with regard to promotions, appeals and so on, and personally I believe this confidence is well warranted and will be continued in the future.
The question of bilingualism in the public service was raised. I should like to point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated quite clearly the government's position with regard to bilingualism some six weeks ago and there is no variance from that position in the present government.
The question again was raised with regard to the political rights of employees employed
June 6, 1966

Employment in the Public Service in the public service. As I stated in respect of the previous bill I believe it would not have been reasonable for the government to change this particular clause in the legislation unilaterally. It is brought forward in this bill as it was in the previous legislation. As I stated during debate on the last bill, the government is willing to consider changes which might be recommended by all parties represented on the committee set up to study this legislation. I believe this is the only fair method by which to deal with this particular clause; indeed, I believe it is the fairest method of dealing with all clauses in these particular bills. When the committee has met, examined these clauses, heard representations and then brings in recommendations to the government, the government of course will consider them very seriously.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question for clarification? He said the government will be prepared to consider suggestions made by representatives of all parties. Does the hon. minister mean he will consider them only if all the representatives of all the parties agree or does he mean a majority of committee representatives of all the parties?


Edgar John Benson: Well, if I said a majority of the committee representatives of all parties I might have been misinterpreted as saying that we would accept views expressed only by Liberal members of that committee.


David Lewis: A majority of the committee then?


Edgar John Benson: A majority of the committee could be simply Liberal members. In respect of a clause of this nature which affects all parties in the house I think we must have opinions which are representative of all the parties of the house and not simply the party which happens to have a majority in the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? This may be an academic question and if so it will not be the first time one has been asked in this house. Why, in the minister's view, is it wrong for the government to give a lead on the question of political freedom when it is doing so on the question of trade union freedom?


Edgar John Benson: I am very happy to see my hon. friend admit that we are giving the lead with regard to trade union freedom.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said "a lead", not "the lead".


Edgar John Benson: I would say that had the government unilaterally chosen to change this clause, particular political motives could have been attributed to the government in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perish the thought.


Edgar John Benson: It is very seldom that political motives are attributed to the government by hon. members on the other side, but we feel that on the particular clauses in these pieces of legislation we must have the views of all parties in the House of Commons before making a change in an act which would permit political activity by civil servants in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask one further question? Since so many references are made to the views of the parties when the committee meets, will the government party state its view on the matter?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: I am sure that members of the government party who are present in the committee will be free to explain their views in respect of this particular matter just as they are at all times. The committee then must arrive at a consensus and come back with its report to the government indicating this consensus.
There is nothing further I wish to say except to refer briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in respect of appeals regarding appointment, promotion or dismissal being handled through the public service commission as has traditionally been done in Canada. The reason really for having a public service commission in Canada is to ensure that politics do not enter into the appointment, promotion and demotion of civil servants in Canada. The public service commission has acted as a purely independent body for a long period of years and, indeed, when civil servants on occasion have accused the government of wrong action in respect of these three particular aspects, appointment, promotion, demotion, they have been able to appeal to the civil service commission. In future they will be able to appeal to the public service commission.
What has developed as a tradition in the past, and this has been appreciated by the civil servants of Canada, is being continued into the future by taking it away from the government or management as such, and thus out of the collective bargaining procedure, and
June 6, 1966

leaving it with the public service commission of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special joint committee on the public service of Canada.

Edgar John Benson: the second reading of Bill No. C-182, to amend the Financial Administration Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have already dealt with Bill C-170, which makes provision for a system of collective bargaining in the public service, and with Bill C-181, which makes provision for the maintenance and extension of the merit principle of appointment and promotion under an independent public service commission which would function as a central staffing agency for the public service. We come now to a measure that complements and supports the other two. I refer to Bill C-182, which proposes a number of amendments to the Financial Administration Act, amendments designed in the main to establish the Treasury Board as the central source of managerial authority in the public service and to provide it with the capacity to serve as the principal agent of the employer in the processes of collective bargaining.
Under the provisions of this bill the Treasury Board would be empowered to act for the governor in council on all matters relating to personnel management, financial management, general administrative policy and the control of organization and establishments. It would be expected in fact to concern itself generally with the quality of management in the public service.
Hon. members will recall that the lack of a central focus of managerial authority was one of the major problems identified by the royal commission on government organization and the subject of some of its most important recommendations. The provisions of Bill C-182 are wholly consistent with those recommendations.
The bill is consistent also with the Glassco recommendations that called for greater decentralization of authority to departmental management. Like the proposed public service employment act, it would make possible an extensive delegation of authority to deputy heads and other chief executive officers.
Financial Administration Act
In the view of the government the public service is becoming too complex to function efficiently without some means of giving senior departmental officers more authority to manage their affairs, within policy limits set out by the government. It should be emphasized, however, that under the proposed legislation the use of delegated authority would be subject to such conditions as the central agencies considered appropriate, and that the rights and interests of employees would be protected by the traditional appeal procedure or by the new system for the processing and adjudication of grievances.
Most of the amendments set forth in Bill C-182 are concerned with the important field of personnel management in which there has been in the past a very considerable dispersion of central authority. Under the proposed amendments, the Treasury Board would be authorized to establish policy governing almost all aspects of personnel management, including measures required to ensure effective manpower utilization, and to determine and regulate almost all conditions of employment, including classification and pay, hours of work and leave, and the standards governing physical working conditions.
The government believes that the concentration of this authority in the Treasury Board, which is essential to the proposed system of collective bargaining, will lead to a more comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the planning and development of personnel policy than any that has been possible in the past.
It will be noted that some of the amendments are designed to transfer to the Treasury Board functions now located in whole or in part in the Civil Service Commission. For example, the commission now has responsibility for the maintenance and administration of the system of classification and pay applying to civil servants. Because rates of pay will be subject to collective bargaining and arbitration, and because classification is in a sense the process whereby employees are grouped for purposes of salary administration, it is essential that this responsibility be transferred.
It will be noted that other amendments are designed to give the board authority to establish conditions of employment that are now fixed by statute in so far as civil servants are concerned. I am referring here to hours of work, leave and holidays, all of which will be matters falling within the scope of collective bargaining and arbitration.
6012	COMMONS
Financial Administration Act
In other circumstances the concentration in the Treasury Board of authority to determine and regulate conditions of employment might have been regarded with apprehension by employees. At a time when bargaining rights are being granted and steps taken to establish formal grievance procedures, I doubt that this will be the case. Indeed, I think there is a recognition on the part of most, if not all, organizations representing public servants that, if there is to be genuine collective bargaining, some one agency must be able to speak with authority for the employer, the government of Canada.
In addressing myself to this bill and its companion measures I have attempted to describe the principles underlying the program of legislation developed by the government to provide for the introduction of collective bargaining, the retention of the merit system of appointment and promotion and a redistribution of managerial authority along lines recommended by the royal commission on government organization. Much more could be said but in view of the plans to subject all three measures to careful scrutiny by a joint committee I doubt that the time required could be justified. In conclusion, let me repeat what I have already said in the earlier debates. This is legislation of great importance, perhaps the most important legislation of its kind that has been laid before this house since the Civil Service Act of 1918 established the foundations for a great and impartial public service. I know that hon. members will wish to give to it the attention and careful study that it deserves when it is referred to the appropriate committee.
Hon. n. A. Bell (Carleion): Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the two accompanying bills I dealt indirectly with the principle of this bill and with its prov sions as they affect the public service. I have no intention now of repeating myself but I want to state certain specific reservations which I intend to pursue when the bill is before the special joint committee.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
First, I am concerned whether the intrusion of Treasury Board into fields which have been traditionally appurtenant to the Civil Service Commission is sound and responsible in practice, whatever its theoretical value may be. The clipping of the wings of the Civil Service Commission removes safeguards which may not be fully replaced. Second, the

DEBATES	-June 6, 1966
extension of the power to enact regulations and the authority to delegate in this bill, as in the companion bills, are much too general and sweeping. They offend, in my view, against sound rules of responsible government in delegating legislative and administrative authority. Third, the dismissal and suspension procedures for misconduct or breach of discipline on the one hand, or for security reasons on the other, are not clear and satisfactory and I believe will require additional study, amendment and amplification. Fourth, I believe that the appeal procedure needs amplification. On the public service employment bill I dealt with this matter specifically and in some detail, namely, the inadequacies which I think exist in the appeal procedure in the three bills. I do not want to repeat what I have said, which has been concurred in by other members.
This bill has two other what I shall describe as tidying-up features which I think are entitled to some comment. The very tidying-up raises the principle of the wisdom of the provisions themselves. The first is the tidying-up of the act consequent upon the adoption of the Glassco commission recommendation for the establishment of a ministry to be known as president of Treasury Board. This was discussed earlier, of course, on the bill dealing with government reorganization and I want only to express personal reservations about the new provisions. Personally I do not see how expenditures can realistically be divorced from taxation policies, and that is what happens when you separate Treasury Board completely from the Department of Finance.
I just do not appreciate how you can divorce supply and ways and means. Rumour hath it that the Carter commission will propose abandonment of the Department of National Revenue as a ministerial portfolio and the handing over of the collection process to some type of board of commissioners of internal revenue. If this be true, I am inclined to say "a plague on both royal commissions." My own view is that the Financial Administration Act should be amended to vest in the Minister of Finance full responsibility for expenditure, collection and taxation policy and should give him two ministerial assistants of non-cabinet rank, a vice-chairman of treasury board and a minister of national revenue.
The other tidying-up operation in this bill repeals and then re-enacts the provisions for governor general's warrants. I confess that I
June 6, 1966
was brought up in the old school which believed that governor general's warrants were evil per se and basically inconsistent with responsible government. I do not believe that provisions for them should be re-enacted in their present form. By introducing this clause in the bill I think the government has raised the whole issue of the future use of governor general's warrants. In this respect I emphasize that I speak only for my myself, but I believe it is an affront to parliament and responsible government for a prime minister to dissolve the house without having secured from parliament financial provision for at least the election period. That is what happened last autumn and it has happened on three previous occasions in Canadian history. Dissolution coupled with reliance upon governor general's warrants for financing is an act of dubious constitutional validity for which, in my submission, no provision should be made in the Financial Administration Act which is now before the house. I go no further at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I intend to return to this issue in its broader form, namely, the powers of a prime minister, on another occasion as well as pursue the matter in the special joint committee.
These are reservations which I felt compelled to state before agreeing to second reading of this bill and its being sent to the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to voice certain reservations about some of the principles underlying the bill before the house, but they do not follow the reservations voiced by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). As I understand what the minister has said and what the bill says-I ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong-in the context of the total legislation with which we are concerned Bill No. C-170 makes Treasury Board the bargaining agent, as it were, on behalf of the government. As I understand the changes proposed in Bill No. C-182, they are by and large intended to give Treasury Board the powers it needs in order to conclude a collective agreement with the bargaining agents which are set up under Bill No. C-170. I therefore cannot but agree on behalf of our party with the general proposition that if Treasury Board is going to do the bargaining it must have the authority to make an agreement when the bargaining is over. You cannot possibly have Treasury Board as the bargaining agent and then leave 23033-38U
Financial Administration Act with the public service commission the authority to make decisions.
I think this is the basic purpose of the bill and with that purpose, if one has any understanding of the process of collective bargaining, one is forced to agree. I have done a great deal of collective bargaining in 15 or 16 years of labour law work, and there is nothing more frustrating in a collective bargaining process than to sit opposite the bargainer on behalf of the employer who has no authority to tell you what the employer is really intending to do. The change in this respect is, in my submission, desirable despite the views which the hon. member for Carleton expressed.
But, Mr. Speaker, I see in all three bills with which we have been concerned a continuing tendency on the part of those who have advised the government not to let go of the traditional powers of government. Let me say that you cannot have collective bargaining in private industry unless management is prepared at some point to abridge the ordinary common law authority of management; and you cannot have collective bargaining with a government unless the government is prepared to abridge the ordinary constitutional powers which it normally has. You cannot have collective bargaining if the government insists that it will remain the final authority despite the collective bargaining process, and you cannot have genuine collective bargaining if you retain legally in the hands of the government agency the final word about what is to happen. When you have that you do not have collective bargaining.
The first thing, therefore, that worries me immensely about Bill No. C-182 is precisely what the minister referred to, namely, that one of the clauses of the bill retains in the hands of Treasury Board without qualification and, on the contrary, specifically, the authority, notwithstanding any other provision of any other enactment, to determine everything that normally goes into collective bargaining. It retains the authority to determine the requirements for and terms of training, the classification of positions and employees, the authority to determine and regulate pay, to determine and regulate hours of work and leave of employees, the power to establish physical working conditions and things related thereto, the power to determine and regulate payments in connection with travelling expenses and allowances and

6014	COMMONS
Financial Administration Act if that were not enough, the power to determine all other terms and conditions of employment which are not mentioned specifically.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It may have been the intention of the government that Treasury Board have these powers in order to be able to implement the terms of a collective agreement reached with the bargaining agent. The minister nods his head. As a lawyer let me say to him, if I may: If that is what he intended, that is what he ought to have said. The bill says nothing of the sort. The bill does not say that this authority which is retained by the Treasury Board, and which may in certain circumstances be delegated to someone else, is subject to the collective bargaining process and to any collective bargaining agreement reached. It merely gives that authority, unqualified and without reservation, to the Treasury Board.
The point that one must always remember in collective bargaining is that if a representative of the employees sits at a bargaining table he will only be able to bargain if he feels that he is the equal of the people who sit opposite him. So long as the people who sit opposite him in the collective bargaining process have in their hands the ultimate weapon to deprive him of genuine collective bargaining, so long as the people who sit opposite him and who represent the employer are able to say directly or by implication, we have the authority to impose this on you if you do not like it in the last resort, so long as that is the situation and so long as the law reads that way, genuine collective bargaining does not take place
The wrong principle embodied in this bill is that the authority which is to be given to the Treasury Board in order to enable it to implement a collective agreement is given in such a way that it can exercise that authority as far as the law is concerned without regard for the collective bargaining process. It is my intention, as it is that of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, to do everything we can to make sure that this is remedied in the legislation.
A thought occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, as I was speaking. Suppose the parties at the collective bargaining table reach an impasse, suppose the bargaining agent has chosen, under Bill C-170, the role of conciliation rather than of compulsory arbitration and suppose the situation in Canada is such that the
[Mr. Lewis.l
DEBATES	June 6, 1966
government feels it cannot tolerate the possibility of a strike. Then Treasury Board has the power under Bill C-182-and we understand the minister will be president of the Treasury Board at that time-to impose conditions which should otherwise be bargained for collectively.
I am confident, as we all have said, that the minister's intention and the intention of his government is to introduce collective bargaining. If we are mistaken in that, if they have any reservations on that point and we are really beating the air, it would be a heartbreaking fact. However, I am assuming they really intend to introduce genuine collective bargaining. If that is the case, I plead with them to get rid of the chains which now bind their minds concerning the ultimate power being in the hands of the employer because in this case the employer happens to be the government. We simply will not have collective bargaining for the benefit of the people concerned so long as there is this hidebound approach to the relationship with the employees.
The same is true of the appeal procedure. The minister said in the earlier debate that the public service commission will be an independent body and will not be government controlled. Of course no one is suggesting that the Civil Service Commission has been a government agency which has carried out government orders or anything of the sort. But the fact is that the public service commission has certain duties under this legislation, as the Civil Service Commission had under the other legislation.
Its duties are, in the first place, to make appointments, to give promotions and to make certain decisions with regard to the conditions of work in certain spheres. The body which makes the decision about employment, promotion, demotion and all the rest of it is not the body that should have the final say in the appeal procedure. In the same way the Treasury Board under this bill is the body which makes certain regulations with regard to discipline and other things. It should not be the final appeal board. The fact that we request the minister to consider making appeals subject to the agreement procedure of the collective bargaining process is not to be taken as throwing barbs at the public service commission or questioning the impartiality or the best intentions of that body. We ask for independent arbitration because the public service commission is inevitably and necessarily directly concerned
June 6, 1966

with the decisions against which the employees are protesting. The body which in the first place makes the decision cannot be the body which in the last resort should decide the appeal. It is as simple as that.
May I also say to the minister and to his advisers that the essence of trade unionism is frequently misunderstood. It is often taken for granted that the major object of a union is merely to get an increase in wages or a reduction in hours or some additional physical or monetary benefits for the people concerned. That is certainly an important part of the organization of labour. However, Mr. Speaker, I say to you and to the minister that even more important than all of the monetary benefits which a union seeks to achieve is the fact that it is the spokesman of the employees who otherwise would not have their own spokesman. It is much more important for the member of a union or the member of a bargaining unit represented by a union that his organization be able to represent him, to fight for him when he thinks he has been aggrieved, to take his case right up to the final arbitral tribunal, than it is for the employee to get another 5, 10 or 15 cents an hour. Both in the federal service and in ordinary industry the single employee is a number, whether he punches the clock or signs the book and, left alone, the employee when he feels himself aggrieved cannot do anything that is adequate to protect himself.
The major value of the trade union in the democratic and social sense is that it is the spokesman and protector, on an equal basis with the employer, of the employee whenever he feels himself aggrieved by any act of the employer. This is why we in this party are concerned about the principles which seem to animate the three pieces of legislation that are before us. At the same time, as I said on an earlier occasion, while dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" in the proposed collective bargaining legislation we retain unreserved and unqualified power in the hands of management, in this case the governor in council, the Treasury Board or the public service commission, which, if it were applied as the wording of the legislation enables it to be applied, would rob the collective bargaining process of any meaning.
The second principle with which I wish to deal very briefly is the one about which we had so much fuss in parliament in connection with the late Mr. Spencer. I am astonished that the amendments to Financial Administration Act as contained in this bill not only
Financial Administration Act leave the old section 50 of the Civil Service Act unchanged except in one respect, namely, limiting the power to dismiss without appeal for the safety and security of Canada, but this time spell it out in the bill instead of it being understood as was the case before. In essence there is no change in section 50 by this bill but in fact it is made worse. It says in so many words that once there is a piece of paper dismissing an employee of the government allegedly for reasons of security and safety it becomes final proof that the employee is unsafe from the point of view of the security of Canada. What makes it even worse is that the bill spells out in the clearest possible terms the fact that once the employee is thus dismissed he is through. He cannot question the reason for the dismissal because the piece of paper, it seems to me, is final proof of the fact he is a security risk for Canada.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
When we had the debate on the Victor Spencer matter my impression was that there were members on the government side, indeed members of the cabinet, who agreed that there ought to be an amendment to section 50 of the Civil Service Act, who agreed that there ought to be some appeal from such dismissal. Unless my memory serves me wrongly, and I have not gone back to Hansard to check on the matter, these hon. members opposite emphasized the fact that the only reason they had to support the government on the Spencer issue was that there was the law, there was section 50. They said that it had to be applied in a case like Mr. Spencer's.
Surely this was the opportunity for the government to rectify that situation. When we are re-evaluating all the legislation relating to civil servants in Canada, this bill was the means whereby the government could have provided for a hearing. It may be said by someone that since the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has offered to set up a board of inquiry into all security matters the question of such an amendment must await the report of the royal commission. If that is the reason, Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more invalid than to say that a necessary amendment has to wait upon the report of a board of inquiry that has not been set up yet. I see no reason whatever for waiting. The government could have proposed an amendment that would give a person dismissed as a security risk the right, if he desired it, to a
June 6, 1966

Financial Administration Act full and impartial inquiry by a commissioner or commissioners appointed under part I of the Inquiries Act or by any other body the government thought more capable of looking into the matter.
I must admit to profound disappointment, after what parliament went through in the Spencer case and even after the Prime Minister had granted a commission of inquiry in that case, allegedly I understand because the late Mr. Spencer asked for it, because I cannot for the life of me understand what it was that prevented the government from including an amendment that would make an impartial inquiry a matter of right for any employee of the government dismissed under section 50 of the Civil Service Act. It is the intention of those who represent this party on the joint committee to suggest amendments to the legislation which will make it clear that any powers granted the Treasury Board are subject to the collective bargaining process and cannot be exercised in order to interfere with that process. We intend to propose also an amendment to this legislation which will give any person dismissed, for whatever reason but including the reason of security, an opportunity for a full and impartial hearing.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss this bill in detail. However, I should like to refer to the last matter mentioned by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), namely the sections of this bill which repeat and, indeed, as the hon. member made clear, strengthen the original and objectionable section 50 of the Civil Service Act. I do not intend to go into great detail. We had considerable discussion-some members may think too much-of this matter when the Victor Spencer case was being debated. If my memory serves me correctly, I was the first member of this house who discussed the Spencer case in terms of the right of any employee to a full explanation of why he was being dismissed and the right to put forward a full defence.
I recall that when I raised this matter the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau), questioned me vigorously. I do not mind that at all. He questioned me about the principle I was enunciating that every employee had a right to a hearing regardless of the reasons for his dismissal. He referred to the fact that Mr. Spencer had not, at the time I was speaking, asked for a hearing.
[Mr. Lewis.)
I challenged the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), on the basis of his past record as a labour leader, to explain to the house how one who believes in the principle of collective bargaining, which this government apparently does, could square his belief in the principle of collective bargaining with section 50 of the Civil Service Act. The minister accepted my challenge, and to give him credit I must say that he accepts every challenge to explain his position. Immediately after I had completed my remarks he spoke in the house. I want to read one or two paragraphs from his speech made on February 28, 1966 and recorded on page 1894 of Hansard:
This raises a fundamental problem and I think hon. members will have the opportunity to discuss it when the legislation is brought before the house. At that time, I think we shall be able to discuss the matter irrespective of the Spencer case.
There is no doubt that section 50 may, in certain circumstances, deprive civil servants of rights normally theirs under a collective labour agreement.
What the minister was saying, and I think correctly, was that section 50 was there and had been there for some considerable time and that the principle in section 50 should be reviewed and would be reviewed when we got to the collective bargaining legislation. Well, Mr. Speaker, here it is and the old section 50 is back word for word, in fact, not only word for word but its provisions are strengthened. This section spells out in even greater detail the right of the government to dismiss without explanation and without appeal, an employee who may be a security risk.
I reject completely the idea that parliament has to wait for the report of a royal commission, which as the member for York South earlier pointed out has not even been appointed, before considering the matter. We do not have to discuss the Spencer case here. We do not have to know whether the dismissal of Mr. Spencer was correct or incorrect, proper or improper, too severe or not severe enough. His case will be dealt with by the royal commission and I am not suggesting that we prejudge the matter.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The principle which I and other members enunciated at the time, with which I am satisfied the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) agreed, is a simple one. It is that no employee shall be dismissed for any reason without cause, without the right to know the reason for his dismissal and without the right to challenge
June 6, 1966

the decision made by his employer-in the Spencer case the government. Whether an appeal should be heard in public or in private, Mr. Speaker, is not the issue at this point. That is something which can be spelled out by the government and discussed when we are in committee. However, it seems to me that in proposing to write into this legislation the old section 50, which was objected to by so many members from all parties when we discussed the Spencer case, we are doing something that is wrong. This section should not be brought forward at this time.
I am hoping that when amendments to the bill are proposed by members of this party or by any other members of the committee the government will reconsider its apparent decision to re-implement the completely objectionable features of the old section 50 of the Civil Service Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment before the minister closes the debate. It does not relate to the specific matters we have been discussing which for the most part have had to do with the reorganization of the public service. I have in mind rather the fact that the Financial Administration Act as it is now stands has a set of definitions in section 2, one of which is "minister". "Minister" means the Minister of Finance and Receiver General. I notice that one of the things that Bill No. C-182 does is to substitute for the phrase "the minister" the expressions "the President of the Treasury Board" or "the Treasury Board". This is done in a number of places.
One of the sections which interests us as members of parliament, of course, is section 28. It is the one under which governor general's warrants can be utilized if parliament is not sitting. It used to be the case that it was the Minister of Finance who made the recommendation that governor general's warrants be issued, for example, in a period after parliament has been dissolved. Now it appears that the recommendation will be that of the president of the Treasury Board.
It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that now we have a bit of confusion as to draftsmanship of the legislation in respect of the Financial Administration Act. In some places it will still say "the minister", and if one looks back to the definition section "the minister" is the Minister of Finance. In other places the minister will be the president of the Treasury Board.
Financial Administration Act
I have two questions. First, would it not be possible to avoid some of this drafting confusion? My second question is: What is the general philosophy of the government in the division of functions that it seems to be making between the Minister of Finance and the president of the Treasury Board? I am aware of the fact that the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) has been doing many things in the house which used to be done by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), notably putting through interim supply and things of that sort. In the last parliament the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), who was then President of the Privy Council, did this task; and I overhear the minister saying that he was also vice chairman of Treasury Board.
Perhaps I have stated the question that is in my mind. The Minister of Finance used to be the Minister of Finance. He was the big shot in this whole field. Now his functions are apparently being divided, and the Financial Administration Act will to some extent reflect that division by sometimes referring to the minister-and we will have to look at the definition section to see what minister it is-and sometimes the reference will be to the president of the Treasury Board. So what is the philosophy, the division of labour? I thought the minister might have expanded on this or touched upon it when he made his speech on second reading. Since he did not do so I now give him the opportunity.


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


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to deal with a couple of points raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). The first related to his interpretation of clause 3 of the new bill which includes a new section 7 of the Financial Administration Act. He is a lawyer whereas I am a layman, but he seemed to imply that Treasury Board can override decisions on matters which are bar-gainable under collective bargaining procedures, and which may form the terms of a collective agreement, simply by making a unilateral decision of its own. If this is the correct interpretation of the section, then I can assure him that the wording will be changed, because it is not the intention of the legislation that this should be the case. Clause 3 of the amending bill, which amends existing section 7 of the Financial Administration
June 6, 1966

Financial Administration Act Act, was put into the bill so that the powers accorded throughout numerous other pieces of legislation could be drawn in under this piece of legislation; it was not put in so as to override any decision with regard to collective agreements.
The second point which he raised is a difficult one, and that is the matter of dismissal of people in the interests of the safety and security of the nation, the so-called security cases. This is a matter to which I should like to assure him we gave a great deal of thought as to what we should do. Should we put into the bill some sort of appeal procedure or should we, in view of the fact that we are appointing a royal commission to look into security procedures, wait until the commission reports. Perhaps the commission's report will make a recommendation as to how security cases should be dealt with, how far security matters should be divulged, what types of hearings should be held in security cases, and the particular matters which are involved in any appeal which might be allowed with respect to cases coming under section 50.
The hon. member has the right, of course, to disagree with the decision of the government and I would be very surprised if in most instances he did not do so. However, the decision of the government was that the clause should be put in with the strict limitation that it will apply only to security cases, which was not the case before. We really had doubt whether we should even put in that provision because if someone is discharged under the section people will automatically know that a security case is involved. So to that extent perhaps you are branding someone by dismissing them under the section.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
However, the government decided to await the decision of the royal commission which had been set up to look into security procedures. Certainly everyone will have the opportunity of making his views known fully with regard to this matter when it goes before the committee. The government will, of course, consider the views put forward by various hon. members when the particular bill is considered by the special committee of the house and the Senate.
I now wish to deal briefly with matters raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to the drafting of changes in the Financial Administration Act. I was concerned about the drafting and about having two ministers under one particular bill, which would be the

case in the Financial Administration Act. Although the Treasury Board has been mentioned there is quite a change in the position of the Treasury Board, and the president of the Treasury Board comes under the bill. I was assured that the drafting of this bill had been undertaken with the greatest care possible under the circumstances by officials in the Department of Justice.
The hon. member asked for the philosophy behind the division of duties between the president of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. If the hon. member refers to the report of the Glassco commission I think he will see set out clearly what that commission recommended with respect to the president of the Treasury Board. It recommended that the post of president of the Treasury Board be created to deal basically with government expenditures. In other words, the president of the Treasury Board would be responsible for such things as the approval of departmental estimates and for applying directives laid down by the governor in council or cabinet and would look into such matters as organization within departments, improving and upgrading employees in the public service with respect to operating the public service more efficiently, taking an over-all look-and this would be done by the Treasury Board reporting through its president-at the organization of government. This means that the field of supply involving the moneys necessary to make government expenditures falls into the lap of the president of the Treasury Board.
It might seem at first, and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) mentioned this, that Treasury Board would run off in one direction and the Minister of Finance in another. I assure hon. members, nevertheless, that Treasury Board is not the president of the Treasury Board. Treasury Board consists of a number of ministers including the Minister of Finance. The president of the Treasury Board has the burden of looking after the detail of expenditures, dealing with departmental and governmental organization, and he must look after the upgrading of the organization, trying to improve efficiency within the government organization. That job, in the opinion of the Glassco commission, was too detailed and cumbersome to be put on the shoulders of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is basically responsible for economic policy, for monetary policy generally in the country, and, indeed, for many other matters.
June 6, 1966



Indeed, there must be close liaison between the president of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. I can assure hon. members that the concept of having a president of the Treasury Board as well as a minister of finance could not work if there were not close liaison between the two. Government could not work if there were not close liaison between, say, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There has to be liaison and consideration of each other's problems as between all ministers of government or the government will not work but disintegrate, as has sometimes happened in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Be careful now.


Edgar John Benson: I do not think I need to say anything further about this matter. I think I have dealt with the particular problem raised by the hon. member.
I should like to say in conclusion that I see no difficulty in the establishment of the president of the Treasury Board and his relationship with the Minister of Finance in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance will always be a member of the Treasury Board. Indeed, this is laid out in the legislation. The president of the Treasury Board is subject to the wishes of the Treasury Board which consists of several ministers, as my hon. friend knows.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. minister permit one more question in this same area. It relates specifically to the change from the Minister of Finance to the president of the Treasury Board in the case of the new section 28. I do not wish to set the present Minister of National Revenue against the present Minister of Finance. After all, they will not be here forever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It strikes me that the recommending of governor general's warrants, which usually comes about because parliament has been dissolved before estimates have been passed, is a major financial decision. I am surprised that the responsibility for recommending that kind of decision is to be taken from the Minister of Finance who I thought was still, in this field, senior to the president of the Treasury Board. I say it is not a matter of distinguishing between the two individuals who happen to hold the positions at the moment. Would the minister 23033-382
Public Service
relate the philosophy he has outlined to the new section 28?


Edgar John Benson: As I have said, the minister who happens to be president of the Treasury Board is, with the Treasury Board, responsible for expenditures. He is responsible for the matter of supply in the house. This is the decision that has been made. It has been decided that the president of the Treasury Board will come to the house for supply if the house is sitting. If the house is not sitting, if it is not in session or has been dissolved and governor general's warrants are required, with the authority of the Treasury Board he would go to the governor general for warrants in that particular period just as he would go to the house if the house were in session.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister permit a question? What ministers, other than the Minister of Finance and the president of the Treasury Board, are members of the Treasury Board?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as this is a cabinet committee I should not like to disclose the names of ministers. To answer the question, five other ministers besides the Minister of Finance and the president of the Treasury Board are listed as members of the Treasury Board. In addition, there are an equal number of alternate members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special joint committee on the public service of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue) moved:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to inform that house that the following bills have been referred to the special joint committee of both houses appointed to consider legislation relating to the public service:
Bill C-170, an act respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada;
Bill C-181, an act respecting employment in the public service of Canada; and
Bill C-182, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Motion agreed to.
Pensions
[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1966
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

Edgar John Benson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act and the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees Provident Act to provide for a reduction in the contributions required to be paid under those acts as a result of the implementation of the Canada Pension Plan and for the correlation of the pensions or annuities payable under those acts with the pensions payable under the Canada Pension Plan; to extend the portability provisions of certain of the plans established under those acts; to raise the limit on the amount of the supplementary death benefit payable in respect of persons employed in the public service and members of the Canadian forces; and to make amendments of a general nature in connection with the administration of those acts and of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act and the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister begins, perhaps there could be an understanding that he should be allowed to make his statement in full, provided it does not run to great length, and that the private members' hour should run for an hour from the time the minister sits down.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I trust that the words of admonition used by the hon. member for Kamloops this afternoon on the subject of omnibus bills do not apply to the measure contemplated in the resolution before us, because if ever a bill was an omnibus bill the bill to be introduced following this resolution will be one. This has to be the case because a great many acts will have to be changed in order to make possible integration with the Canada Pension Plan. In most cases the amendments to the various acts will be the same but they must be brought about by an omnibus bill.
Perhaps before we complete our discussion on the resolution we might hear the views of hon. members on this subject. This is certainly not an omnibus bill of the type to which objection was taken earlier today, but there

needs to be amendment of between 15 and 20 acts affecting people in various parts of the public service.
The main purpose of this resolution is to make possible the introduction of legislation to provide for co-ordination between the Canada Pension Plan and a number of acts dealing with the superannuation of members of the public service. It is highly desirable that the amendments to the various acts mentioned in the resolution should come into effect at the same time; consequently, the government felt it would be desirable to proceed by means of a statute law amendment bill which would combine all of the proposed legislative amendments in a single bill.
When the bill to establish the Canada Pension Plan was before the house a detailed explanation of the government's proposals, designed to co-ordinate the Public Service Superannuation Act with the Canada Pension Plan was given both to the house itself and to the joint parliamentary committee which reviewed that bill. The legislation which this resolution contemplates contains the provisions Which were foreshadowed and explained at that time.
It will be recalled that the joint parliamentary committee on the Canada Pension Plan suggested that the door should be left open, if possible, for integration of the Canada Pension Plan with the existing pension provisions covering the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. The committee recommended that the "provision exempting the armed services and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from coverage under the Canada Pension Plan should, if integration is technically feasible, be deleted". While a satisfactory method of integration could not be developed before the Canada Pension Plan was passed, section 6(2)(g) of the bill to establish that plan was amended in committee to conform to the joint committee's view. The clause as amended now provides that excepted employment is "employment as a member of the Canadian forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police except as provided by any other act of the parliament of Canada". During the intervening months a method of integration has been developed which meets the criteria established by the joint parliamentary committee in the case of persons to whom the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act apply. This bill will, therefore, implement the recommendations of the joint committee to the greatest feasible extent.
June 6. 1966

In the explanation which has already been given to the house and to the joint parliamentary committee on the general method of co-ordination or correlation which is proposed with respect to the public service, R.C.M.P. and armed forces legislation, two basic criteria have been set forth. The first principle is that the total contributions paid by the employee and by the government on the salary on which contributions are now being paid under the relevant superannuation acts should not be increased; instead a portion of the contributions should be diverted away from the superannuation fund in each case to the Canada Pension Plan or to the Quebec Pension Plan in the case of those persons who are employed in the province of Quebec.
As a consequence of this diversion it was recognized that the benefits earned under the relevant superannuation act would have to be reduced. This led to the second principle, namely, that the reduction in benefits should not bring the total level of benefits below the level that would have prevailed under the superannuation act had it not been for the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan. Thus the total contributions would not increase and the total benefits would not decrease, and might even be marginally increased in some instances, in the case of present employees who take their retirement in future either on grounds of age or disability. In addition, their pension credits already earned for service prior to the commencement of the Canada Pension Plan would not be affected.
As hon. members realize, it was not possible to introduce this legislation prior to January 1, 1966, so that in order to prevent a decrease in the take-home pay of those civil servants who were already contributing 5 or 6| per cent of their salary to the superannuation account it was necessary to provide accountable advances to cover the period until this legislation was introduced and passed. These accountable advances have been made to date under the authority given by parliament by vote LlOOd of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1966 and vote LlOOe of the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1966. The effect of the provision contained in this present bill would be to reduce the amounts which such persons are required to contribute to the superannuation account with effect from January 1, 1966 so that the advances made to persons who are contributing on the date of royal assent will be recovered in this way.
Pensions
Similar provisions will apply to those public officials who are contributing under the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act. No such provision was necessary in the case of the members of the Canadian forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police since they have not been required to contribute under the Canada Pension Plan up to the present time. However, Canadian National Railways has arranged for similar advances in the case of those employees to whom the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act applies.
Quite apart from the arrangements for integration with the Canada Pension Plan, the bill contains a number of other amendments which have been deferred until the present time, principally because the pressure of legislative business did not give parliament an earlier opportunity of dealing with them. Some of these relate to proposals of the public accounts committee; others arise from recommendations contained in the quinquennial actuarial reports on the various superannuation and death benefit accounts; others reflect the growing interest in the question of portability of pension rights and are designed to broaden the provisions of certain of the acts in this regard.
Finally, a number of the amendments are proposed for the purpose of taking care of anomalies and administrative problems which have come to light during the years since these acts were last before parliament for a detailed review. I should mention that the references to the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act and the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act are included for this last reason and not because of any direct connection with the Canada Pension Plan.
At this stage I would like to make particular mention of two items out of the general categories which I have just outlined. One of these is mentioned in the resolution and has for its purpose the raising of the limit under the supplementary death benefit plan for members of the public service and the Canadian forces which is presently provided under Part II of the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is proposed to raise this limit from the present ceiling of $5,000 to the approximate actual salary or pay level of the person concerned, subject to the continuation of the present provision by which the total death benefit is reduced by one-tenth of the basic benefit each year after reaching the age
June 6, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of 60, and to the retention of the minimum benefit of $500 for those to whom this has applied in the past.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The low level of the death benefit under this plan was a subject of comment by the Glassco commission. At the same time it is proposed, for administrative and other reasons, to delete from part II of the Public Service Superannuation Act the provisions affecting members of the regular forces and to add a new part III to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to provide for the continuation of death benefit coverage for present members of the Canadian forces and former ones who are covered by this plan.
Finally, I would like to mention that the government has been concerned for some time over the rigid limitations, contained in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, on the amount of pension a former officer may receive under those acts if he is subsequently employed in the public service of Canada. The bill contains a provision which will make this control more flexible. This provision is similar to that contained in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act which leaves it to the governor in council to deal with this situation by regulation.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), farm machinery-possible time required for inquiry; the hon. member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), Labour relations-Quebec-stoppage of work by longshoremen; the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), Old age security-consideration of increase in amount of pension.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as fisted on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, immediate steps should be taken by the government to arrange for a federal-provincial highway building conference at the earliest possible moment in order that a national highway building program be instituted with special attention in such a program to be given to access roads in the northern areas and lesser developed areas of the nation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the age of federal-provincial conferences. In recent years we have had these conferences on a variety of subjects and some of them were fruitful and others were not. What the motion seeks is to have a national highway building conference established, something which, incidentally, was contemplated and planned when Hon. Jean-Paul Deschatelets was the minister of public works. In fact, while he was minister he had so organized and arranged the plans for a dominion-provincial conference on highways that the date for it was almost established.
Unfortunately, however, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the then minister of finance, at a dominion-provincial fiscal conference in Quebec city, gave way to some of the demands of that province and as a result the then minister of public works, Mr. Deschatelets, had to come to parliament and regretfully announce that the plan for a dominion-provincial highway building conference had been cancelled because, as he put it, there was not sufficient money to go around inasmuch as there had been an increase in the contribution under the tax-sharing arrangement. In any event, at that time there was a recommendation with regard to the responsibility of the federal government in the field of highway building, a recommendation with which I agree, namely, that the federal government must participate in a national highway building program in order that there might be an orderly development of highways and roads in this nation.
I think this was recognized at least tentatively in 1949 when the Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed and that highway was contemplated. It was also recognized when the Conservative government took office by the establishment of the so-called roads to resources program under which the federal and provincial governments participated jointly in financing roads which led to potential or actual natural resources or which
June 6, 1966

Highways
opened up areas particularly in the northern part of our nation.
We would hope that the ideas conceived with regard to those two forms of financial participation could be carried forward. Since 1949 there has been quite in increase in travel, in the ownership of automobiles and in the expansion of the nation in respect of population and affluence. There has been a heavy emphasis upon tourism, upon seeing Canada, and a heavy highway building program has been instituted in the various provinces. In order to develop it is necessary that we try to co-ordinate and tie together the various highway building programs in the provinces. This means that there must be more communication and preparation on a national basis. In the motion I place emphasis on the northern part of our nation because we all know that in the highly populated southern areas of Canada the population itself creates sufficient pressure on the provincial governments with relation to the building of highways at least.
We conceive that with the federal government participating financially it would be the dominant force in respect of highways in those parts which are not so well populated. We conceive also of the necessity for opening up areas which now are not populated at all or, if so, only to a very limited extent. We believe that roads which open up areas automatically bring people there for settlement and for the exploitation of the resources which exist there, and people bring prosperity.
I should like to make only passing reference to the portion of British Columbia from which I come. For some years we have had an intensive interest in the concept that what locally in the province is referred to as highway 16, which extends from there through the Rocky Mountain trench area to Jasper, should be part of another trans-Canada highway. Incidentally, this proposal has received unanimous political support at the local level for as long as I can remember. The Liberal party revises its support for this program every time there is an election, but promptly forgets about it when the election is over. I should like those hon. members who raise their eyebrows at this statement to remember that fact, because it is a fact. We are not interested at home in merely making political hay out of roadbuilding programs; we want to see something worthwhile accomplished in this regard.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Because the provincial governments have some jurisdiction over the building of highways and because the federal government is involved both jurisdictionally and actually in the building of highways in the Northwest Territories and has an overriding responsibility for the development of an orderly highway system we think that a conference is necessary. Co-operation is needed between the various levels of government, and at such a conference it would be possible to set out those areas which require a roadbuilding program. It would also be possible to come to some agreement about the money split-who would pay how much toward what.
We believe that priorities are necessary so that we can engage in the building of highways that are urgently needed and we feel it is possible to establish priorities at a federal-provincial conference. In this way the provinces would know on the basis of long-range plans what to expect in the way of federal financial participation and could plan accordingly.
I rather anticipate that this motion will not receive different treatment from that accorded to similar motions which come before the house and that a Liberal backbencher will be on his feet at the end of private members' hour loving this particular motion to death. If that is the desire of the Liberal party I wish them Godspeed, but if there is a real and genuine desire to treat me gently hon. members will let this motion come to a vote so that parliament can at least give an expression of opinion on this extremely urgent question.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is one that I am sure will recommend itself to members in all parts of the house. He has referred to the need for better roads and highways throughout Canada and we all applaud that goal. The next immediate step proposed by the hon. member toward the achievement of better roads and highways from a federal point of view is the convening of a federal-provincial highway building conference. While I think we would agree with the aim he puts forward, I for one would disagree with his suggestion that such a conference is the next logical step, and I want to submit to the house through you, Mr. Speaker, certain reasons for taking that view.

June 6, 1966
Highways
Before doing that I want to agree with the hon. member that there is no question but that the government of Canada is thoroughly involved in the matter of roads and highways. The hon. member very cautiously mentioned the years 1949 and 1958, but I should think one could go back beyond that time to the Canada Highways Act and to some of the things that were done in the 1930's, perhaps primarily to relieve unemployment but certainly with a direct effect on highways.
In so far as the roads to resources program begun in 1958 is concerned, this was, if you will, a flowering of a process which goes back something like 30 years in respect of forest access roads and the like. There is no question but that the government of Canada is thoroughly involved in highway construction, but what is now before us is a question regarding means, and I suggest that the immediate desirable step to be taken is not what is proposed in this motion.
The hon. member put his motion on the order paper on January 20, 1966, and I am sure at that time he did not anticipate certain circumstances as they now exist. I want to suggest that the desirability of an immediate conference in this period of great instability and uncertainty of provincial government is at least questionable. Earlier today the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) told the house that the timing of the announced federal-provincial conference which is to concern itself with financing in the field of education was somewhat uncertain by reason of the prevailing instability and uncertainty of provincial government, so I think this is not the opportune time for the immediate launching of yet another federal-provincial conference. Perhaps that is somewhat facetious, for I am sure the hon. member would be prepared to let this proposal stand until such time as things are somewhat more stable in the field of provincial government.
We must consider the question of the usefulness of the proposed highway building conference. Let us look at some of the programs in which the government of Canada has been participating directly or indirectly. First, we have the matter of highway construction in the north. If the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) were speaking now I am sure he would refer to an announcement he made last October to the effect that the government of Canada, in order to stimulate resources development in Canada's north, was launching

upon a massive ten year roadbuilding program in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. This new program calls for an average expenditure of $10 million per year and is to be carried on for a long period. This is an area which would not need to be touched upon at least by a federal-provincial conference, and I mention it initially so as to put it aside.
The trans-Canada highway collaboration between Canada and the provinces has been a major adventure in highway construction, and we all know that the first trans-Canada highway has not as yet been completed. Only last year on August 2 the Prime Minister announced that the final date for payment to the provinces for trans-Canada highway construction was to be extended until December of 1970. That was the government's proposal. It is interesting to note that there is a good deal of work yet to be done on this first trans-Canada highway. I have some figures at hand but I will not try to put them before the house just now. There is a good deal of work to be done in the province of Quebec and Nova Scotia. Both of these provinces are pushing ahead with this work and I assume will be able to complete it within the new time limit. However, I think it would be premature actually to launch a second trans-Canada highway until we have managed to wrap up the first one.
One must also consider the roads to resources program and the fact that this also is not completed. I understand that there is considerable money available from the government of Canada in the case of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and British Columbia under the roads to resources program. This was not a large program. The money available to each of the several provinces was $7J million, but in certain cases not all this money has been used. I understand that when a revival or continuation of this program is discussed, what comes to the fore is the need to appraise what has been done. It may very well be that in some instances the fullest value has not been obtained and consequently that some new specifications should be introduced on how this kind of money should be spent.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Then there is the other question which presumably would make a nice point for discussion and ratification at a federal-provincial conference, namely, the distribution of money and whether each of the several provinces should get exactly the same amount
June 6, 1966

regardless of population, size and the engineering difficulties of the terrain. My understanding is that although the roads to resources program has not yet been completed, thought is being given to questions such as those to which I have just referred.
I have looked over some of the comments the hon. member for Skeena has made in the past on this interesting subject. On one occasion he was very intrigued by the work being undertaken by the Atlantic Development Board in connection with trunk highway construction in the Atlantic provinces. If I recall correctly, he applauded this program, and so do we all. This is a good undertaking. We are hoping that as these trunk highways begin to make their impact on our Atlantic economy they will contribute greatly to the general economic well-being of our area and will help solve some of the problems that exist in this regard. However, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of work to be done. I notice, for example, that my own province of Nova Scotia has only begun to use that money. Here again we have, as it were, a great deal of unfinished business.
What I have been doing, Mr. Speaker, is to refer to some of the aspects of federal participation in road and highways construction and to suggest that several of these programs are still in operation although it is true that they are in their tapering-out stages. I would not lean on this argument as conclusive in dealing with the motion put forward by the hon. member for Skeena. There is another point that I think is very important. I refer to the work being done by the tax structure committee.
We are all familiar with the problem that prevails, namely, that of the provinces having jurisdiction and Canada having at least the legal right to tax. I think it would be unwise to launch now a federal-provincial conference on highway building, which I suggest must go ahead on the presumption that the federal government will continue in much the same way as it has in the past, that is, making grants in aid in connection with highway projects, until such time as the tax structure committee has made its report and until such time, indeed, as the appropriate constitutional authorities have accepted or rejected the proposals of that committee. We should not anticipate that report.
I understand that consultation regarding various aspects of highway transportation does go on between provincial and federal
Highways
officials. The provincial authorities raise various questions on highway transportation. I would think it is fair to assume that the whole range of questions adduced by the motion of the hon. member for Skeena is being and will be explored in these conversations. I would hope that as these conversations, albeit at the official level, go on the thinking of Canadians with regard to Canada's highway needs would develop and become modernized. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that there probably is going on, if you will subterraneously, talk and thinking which may very well at the appropriate time eventuate in the kind of conference the hon. member is now proposing.
Therefore my concluding remark is that I think the aim of the motion is commendable but that I do not think a federal-provincial highway building conference at the earliest possible moment, as contemplated by the motion, is the best next step toward the accomplishment of the aim the hon. member has in mind.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much time on this motion because, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has said, I think we would like to see it put to the house. I note that the parliamentary secretary believes that the motion is commendable although he has certain reservations concerning the timing of such a federal-provincial conference. I hope that the cliff-hanging election results throughout Canada will not be the excuse used to delay the holding of such a conference because there is a danger, in the way we are proceeding now, that many departments of this government will be working in different directions.
As a precedent in this regard I always like to refer to route 6 in the province of Quebec where the federal government paid $125,000 per mile for a highway which is not part of the trans-Canada highway. In the estimates this year we also have an amount of $1J million for the construction of a highway between the city of Moncton and Buctouche, New Brunswick, to replace the railway line that is being abandoned. These unilateral actions were taken by this government for the construction of provincial highways which are not part of the trans-Canada highway. I believe there is a danger in this regard because the agreements are unilateral or in some cases bilateral, and if we are to pursue

June 6, 1966
Highways
a policy of building highways in the provinces other than the trans-Canada highway it should be done by national agreement.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I can think of different departments of this government such as national resources, transportation, public works and forestry which provide for the building of highways not necessarily through bilateral agreements between a province and the federal government. There is the danger that if we pursue such a policy we will not fully utilize the money that is being spent on the provinces. It is certainly advisable that this conference be held at the earliest possible moment and that officials of the ministries of which I have just referred attend and together with the provinces study the different programs so as to come up with a policy which will be for the betterment of the provinces and will utilize all the money which should be expended in the best way.


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman if it is his view that the proposed provincial federal conference would decide the federal policy with regard to federal assistance to road and highway construction? Is that what I am to understand from what he is suggesting?


James Russell Keays: I think I have referred to what has already been invested by this government in highways apart from the trans-Canada highway. If we are going to pursue this policy, then let us face up to a national conference and have all the departments of the government work together to utilize in the best way the money expended.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is wonderful this afternoon to find the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) introducing a motion for the convening of a conference on highways to consider the development and expansion of the north because those members who come from British Columbia value very highly the highways systems of this country and of their own province in particular. We live in an extremely mountainous province, one in which access to its great resources is extremely difficult and very costly to achieve with the result that we have to do so slowly. Fortunately we have been aided in our development by two outside sources. One source has been the federal government which has not only built the trans-Canada highway but has also assisted in the building of additional 
routes through the federal parks within that province and also under the roads to resources program.
In addition to the assistance from the federal government considerable assistance has also been given to the development and expansion of northern British Columbia in the form of U.S. funds that were put into the building of the Alaska highway from Dawson Creek to Alaska, which was a military route during world war II.
In addressing myself to the motion of the hon. member I want to dwell for a moment on the importance of this highway and on what should be considered by any federal-provincial conference on roads in respect of that highway. If you go north out of Vancouver up to the centre of the province, a distance of approximately 500 miles, you come to the city of Prince George which is pretty well in the centre of the province of British Columbia. From Prince George you take the Hart highway, named after a former premier of that province, for a distance of approximately 270 miles north and slightly east to the town of Dawson Creek, not to be confused in the minds of easterners with Dawson City which does not lie in the province of British Columbia. Dawson Creek lies in the Peace river district, a great farming district opened up in northern Alberta and British Columbia, access to which is not only by the Hart highway from Prince George but also westward from Edmonton to the town of Dawson Creek. Dawson Creek is a thriving agricultural community and it is also mile zero on the Alaska highway.


Frank Howard: It would be a good place in which to hold this conference.


Grant Deachman: I quite agree with the member for Skeena that it would be a good place in which to hold the conference. I think that is very magnanimous on his part because it lies in the riding of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe). Incidentally, he and the hon. member for Skeena have almost two-thirds of northern British Columbia in their constituencies.
Let me revert for a moment to mile zero of the Alaska highway at Dawson Creek. During the war the inland access route to Alaska began there and was built northward a distance of approximately 1,200 miles through Canada. About 600 of these miles lie in the province of British Columbia and another 600 miles take you through the Yukon territory as far as the borders of Alaska. From there
June 6, 1966

the Alaska highway runs to the city of Fairbanks. This highway, except for a relatively short piece comprising 36 miles between the town of Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, which lies on the other side of the Peace river, is unpaved. A short stretch of the highway is paved north of Fort St. John but it does not extend very far. What is needed in the opening of the north in order to stimulate not only commercial traffic along that highway but heavy tourist traffic is the continuation of its paving.
About a year or so ago I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the premier of British Columbia. I asked him what he wanted to see done with the Alaska highway. He said to me: "Institute a federal program of paving the highway as you are its owners and operators and do so on a regular basis of say 100 miles a year extending northward. Turn it over to the province and we will maintain it." That seems to me to be a fair deal and a fair method for getting the Alaska highway paved.
I want to turn for a moment to an alternative suggestion for paving that highway and opening up that section of the north. I refer to a proposal made by two American senators, Senator Mansfield and Senator Metcalf. On January 18, 1964 they introduced in the U.S. Senate Bill S. 2417 to assist Canada on a 50-50 basis in the paving of the Alaska highway. Here are some of the things they would like to see done and which they have written into the provisos of their bill, which is somewhat similar to a private member's bill in this house.
This bill reads in part:
1.	Will provide, without participation of funds herein authorized, all necessary rights of way for the construction of the Alaska highway, which shall forever be held inviolate as a part of the highway for public use;
2.	Will not impose any highway toll-
Note this provision which they would like to see put into the agreement.
-or permit any such toll to be charged, for use by vehicles or persons of any portion of the highway construction under the provisions of this act.
[DOT] (6.40 p.m.)
3.	will not levy or assess, directly or indirectly, any fee, tax, or other charge for the use of said highway by vehicles or persons of the United States that does not apply equally to vehicles or persons of such country;
4.	will grant reciprocal recognition of vehicle registration and drivers licences; and
5.	will provide for year-round maintenance of the highway, including snow removal-
Highways
And so on. Those are the terms of a bill under which they would like to see the Alaska highway paved from Alaska a matter of 1,200 miles to the border. Why should they want to see this done? In the first place,. Alaska is one of the recent states to enter the United States. Alaska fascinates them. If you watch the traffic going through in the summertime you will see people from all over the United States who want to travel that route, one of the most romantic routes in North. America today. The prospect of driving through Alaska during the summer holidays fascinates these people. The ubiquitous Californian, whose station wagons and cars can be found everywhere, hurls himself across the rocks and stones on this road, with stones banging against his car and breaking his windshield. You can walk down the-streets of Dawson Creek at night and look at the cars from the United States parked at the curb.
These cars are covered with dirt and dust after having made the journey from Prince George or having come down the Alaska highway. Their windshields are pitted from the small pebbles that have hit them and some windshields are broken. My wife and I one night walked down the street making a count of how many windshields were broken or pitted. We calculated that approximately 90 per cent of these cars had pitted or broken windshields as a result of rocks being thrown up along the Alaska highway. This was a few years ago. It is no wonder that these people want to see that highway to Alaska paved.
We have a special reason for wanting to see that highway completed. Before it ever reaches Alaska, in which we are really not so greatly interested, there is a cut-off which leads through to Haines and provides access to the sea. This cut-off from the Alaska highway is about 159 miles long and passes through part of the Yukon Territory, part of British Columbia and part of the Alaska panhandle which is United States territory. It is a road that is difficult to keep open in the wintertime because the snow is very heavy but it is an enormously important road because it provides access to the sea at the very top of British Columbia.
It is a very vital matter, therefore, to us to see this road paved so that traffic may move across the northern part of our province to tidewater at Haines. I would prefer to see a federal-provincial conference such as the hon. member has suggested, work out methods for-

June 6, 1966
Highways
the paving of this highway. I would prefer to see the federal government take up the task of paving this highway on a regular basis, mile by mile until the project is completed rather than going to the United States and saying, we will enter into a 50-50 deal with you for the paving of the Alaska highway. In other words, I reject the ideas contained in the Mansfield-Metcalf bill. I suggest we would be far better off in this country if we built our own roads and paid for them. If other nations want access via those roads for purposes of their own, such as to go through the panhandle to Alaska, we should work out through some other kind of arrangement which is satisfactory to them. We should control the building of our own roadways.
I would be happy to see the type of conference suggested by the hon. member. I believe that by building this road ourselves, owning it outright and keeping it in good condition we could go to the United States and say, we are prepared to give you access over the Alaska highway but there are some things that we would like you to settle with us. The first one would be some kind of permanent arrangement about the Alaska panhandle. As hon. members know, this was a deal we got into when we were barely emerging from colonial status at the turn of the century. The negotiators from Great Britain, anxious to go home to the roast beef and ale of England, made a rapid and ready deal with the United States which gave the United States the panhandle which stretches down half the coast of British Columbia. If the 60th parallel were cut through to the sea in this piece of territory which, as it has turned out, has not been so useful to the United States, it would be of inestimable benefit to us. It would give us access to the sea which we greatly need in the northern regions of British Columbia. One of the suggestions I am going to make this evening is that we have such a conference in the future and that we bear in mind that we should be the owners of our own highway system. We should then deal with others on the basis of our complete ownership of that highway system. I believe we should proceed forthwith with the paving of the Alaska highway on a regular, annual basis until it begins to return us solid dividends. I believe, as the hon. member does, that we should be doing everything we can to complete an additional, northern trans-Canada route to serve the growing regions of the north. We should be working toward that objective. I am rather astonished

to hear from my Maritime colleagues how slow the province of Quebec and the Maritimes are in completing the trans-Canada highway for which funds have been available for so long. If they lived in the west, as we do, 3,000 miles from Ottawa, they would realize that the construction of the trans-Canada highway and keeping it in good condition as it is today is a good thing. I know if they drove over it, they would see the reason for completing that highway in the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like on this occasion to support the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in his attempt to indicate to the government that a conference of the nature he has suggested in his resolution should be held, whether it be called a highway conference or simply a road conference. Listening to the parliamentary secretary indicate that there were other programs, the trans-Canada highway program, the roads to resources program and so on, left me with a strong impression that such a conference should be held. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) has indicated that there is a problem in connection with the Alaska highway. He believes a conference of this nature would help solve some of these problems.
The fact that there are problems has been indicated by both the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I am sure my own province of Saskatchewan could indicate many problems. There may be some provinces that may not require a program of this sort as much as other provinces. There will be some that will not be in a position to undertake construction immediately. However, that should not be a reason for preventing other provinces from progressing.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The premier of the province of Saskatchewan, having driven the wicked C.C.F. from office, has always told us that the free enterprise government which he heads will try to encourage development. Perhaps it has done that in its own way. However, the roads to resources program is one which will assist the province in its endeavours. It seems to me that the premier of the province of Saskatchewan should be the first to cry out for such a conference.
Last year the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) was asked some questions in the house and said,
June 6, 1966

as reported at page 980 of Hansard for May 6, 1965:
-we have circulated-
The provinces.
-asking for their opinions as to the efficacy of the program.
Surveys have been taken by the department and various departments have been corresponding with the ministers of each province trying to ascertain the need. There is a need, and they must have ascertained the need from the survey which was undertaken. I would have thought that the premier of the province of Saskatchewan might have taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, and put more money into the development of the north, something which in itself would encourage enterprises.
However, Mr. Speaker, since 1963 what do we find? We find a slowdown in roadwork in the north. While the province has asked for extension of the road program for another year, at the same time it has reached the stage where there is no point in rushing. Only a limited amount of money is forthcoming from the federal government, so what is the po;nt of rushing? The federal government has indicated that it will extend this program as well as progress with another program. If it will indicate it is prepared to put aside a certain amount of money and will ask the provinces to work out a program satisfactory to them, I am sure they would be glad to present one to the federal government for its approval or whatever may be necessary.
If this were done the province of Saskatchewan would then know that it would have to match a certain amount. In reply to a question of mine, No. 878, on March 21 it was indicated that the province of Saskatchewan required another $20 million to complete its existing program. We know that under the existing program it is impossible to obtain this amount of money; yet there is the road to Uranium City, the road to Island Falls and the road to Cumberland House. Money is scattered among various projects when it is known it is impossible to complete all of them. However, if the federal government were to indicate that it was quite prepared to put up another $20 million or even $10 million in the case of Saskatchewan, the province would then be able to work out a program.
It may be that the province of Prince Edward Island, for example, might not require such a large amount but would be
Highways
satisfied with another $500,000 to complete its existing program, or it may have other programs in mind. But surely a program of the type indicated by the hon. member for Skeena would help resolve all of these problems.
In the reply to the question which I raised on March 21 I noted that six provinces have asked for an extension. British Columbia, no doubt because of its particular type of problems, asked for an extension of five years for its roads to resources program. Is it fair to the rest of the provinces to wait another five years, some of them perhaps having completed their projects, just because British Columbia has mountain terrain which makes it difficult to complete its roads within the next year or so? This does not seem fair in the case of a program which has worked well.
I am sure there has been support for this program from every corner of the house. I am also sure that a conference at this time would help in the formulation of a program. I do not care who gets the credit for this type of program or who initiates it. Surely we must look at the end result. This might be a wonderful opportunity. I am sure that the idea of roads from igloo to igloo has long passed. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) will agree, and I do not think it necessary to go into that aspect. But when we realize that there are provinces which are prepared to work out programs or to complete existing programs if given further assistance, I think the need for such a conference should be evident to the government.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for bringing his resolution to the attention of the house. The resolution calls for a conference to discuss a national highway building program. I presume this has nothing to do with the trans-Canada highway but rather with a network of access roads in the northern and less developed areas of the nation.
I am all in favour of new highways and access roads. We do not have enough roads in the country to meet the demand of the ever-increasing number of motor vehicles which are using our highways and byways. When we consider that the annual increase in the number of motor vehicles in Canada is of the order of 200,000, the present pace of roadbuilding is nowhere near sufficient to ensure the safety of our motorists. I am not only in favour of the resolution but I would suggest a

June 6, 1966
Highways
national conference in which motor car manufacturers and provincial, municipal and federal representatives would participate.
I also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the present trans-Canada highway be widened to four lanes from coast to coast. At the present time there are four-lane stretches across some parts of Ontario and Quebec and they are indeed a great improvement but unfortunately they do not extend into northern and northwestern Ontario and to other regions of Canada.
I can speak of northwestern Ontario where the worst part of the trans-Canada highway is found. There are stretches between the lakehead and the Manitoba boundary that are really a disgrace to the nation. True, they fall within provincial jurisdiction, but surely when the federal government contributed 90 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway construction it should also exert some measure of direct control.
May I call it seven o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may have another five minutes.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I am very much impressed with the idea of having a conference to deal with the very important question of highways, especially with the trans-Canada highway in which I am perhaps more interested. This would provide the opportunity to discuss the construction of access roads to meet the demand which, as I said in my earlier remarks, is increasing at a very fast rate year by year.
I have attended conferences dealing with highways and invariably at every conference the matter of the cost to municipalities, to provinces and to the federal government is raised. This is one of the questions we must meet in some manner. I have suggested at one of these conferences that experts of the highways departments of provincial governments should sit down and try to figure out ways of building highways at less cost.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I was very much impressed when travelling from the city of London, England to the London airport, to see that different sections of the highway were built of different materials. These different materials were used not only to determine the suitability of the substances used, but also to determine the relative costs of the highway. I have not seen anything like it in Canada.

I have suggested, at meetings I have attended, that similar things be done here. There have been favourable discussions, but nothing of a concrete nature has happened. I still wish to make that suggestion, because we must reduce costs.
One finds that public roads cost, per mile, in the neighbourhood of $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000. I agree that some stretches of the trans-Canada highway, especially those last built in southern Ontario, and in some parts of Quebec near Montreal where there are four lanes, are of substantial construction, probably costing as much as I have suggested. However, I suggest that we ought to try to find methods to build highways at reduced costs, because that will result in our building more highways for less money.
I sincerely hope, with respect to the resolution brought forward by the hon. member, that the government and those responsible for these matters will take notice of it, and will convene a conference as suggested, with a view to finding ways and means of coping with the problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members business has expired. The house will revert to the business interrupted at 6.05 p.m.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Benson (for Mr. Sharp)-Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act and the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Act to provide for a reduction in the contributions required to be paid under those acts as a result of the implementation of the Canada Pension Plan and for the correlation of the pensions or annuities payable under those acts with the pensions payable under the Canada Pension Plan; to extend the portability provisions of certain of the plans established under those acts; to raise the limit on the amount of the supplementary death benefit payable in respect of persons employed in the public service and members of the Canadian forces; and to make amendments of a general nature in connection with the administration of those acts and of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act and the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is the minister?
June 6, 196B


Thomas Miller Bell: -this is a very significant resolution. The minister has correctly described it as omnibus in character. Indeed the wide variety of its provisions and their very complex nature has been emphasized by the minister's explanation. But I must say candidly to him, or I would say candidly to him if he were here, that his explanation was exceedingly sketchy, and was indeed more significant and revealing in its omissions than in its elaborations.
The very technical nature of the acts to be amended would indicate that major discussion should await second reading and subsequent committee procedure. But the minister this afternoon indicated that the government intends to group all the proposed amendments in an omnibus bill, rather than introduce separate amending bills for each statute. I object vigorously to this procedure. An omnibus bill such as was adopted in the reorganization of government departments is a most untidy and most confusing legislative process.
I fully adopt what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops and I reiterate what I urged on two occasions during the discussion of the government reorganization bill. May I put it this way: If in this chamber the government persists in omnibus bills, I hope the other place will exercise proper sober second thought and divide them. I put it specifically to the members of the other place that this is a proper role for a second chamber, if a second chamber must be maintained in our legislative system-and I confess that my views in this respect are very similar to those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is a proper role, let us do it here.


Richard Albert Bell: I say, Mr. Chairman, chat one bill amending 15 acts is a travesty upon legislative procedures. It simply ought not to be tolerated in this committee, or in the house at second reading.
Taken as a whole, Mr. Chairman, the superannuation provisions Canada makes for her dedicated public servants are the equal of any country's and compare most favourably with private industry. Only in the treatment of retired public servants who have been caught in the upward trend of prices, for which their pensions make no provision, has the Canadian government been shabby and shoddy. I use these adjectives deliberately because, in relation to this situation, they are
Pensions
mild. I shall have more to say about this, because I firmly believe that we must do two things, and we must do them now. First, we must raise the pensions of those who have retired to the appropriate equivalent of the rates at which they retired and, second, we must build in an escalation clause for the future. I shall return later, in the discussion in committee, to this theme.
I think that the committee will approve of the tidying up operation forecast by the minister this afternoon in respect of the integration of the various superannuation acts and the Canada Pension Plan. The government got itself into an unholy mess by not doing this at the proper time. Does the committee realize that at the present time the government is actually extending to every civil servant a loan, or an accountable advance to the amount of his or her Canada Pension Plan contribution? What a perfectly silly arrangement. This ought to have been looked after at the proper time, long ago. These loans,	or accountable advances
amounted, in the first three months of the year, at March 31, to over $4 million, in accordance with an answer to a question of mine which was brought down in the house this afternoon.
As the law stands, every civil servant must contribute the full superannuation rate of 5 per cent or 6J per cent, as the case may be, plus-and I emphasize this-the full Canada Pension Plan contributions. This bill presumably cancels out these loans, affecting a bookkeeping transfer as between the superannuation funds and the Canada Pension Plan. If ever I saw an illustration of untidy, slovenly, disjointed administration, it is in the way the government has handled this whole matter.


Edgar John Benson: How would the hon. member have done it?
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Done it neatly at the proper time by legislative action, as it ought to have been done. It is the dilatoriness of this government-always postponing something to another day-which has led to this situation.
A very large number of complaints have reached me about the practice of requiring that Canada Pension Plan deductions be taken from salary increases retroactively made. The result has been to levy deductions upon salaries actually earned in 1965 before the plan came into effect. It seems to me this is unwarranted and I would ask the minister to

June 6, 1966
Pensions
deal with this question in the course of his reply. According to a question of mine which was answered this afternoon and which, presumably, will appear in Hansard tomorrow the sum of $210,000 was collected in 1966 from civil servants in respect of salary earned in 1965, before the Canada Pension Plan came into effect.
Before this bill passes the house we shall want to be assured of certain things. I shall list them. First, that the integration of the Canada Pension Plan and the superannuation acts will not be detrimental to any public servants and will be more favourable to some. Second, that the basic principles of the superannuation acts are not violated or substantially altered. As I have said, the superannuation acts are sound. Personally, I believe the benefits available under the Public Service Superannuation Act should be placed upon the basis of a five-year average. They should never have been related to a ten-year average, as was done by hon. gentlemen opposite. Many of the hardships suffered by retired civil servants are the result of that ill-advised action in establishing a ten-year average. The best I was able to achieve when the act was last revised was to have the period dropped back to a six-year average. I plead today with the minister to recognize that in these times of rapidly shifting costs and frequent changes in salary levels, the least he could do would be to include a five-year average in the act.
In the third place we want an assurance that an attempt will be made to build into the superannuation acts an escalation principle. This has been accepted as a matter of policy by the government in relation to the Canada Pension Plan. Introduced into the superannuation acts it would become a technique for avoiding the hardships and injustices which have confronted so many retired civil servants. And it would set a standard for industry which would be most desirable.
Now in respect to certain injustices-the minister called them anomalies-which have arisen in the administration of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the hon. gentleman has indicated that the bill will seek authority to deal with these by regulation or by orders in council.
I object as vigorously as I can to this technique of bypassing parliament. If the new procedures in the mind of the government can be outlined by regulation, or in an order in council, they can be set forth in the statute itself. The injustices are recognized. The time

to cure them is now, openly in this chamber, not in some back room. What evidence do we have that the government really intends to take action on this matter, one which has been hanging fire for a long time, when they conceal from this house what they propose to do?
The first problem I wish to raise concerns pensioned officers of the armed forces who are employed in the civil service. The existing provisions of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act relating to receipt of pensions while employed in the civil service are out of date and harshly unjust. Under these provisions a retired officer, warrant officer or chief petty officer entitled to a pension or annuity may receive, when subsequently employed in the civil service, only that part of his pension or annuity which, when added to his civil service pay, does not exceed his pay on retirement or the current pay in effect for the rank he held at the time of his retirement, whichever is greater.
This provision has had two deleterious effects. It has deprived the civil service of the services of highly trained and skilled officers who might have made a further major contribution to the public well-being. Second, it has brought injustice and hardship to those retired officers who, despite this discrimination, have entered federal employment. Many of them are my friends. I admire their personal loyalty as much as I deprecate the policy which deprives them of fair remuneration to which they are entitled.
The minister gave us no inkling of how he proposed to deal with this matter. He seeks a blank cheque to deal with it behind closed doors, by regulation. That is not good enough. This committee is entitled to be told what is planned with respect to a matter about which the government has been stalling-deliberately stalling-for months and months. If a remedy can be found by regulation it can be found by statute, in which case this chamber and all those persons who are affected will know what is proposed and can assess whether or not the solution is just and equitable. If we do not learn now what the government proposes it may be months, even years, before this issue is settled. I want an answer from the minister now, before this legislation passes. I do not wish to give the government a blank cheque in respect to this matter.
I turn now to the pension status of persons who enlisted in the armed forces during the war and continued to serve after the war
June 6, 1966

ended. The interpretation of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act has led to major discrimination and the minister has given no indication of the nature of his proposals.
The problem is this: the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act of 1959 makes eligibility for annuity dependant upon whether the contributor served in the armed forces for certain minimum periods. This was based upon the concept that these minimum periods of entitlement should be in the regular or permanent forces in order to qualify the contributor for pension. Active service during world war II by a person who was not a member of the forces as defined in the act does not count in this qualifying period, but once the qualifying period is satisfied the active service can be counted as pensionable service in the benefit formula.
Where there is a 25-year requirement and an officer wants to retire before normal retirement age, his war service has been totally eliminated from calculation. In my view, this is a genuine injustice-a real discrimination and must be rectified-and the place to rectify this is in the statute, not by regulation or order in council. I want the minister's answer tonight-not at some vague and indefinite date in the equally vague future.
One particular case of major injustice I wish to present without mentioning names, but arising out of the rule that a widow more than 25 years younger than her deceased husband is not entitled to pension. Protection against death-bed marriages is, of course, necessary, but some discretion ought to be provided to deal with harsh and unjust cases. In the particular case to which I refer a lieutenant colonel, at age 49, married a young woman of 22. It was a happy and productive marriage which lasted for 31 years, until the lieutenant colonel died at the age of 80. His widow is 26 years and four months younger than her deceased husband, and after 31 years of marriage she is deprived of pension.
I have given the Minister of Finance and the Associate Minister of National Defence full particulars, but I fear the bill to be founded on this resolution will not enable justice to be done in this particular case. If it does not, I shall have to deal with this matter, in detail, in committee.
Finally, sir, a brief word about pension increases for retired public servants, members of the R.C.M.P. and armed forces. I would have hoped that the phrase "amendments of a general nature in connection with the administration of those acts" in the last
Pensions
sentence of this resolution could be given real meaning by immediate and decisive action to raise these pensions. Since the minister has been silent, apparently it does not. I am deeply disappointed.
My views are well known. I have argued them in this house and outside on many occasions. It was an indiscreet speech of mine in 1957-deliberately indiscreet-which made it certain that readjustments would be achieved by the former government in 1958. Frankly, I am appalled by the adamant attitude of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister on this issue. I say to them both that I believe the will of this parliament is that justice and equity be done to the retired servants of the crown, and they cannot long stand in the way of that will. Both of them are former civil servants and ought to understand better the principles involved.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Personally I believe the Public Service Superannuation Act and other acts should have now a built-in escalation clause, and the contribution should reflect this. I will refer to this further on second reading and in committee. But this does not help the retired civil servants who now are enduring major hardships because due to the failures of the government, the dollar value of their pensions has declined so steeply.
My views are set forth as neatly as I could put them in resolution No. 28 which I introduced and which has been on the order paper since January 20. Because I fear it will not be reached at this session of parliament, I should like to read it:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give the earliest possible consideration to the advisability of adjusting upwards the pensions of superannuated public servants and of superannuated members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take appropriate account of increases in the cost of living, increases in salary levels and other relevant factors occurring since the rates of pension of such persons were determined.
This only I add: In other countries, notably Great Britain and the United States, precisely this has been done. The government of the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert established a precedent in Canada, and all that needs to be done is to bring that legislation up to date. The right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert has been the best practical friend the superannuated civil servants have ever had, and I urge respectfully but firmly upon the present Prime Minister emulation of his example. I appeal to the Minister of

June 6. 1966
Pensions
Finance and the Prime Minister for justice now for those who have served Canada well.
Thank you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, because of the time limitation we are under at this stage of debate, because of the complex nature of this piece of legislation, and also because of the limited number of details we have been given, it will not be possible to deal with it in full at this time. However, this is a most important piece of legislation and I trust ample time will be provided on second reading and in committee of the whole for us to go into this bill in the manner it deserves.
This piece of legislation does two main things. In the first place it brings before us the government's policy concerning integration of the various government pension plans with the Canada Pension Plan. That is a very simple statement when one makes it in one sentence; but when he realizes the number of government pension plans and the complexity *of the formula which has been worked out, it becomes clear that there is a lot more to it than can be put in one simple sentence. The other main purpose of this legislation is to make a number of general amendments to pension legislation, and apparently this is being done in this way because the subject matter of government pensions is before the house at this time.
With regard to the policy concerning integration I should like to say that, even though I may be a voice crying in the wilderness and even though we may have to accept this legislation because the representatives of the public servants-I am told-agree to it, I still am in disagreement with it. I disagree with the government's policy, but not for the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Carleton. I disagree with it because it is my view that complete integration-and that is what the government's policy is-denies one of the main purposes for which the Canada Pension Plan was brought in.
As I see it, the Canada Pension Plan had two main purposes. On the one hand it was *designed to provide a basic pension for all wage earners in this country, having in mind in particular those who previously had no pension plan whatsoever. The other purpose [DOT]of the Canada Pension Plan, however, was to improve the pension position of those who already had some pension arrangements. In other words, the second purpose was to add to the pension possibilities many of our people already had. I quite recognize there are pensions which are so good that no addition, no

supplement, to them really is necessary; but most pensions in this country are not in that category.
As time goes on, as living costs go up and as living standards go up, we are learning that there are more and more people on pensions which they thought were going to be adequate, and which they now find are not going to be adequate. As a result of all this we are learning there is a need for supplementation to most pensions. Therefore one of the reasons I was glad to support the Canada Pension Plan-and I was a strong supporter of it from start to finish-was that it provided an additional pension for those who already had pension arrangements and as well provided pensions for those who had not.
However, when under the name of integration you take away from the pension arrangement you already have all or practically all of what you are going to get under the Canada Pension Plan, then you have made no improvement for those persons who already had some pension arrangement. I know that a happy medium has to be found, or a line has to be drawn somewhere, but in my view the government's action in saying, in so far as its employees are concerned, that they are to get practically no improvement as a result of coming under the Canada Pension Plan, is a denial of one of the main purposes of the Canada Pension Plan. This also is a case of giving a very poor lead to private employers in this country.
I know the argument used is that 5 per cent and 64 per cent are high contribution rates and that those who pay these contributions do not want to pay any more. When those same people retire on their pensions they will wish they had a little more and that they had had the opportunity to pay a little more, even 1.8 per cent; but when the government lays down as a policy a complete integration that takes away the benefit which the Canada Pension Plan would have provided, private employers across the country use that as an excuse. Many of them are doing the same thing, even in respect of pensions where the contribution rates are lower than those in the government service and where the pension benefits are much lower.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
I contend therefore that this principle of what amounts to almost complete integration is, as I say, a denial of benefits and rights to public servants that they might have enjoyed, and it is also a very poor lead to private employers.
June 6, 1966

In all of this I am talking about the government's legislation as though it took away everything by complete integration, but I know that it does not go that far. There are a few instances where there is a marginal improvement as a result of which an employee will pay a total amount that is exactly the same as he would have paid, but will get a little more in the end. The main reason he will get a little more is that, dollar for dollar, money put into the Canada pension plan buys a better pension than money put into the public service superannuation fund. This is also true with respect to many private pension plans. I recognize the fact that there is marginal improvement and that some employees will get a little bit more, but that does not detract from the basic principle that this legislation, which will leave the total amount that civil servants are paying exactly the same, guarantees only that the benefits will not drop.
In my view it would have been better to work out a principle of integration that would give a little here and would give a little there. Perhaps the total contribution could have been increased by one half of one per cent or by one full percentage point. That is the kind of thing that I think would have been more acceptable in the long run to our public servants, and would have provided a better lead to employers across the country. We will be able to go into these things in greater detail when we reach second reading or committee stage, but I want to indicate at this point why I think we are being taken down a path on which we should not be travelling.
The minister this afternoon referred a number of times to this legislation as implementing recommendations of the joint committee on the Canada Pension Plan. While there may be many of those recommendations which will be implemented, surely the one that he is talking about when he refers to integration is the one which reads:
There should be scope for further benefits under private pension plans for those in a position to afford them and integration of private pension plans with the Canada Pension Plan should be a matter of consultation between employers and employees.
In other words, we in the committee recognized that there would be integration. But, we had before us many bodies, particularly of employees who were concerned that the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan would be taken away from them under the cloak of
Pensions
integration. They asked us to support them in the suggestion that any such arrangements should be a matter of consultation. What kind of consultation there has been in this instance I do not know, but I do know that in private business there has been far too many unilateral decisions by the employers who simply say to the employees that they are going to get this benefit from the Canada Pension Plan, so half or all of what they would get under the old plan will be taken away; and they have suggested they are justified in taking this action because the federal government is doing the same thing. That is my view of the situation; but we will cover it in detail when we reach the committee stage of the debate.
I welcome the announcement that the legislation will be worded in such a way that something will be done about the armed service and the R.C.M.P., as we recommended in the report of the joint committee on the Canada Pension Plan. The point raised by the hon. member for Carleton, that this sort of thing should be spelled out in the legislation rather than just being made a subject of regulation by order in council, was well taken. I welcome also the decision that among the things to be done in a general way regarding the pension plans of the government there will be an improvement in the supplementary death benefit provided for civil servants. The $5,000 level that is in the act at the present time has become an inadequate amount, and the suggested change is all to the good.
I also welcome the suggestion that something is going to be done for defence personnel, particularly those referred to by the hon. member for Carleton, who have wartime service but so far have not been able to count that service for pension purposes if they choose to retire early. I trust this change is included in the legislation, because on two or three occasions I have asked about it and the Associate Minister of National Defence has indicated to me across the floor of the house that it would be included in this omnibus legislation now before us. I will have to wait until I see the legislation before I can decide whether it is satisfactory just to have this provided for as a regulation or whether it should be included by actual legislation in the statute itself.
I should like to say now a few words about the things that in my view certainly ought to be included in this legislation, but concerning which so far there is no evidence that they

June 6, 1966
Pensions
will be. One of the points that civil service organizations and organizations of retired civil servants have been making is the need for altering, indeed improving, the formula under which pensions of widows of civil servants are calculated. The hon. member for Carleton referred to one specific situation, namely the age differential that is included in the legislation. There is also a question in respect of the formula under which the amounts of widows' pensions are calculated.
It has been a contention among civil servants, and particularly retired civil servants, that something should be done about this formula by this legislation. Since this resolution does state that there can be amendments of a general nature, I hope that there will be a change, in the formula under which the pensions of widows of civil servants are calculated.
This leads me, so far as this limited period of time is concerned, to the one remaining point about which I want to speak. This is a point to which the member for Carleton directed the major and warmest part of his remarks, and I join him in that warmth. I think it is an utter disgrace that this government goes on, and on, and on, constantly refusing to make any improvements in the pensions of civil servants already retired. The excuses we are given time after time just do not stand up or hold water. These excuses carry less weight and less conviction than ever, now that this goverment has recognized the need for escalators in pension legislation.
In the Old Age Security Act there has been written an escalator provision that will provide for a possible increase of 75 cents or $1.50 per month, from year to year. If we are around long enough we may get old age pensions up to $100 per month, but it will take a long time. At least the principle has been accepted, that even though a pension has been put into pay, conditions change and pensions need to be increased. An escalator that applies after a pension is put into pay applies not only to the Old Age Security Act but also to the Canada Pension Plan. Whatever pension a person will get when he retires on the Canada Pension Plan is subject to an increase if the cost of living goes up in subsequent years.
In addition to that, there has been built into the Canada Pension Plan an escalator which increases the potential value of a contributor's pension during the years he is working and contributing to the plan. The

escalator which operates while the contributor is working is geared to the wage index. In other words, it is geared to an increase in productivity and to the fact that the standard of living goes up.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
If that principle has been accepted, and I give the government credit for it, then I ask: Why should it stop where it does? These people we are talking about, retired civil servants, are the retired employees of the people of Canada. They worked for all of us. They worked for this government. If their pensions are low, it is for reasons beyond their control. I submit that it is the height of inhumanity, it is callousness in the extreme, for the government to go on saying to these people, "We can raise other people's pensions; we can raise other people's salaries; we can build escalators into other pension plans, but yours is a contractual arrangement and we can do nothing at all about it."
Talking about what other employers do is beside the point. The government's responsibility in this matter is not only that of government, which it has to all our people, but it also has its responsibility as an employer. I submit that at this time when the government has in effect opened up the Public Service Superannuation Act, has admitted that some benefits have to be raised, such as the supplemental death benefit, which is being raised from $5,000 to a higher figure, when it recognizes that such changes and improvements have to be made, it just is not acceptable for us to be asked to pass this bill without doing something for the civil servants already retired, and for their widows.
The hon. member for Carleton pointed out that this has been done in other jurisdictions, the United States and the United Kingdom for example, that it has been done by a number of provinces in this country-it has been done in this very province of Ontario for the teachers-that it has been done in certain municipalities, for example in my own city of Winnipeg, namely the raising of pensions of people already retired. It was also done by the parliament of Canada during the years when the present right hon. member for Prince Albert was prime minister of this country. If it has been done in so many areas, it is a principle that can be followed, and I urge that it be done while we have this legislation before us.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation which covers two
June 6. 1S66

main things, how we handle integration and incidental changes in our pensions generally.
I will have something to say about integration when we reach second reading of the bill and committee of the whole, unless perchance the government decides to send the bill to a special committee where people can appear and we can go into the bill more thoroughly.
I have stated my views. We may have to accept the bill as it is; but I deeply and bitterly regret that when the government has brought in such a good piece of legislation as the Canada Pension Plan it should by its own lead encourage private employers to take the same kind of step, with the result that many people are denied the improvements they might otherwise have had. On the other side of the ledger are the incidental improvements being made to our various pieces of pension legislation, and I welcome the fact that some changes that needed to be made are being made; and so far as the minister indicated them to us, they are good.
But what is the matter with the minister, what is the matter with the government, opening up this issue of the Public Service Superannuation Act, knowing how serious this matter is, knowing how many hundreds of letters come to the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and members of parliament day after day, week after week, and then saying that we must put this legislation through without doing anything for our retired civil servants? I can tell the minister that if provision for these people is not made in the legislation he will hear more about it, not only from me but from a good many other members of this house, for all of us want to do the right thing by our retired civil servants.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words at this stage of the resolution. We shall certainly have more to say on second reading, in view of the fact that the province of Quebec constitutes a special case since it has its own pension scheme.
This resolution is to introduce:
A measure to be known as the Canada Assistance Plan, to establish a program for sharing with the provinces in the cost of assistance.
As far as we in Quebec are concerned, we realize that when the federal government gives a benefit, it necessarily takes more in return. That is where our problem arises in Quebec, where we have our own pension
Pensions
plan, our own public assistance program, our pensions for the blind and for assistance to the disabled.
I believe that at this stage of discussion in committee the specific case of the province of Quebec will have to be considered. We should no longer have to pay administration costs. In fact, I believe that if the federal government intrudes further into such social assistance programs, it will necessarily have to tax us.
To my mind, what we have to discuss is this: The federal government must cease to tax the province of Quebec in order to pay us back. I have said it previously in the house, Mr. Chairman, we are old enough to levy our own taxes. We have no need of the federal government to levy taxes in areas that belong to us, that are totally within provincial jurisdiction.
I cannot understand the federal government not wanting to discuss this specific case. The Minister of National Revenue should discuss with the provincial authorities rather than levying a tax and paying back part of it to the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
The province of Quebec should be given back a percentage of taxes equivalent to the majority help which will be given to the other provinces since they accept that national plan. The province of Quebec does not want to join in the national program because it has adopted its own pension plan and we support it. As far as the social assistance plan is concerned, once again the federal government helps the province of Quebec, but it is not the kind of help which we want.
We are asking the federal government to stop giving us those amounts and to give us the equivalent instead, that is a percentage of our taxation rights until we are given them in full once and for all. Twenty years ago the federal government took over the property tax from the province of Quebec and it is giving it back to us bit by bit. It should give us back once and for all our taxation fields and our property tax. We feel that those three taxation fields, namely personal income tax, corporation income tax and succession duties, belong by right to the provinces; they should be given back to them and the government should stop coming to the province of Quebec to get $10 and give it back $3. It is precisely against that attitude that we will fight when this bill is considered. We are not against other provinces who want to walk together.

June 6. 1966
Pensions
Quebec has clearly indicated its stand in that field, as well as in the fields of health, agriculture, forestry, which come under the provinces. The provinces should be left free once and for all to administer them, especially Quebec whose cause I want to plead here; the door should be thrown wide open to agreements in order to avoid that double administration. It seems to me that this would help the federal government while giving much more to the province; that would also prevent taxes from going back and forth. One knows that taxes are a little like water flowing in a river; a little is always lost along the way, so that finally it is found that if it is posible to recover 30 per cent of the taxes which were taken from us, that is all that we can recover.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to warn the house that we will watch this bill closely not only at the committee stage but also on second reading. We will certainly ask that a percentage of the taxes which belong to us be given back to us instead of sums of money; thus we will be able to continue to pay the costs of our own health insurance plans, as we are doing right now for our pension plan, until we have the other programs which also belong to us, as the Quebec minister of health requested recently. Besides, I think that the government which was elected yesterday will ask for it even more vigorously; I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) will understand the reason why we are fighting; it is simply that we want to keep in Quebec what belongs to us.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few words in support of the resolution that is now before the committee. I also want to express my dissatisfaction with the way in which this particular measure has been brought before the house. It has been referred to as an omnibus resolution, and I suppose the bill will follow along the same line. I think the nature of this resolution is unfortunate. It is confusing and illogical, and I think it is almost impossible to enter into a logical debate on the measure as it is presently brought before us.
I rise mainly to add my voice of protest against the failure of the government to make any adequate provision for retired civil servants. Throughout the past several years this matter has been raised in the house on many occasions, not only in debates in the house but also in the private members' hour. It has been raised as well in the question period on

orders of the day, and I was very disappointed the other day when, I believe it was the Prime Minister, in reply to a question that was posed to him stated that no consideration was being given to bringing in at this time a measure to increase the pensions of the superannuated civil servants.
It is a matter of wonderment to many of us and to many people across this country that the government can find millions of dollars for this, that, and the other purpose; they can find hundreds of millions of dollars for other projects; but when it comes to a matter of superannuated civil servants, old age pensioners and others, there is just not enough money to give these people a few extra dollars a month to help them meet the cost of living.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that the people across the country are wondering where the priorities are placed and what the government is thinking of in refusing to make provision for our own people when, as I say, millions of dollars are being provided for operations and for services overseas. We are not objecting to them; we believe in them; but we also believe we must make provision for these people who are living in our midst and who are living on the borderline of poverty. It is not their fault that the cost of living is increasing. In some respects it is owing to government policies that are adopted and implemented, and because of other situations that have developed. I say it is not the fault of these people that the cost of living is increasing, and yet they are caught in the squeeze.
The letters we receive from some of these people are pathetic in the extreme. They point out the fact that when they go to buy their groceries each week they find their dollar buys a little less; it is shrinking. They are trying to get by on a diet that is far from satisfactory and adequate to maintain their health and strength.
This was the main purpose for which I rose to participate briefly in this debate. I wish to challenge the government once again to reassess its position in regard to superannuated civil servants, those who are unable to get by and make some provision to live out their days, not in a position of luxury but with sufficient means to maintain themselves with some degree of comfort and security.
Now, Mr. Chairman, reference has been made to the purpose of this particular resolution to effect the correlation of the various public service pension plans with the Canada Pension Plan. This was a matter of concern when the pension plan was first introduced. It
June 6. 1966

has been a matter of concern ever since that time. Those who have other types of pension and have made provision for their own needs through other pension plans have wondered just how they are going to fit into the over-all Canada Pension Plan. We realize that some of these changes are necessary and that it is necessary that they be correlated.
Of course, if the civil service organizations are satisfied this is the best way to accomplish the objective, then we have no objection to it. While I do criticize the government on one or two points, yet I recognize the importance of the resolution that is before us. This is the extent of my remarks at this particular stage.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to support this resolution I wish to state frankly that I do wish it went further than it does at the present time. This resolution covers five specific acts: the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act and the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Act. We are told that it is to provide for a deduction in the contributions required to be paid under those acts as a result of the implementation of the Canada Pension Plan and for the correlation of the pensions or annuities payable under those acts with the pensions payable under the Canada Pension Plan.
I am a strong believer in setting an example rather than in telling other people what they should do. Actions speak louder than words in my book, and I believe in the books of most Canadians. I would like to ask the government why, if they have an omnibus clause-and I am not objecting to such a resolution covering five acts-they could not also have included a sixth act for action at this time, namely Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, under which all the members of parliament are beneficiaries.
The minister, in introducing the resolution this afternoon, stated that there are 15 or 20 acts which need to be changed because of the coming into force of the Canada Pension Plan. Later on in his remarks he stated that a method of integration had been perfected during the past few months.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Now, the riding which has done me the honour of sending me to Ottawa in three
Pensions
consecutive elections contains five municipalities, and those municipalities are contained within metropolitan Toronto. My riding is the only riding in the Toronto area which has such a large number of municipalities making up the one riding. Some of the metropolitan Toronto ridings have as many as three municipalities in them, but York-Humber has five. The constituency includes the town of Weston, the village of Swansea, the town of Mimico, part of the township of Etobicoke and part of the township of York. Then, over and above that, we have the metropolitan Toronto government. The net result is that in this riding of York-Humber there are residents who are covered by the pension plans of six different municipal councils.
I have supported the Canada Pension Plan from the embryonic stage. I agree it may only be a first step and that there should be further steps before we are through with this measure, but the people of Canada will be assured of decent pensions in the future. The present Canada Pension Plan is a terrific first step. When the plan was announced these municipal governments to which I have alluded were faced with the question, should they stack their present municipal pensions on the Canada Pension, or should they integrate? Interestingly enough, of the six municipal councils, three of them decided to integrate and three decided to stack. Immediately I had constituents coming to me and asking if the federal government could not force all the municipal councils to stack. It was apparent of course that these municipal employees-I will call them state employees-wanted the Canada Pension Plan and the municipal pension plan stacked, because in that way the municipal taxpayer would be contributing to the municipal plan as well as the municipal employee, and under the Canada Pension Plan the Canadian taxpayer would be contributing to the plan as well as the municipal employee. These people would be getting two contributions from the Canadian taxpayers and the benefits would be payable to one employee when the age of pension was reached.
I felt very strongly, and still do, that where an employee is being paid by a municipal government, provincial government or federal government, his pension plans should be integrated. I do not believe for one moment that the taxpayers should be asked to pay into pension plans twice which are going to be of benefit ultimately to one individual pensioner. I do believe that this omnibus resolution-I

June 6, 1966
Pensions
am not using the expression in a derogatory sense although some people consider it a bad feature-should have included the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. When I received my May remuneration, as all members of parliament did at the end of the month, there was attached to the cheque a statement of earnings and deductions for the month of May. A very interesting situation hits you right between the eyes when you look at that statement. We, as members of parliament, are having our pension plans stacked.
How can we legislate at this time for a couple of hundred thousand public employees under these five acts, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act and the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Act, in order to integrate the Canadian Pension Plan with their present plans while we continue to have our own plans stacked? It is all right to say that there are 15 or 20 acts which need to be changed in view of the advent of the Canada Pension Plan. I pointed out on Friday afternoon that we have had four promises in four consecutive Speeches from the Throne that there are going to be changes in the Canadian Citizenship Act, but the changes have not been made yet. We tell the people we are going to change the terms of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act some day. I think the public would appreciate it a great deal more if the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act were integrated with the Canada Pension Plan at this time when we are integrating these other five plans. Then the public would see that we mean to treat ourselves in exactly the same way as we are endeavouring to legislate for the employees of the federal government.
If you look at your May cheque, you will find a deduction of $60 for the House of Commons pension. Then you will find the deduction of $10.80 for the Canada Pension Plan. The federal government, of course, is contributing to both of these plans, and each one of us is the individual beneficiary. The taxpayers are contributing twice. I believe that when we are integrating plans for the people covered by the five acts enumerated in the resolution we would have been in a much

stronger position if the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act had been included in the resolution. I ask that the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act be put into the bill when it is brought forward here, because that is a vital and necessary improvement. Let us not put ourselves in the position of not paying any attention to what the cabinet is doing under the five acts, but just integrate these acts in the thought that some day in the future we will amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. Let us show we mean it and amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act at this time as well.


Mr. McCleave:: I think the resolution before us will be a great disappointment to a great number of Canadians who had expected that in the housekeeping operations of the government revolving around the civil servants, we would be dealing with some of the issues that were raised so eloquently earlier this evening by the hon. member for Carleton, supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others who took part in the debate. I cast about for a phrase to sum up the resolution we are now considering. At one point I considered that it might be described as a good housekeeping resolution that would mean the melding of the operations of the Canada Pension Plan with these other plans that are being considered. However, I have come to the conclusion it is a minimum housekeeping operation dealing with the cold facts and figures that chartered accountants might present concerning the operation of these pension plans, with little thought to the needs of the people who are supposed to be benefited.
All of us have received submissions from groups of civil servants, especially the Civil Service Federation of Canada, whose president Mr. C. A. Edwards, on March 24 of this year wrote the following:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It Is a fact that the cost of living has increased 40 per cent in the past 15 years, over 20 per cent in the past 10 years, and approximately 10 per cent in the past five years. Thus, civil servants retired for five years or more have seen the purchasing power of their pension dollars cut by from 10 per cent to 40 per cent depending on the date of their retirement. In fact, in the past 15 years average wages and salaries paid the wage earners across Canada have increased by over 100 per cent while civil servants retired for 15 years, who had not died of starvation in the meantime-
I interpolate, many have, either from starvation or frustration while waiting for us to
June 6, 1966

June 6, 1966
Pensions
I understand that the minister proposes to deal with this problem by regulation. My suggestion for regulation is simply to knock out this formula and allow them to seek their own levels. If they are going to make $5,000 on their serviceman's pension and another $10,000 to $15,000 working for the civil service, then God bless them, let them go to it.
Another point, one which has been raised in previous correspondence, deals with a person who volunteered in world war II, having reached the stage where he has had 25 years service, but who, because he had five years voluntary service and only 20 years postwar service in the army, navy or air force-as opposed to a man who is credited with 25 years all the way through-has his pension reduced. His pension is calculated on a 20-year basis instead of a 25-year basis.
I believe the minister was silent on this point, which is a vexatious one. It would be whimsical were it not discriminatory against so many people who fought in the war, not worrying whether they were volunteers or otherwise, but who simply went forth to serve their country. I hope that the government will come to grips with this problem when the bill which accompanies this resolution, and other bills, are before the committee. I think the minister and most members in the committee at the present time will agree with me that it does discriminate against people without even having a basis of common sense to justify such discrimination. Therefore I hope-


Edgar John Benson: If the hon. member will permit me to say so, I may have missed it in my earlier statement but this legislation will provide a vehicle for correcting this particular anomaly.	'


Richard Albert Bell: By regulation only, though.


Edgar John Benson: I will be talking about your regulations in 1959 in a little while.


Richard Albert Bell: Concealed from the house.


Edgar John Benson: I will deal with your action in 1959 in a few minutes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the minister correctly, we may have two legislative bodies in this country-the one sitting here this evening and another one tucked away in his department or in Treasury Board. I would join in the sentiments

expressed by the hon. member for Carleton, that surely if we have an important legal position involving citizens of this country to be stated, we should attempt as much as possible to state it through legislation passed here, rather than through ad hoc arrangements which are reached in ministers' offices. Otherwise the trend will be for parliamentary superiority respecting legislation and policies to continue to be eroded.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
May I ask the minister another question, this time one involving the Canada Pension Plan. A fear has been expressed to me by some people that by fitting together the armed forces superannuation plan and the Canada Pension Plan, those retiring from the armed forces will not be able to live in places other than Canada after the age of 65. I see the minister shaking his head. I place that on the record, because I should like to advise those people involved that their fears are unfounded.
I take it that a person retiring from the armed forces, although the armed forces superannuation plan and the Canada Pension Plan are fitted together, can still at the age of 65 enjoy the benefits of the superannuation and Canada Pension Plans as they are fitted together, without losing the Canada Pension Plan portion of the income he will derive. In other words, such a person can go to another country.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member would like me to mention that the Canada Pension Plan may be paid to any person at the age of 65, no matter in what country that person is living, provided that person has contributed to the Canada Pension Plan and has accumulated the necessary benefits in Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the minister for his statement, which will reassure many people to whom this was a point of concern.
I should like to put to the minister a specific problem, but not at any length, since it comes under the aegis of the Minister of Justice. My problem relates to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension plan. Specifically, in the Halifax area there was a retired sergeant who elected a number of years back to go from one part of the then act to another. One year later he was forced to retire on pension because of a medical condition. He had developed ulcers. As a result of his election to proceed from one part of the act to the other, he found that he was,
June 6, 1966

in effect, chopping off about $700 from the pension he received. I will not burden the committee with this, although it is an important matter as a point of principle. It involves one person, and I will advise the minister by letter of this, so that when problems such as these are studied in the special pension committee, it may be dealt with also.
May I now deal with the point raised by the hon. member for York-Humber who spoke just before I rose, suggesting that the retiring allowances of members of parliament be dealt with at this time. I sincerely hope before anything is done for members of parliament that we get on with what most people have expected us to do since we assembled here last January, which is to give protection and help against inflation to old age security pensioners and those receiving old age assistance. In other words, our first priority is to deal with the Canada assistance act, and these matters as well, before we deal with our own problems.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: feel that I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying a few words about this resolution. I had hoped that when my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre raised this point about the need for increasing pensions for civil servants already retired, that the minister would have reconsidered the legislation coming in, and that provision would have been made for this matter when the legislation finally came down. I am very disappointed to find out that no change is being made this session.
We have all heard from organizations of superannuated civil servants across the country, communications from many of which have been read during the course of this debate. Tonight I want to take a few minutes to examine two cases, to point out how this matter works in the lives of people concerned.
I have noticed that when one comes to the House of Commons in Ottawa, unless great care is exercised one is apt to see people as statistics and figures in columns, and to forget that they are flesh and blood, capable of suffering, and of having feelings, as we all have in the chamber. For the most part speaking generally these people are a great deal less cushioned against the difficulties and hardships of living than we are. I am talking of those superannuated civil servants who have been writing to us from across the country. How does all this work out in the lives of these people?
Pensions
I want to take two examples, both from British Columbia. One is a man who worked as a civil servant for many years in one government department, and who was superannuated recently. Of course his pension does not meet the cost of living today, nor the standard of living which is rising through the years. This man found on retirement that he could not make ends meet for himself and his wife. In desperation he looked around for a job. It might have been expected that a grateful country would see that his pension would keep him in reasonable comfort for the rest of his life. Instead of that, on retirement he was forced to look for work. As he went around he found himself in competition with younger people, and he found it impossible to get any work of any kind that would bring him in an income. At last he went to the Department of Public Works hoping that the government would give him casual employment, so that he might work on and off. Instead the door was closed in his face, and he was told that the department would not hire anybody over retirement age. So, here is a man and his wife having to get along on a miserable pittance of a pension in the face of rising living costs.
This man feels bitterly that he has been let down, that he gave his best to the country. His record as a civil servant was good. He feels, now that other people have the Canada Pension Plan, and are laying by for their old age in a much better way than formerly, that he has been let down in a very ungrateful way by the country to which he gave his services.
Here is another case. A letter was written to me by a friend of the woman in question. The letter says:
I felt you would be outstandingly sympathetic to a lovely gentle widow-a family friend. We have watched her struggle to maintain a good appearance and an adequate living on the pittance she receives from our federal government.
Her husband retired in 1941 from the office of the District Director of Postal Services on account of a heart condition. He had been employed for more than thirty-three years at that time by the civil service. He died in June 1957 of cancer after a long painful illness through which they asked for and received no assistance. Both have and had a great Scotch pride of independence.
His wife carried on working as a relief in the local post office till veterans replaced her. Now she is forced to exist on $62.88 (sixty-two dollars and eighty-eight cents). She has maintained an old beach cottage in White Rock making it look charming with her care.
[DOT] (8.30 p.m.)
She pays $157.29 taxes, fuel and light comes to $17 (used sparingly) telephone $3.25, water $3 per month.

June 6, 1966
Pensions
We have worries of "what if the house foundations gave way? What if she needed health and dental care?"
It truly hurts us to think that a widow of one of our former Canadian servants is treated so very shabbily.
She asks me what can be done to help this widow at this stage of life-this widow who had bravely seen her husband through a painful illness, cancer, met the medical costs as best she could, filled in at the local post office, and finally been forced to eke out an existence.
These are the things we should consider today before we consider benefits for those who are in better circumstances. Everyone needs pension plans, but we should not throw on the scrap heap those others who have given their best to their country. To do so would be to show ingratitude and insensitivity; it would certainly be showing that we are not competent to look after the needs of the people who live in this country.
These retired civil servants do not have eternity in which to wait. Most of us here in this group feel that if we wait long enough the benefits which we are seeking for our fellow Canadians will be provided. We know from experience that after 30 years or so the things for which we are fighting will be made effective. But these superannuated people are for the most part, elderly. Unless something can be done for them now they will pass their late years feeling they have been cheated and treated unfairly by a country to which they have given years of service and the best that is in them.
I strongly urge that something be done without delay to help these superannuated people. Surely it will not involve a major expense. This is unfinished business of a most urgent kind and I certainly join with the hon. member who preceded me in his plea that before we concern ourselves with the pensions of members of parliament and other well situated people we should consider those who are virtually penniless at this time, unless the government comes to their aid.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not intend to answer some of the points which have been raised?


Maurice Rinfret: I must remind the committee that when the minister introduced the resolution he spoke to the limit of the time available to him and he may only

continue by unanimous consent. Is it agreed that he may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: I was the sole nay vote, Mr. Chairman. However, I am happy to deal with some of the questions raised by hon. members opposite, although I am sure I shall not be able to deal with them to their satisfaction.
First I refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Carleton in which he objected to dealing with these matters by means of an omnibus bill. In this particular instance I think there is good reason for having an omnibus bill to deal with all these questions because what we are generally concerned with is one single principle-the amendment of a series of acts in order to integrate the Canada Pension Plan with various superannuation schemes affecting government employees. There are a few other minor matters we can deal with, but the central purpose is integration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is not just one principle, then-there is that one, and then there are some others?


Edgar John Benson: There are a few other matters-provisions for cleaning up, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out- and I consider some of them not without importance. It is convenient to do these things at the same time. But the central purpose of this bill is not to deal with the affairs of retired civil servants, but rather to deal with civil servants who are presently in employment, and the integration of their pension plans with the Canada Pension Plan.
The hon. member for Carleton also objected strenuously to certain things being done by regulation and to conditions governing retired members of the forces. We have indicated that we intend to change the rules governing the amount of income these people can earn in addition to their service pensions. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the provision respecting military pensions was enacted by the government of which he was a member in 1959. At the same time, in 1959, there was also enacted an amendment to the R.C.M.P. Superannuation Act which allowed the government, by regulation, to do exactly what we are proposing to do.
I maintain that both acts should have been amended in the same way in 1959. Retired members of the R.C.M.P. have no problem worrying about their retirement pensions in
June 6, 1966

the civil service. If in 1959 the government had made a similar amendment to the provision with respect to the armed forces, the people in the armed forces would be much happier today than they presently are.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the minister tell us what he proposes to do by regulation? He has given us no indication of the plan.


Edgar John Benson: When the pertinent section of the act comes up for consideration I shall be pleased to comment on its contents.


Thomas Miller Bell: But the minister is a suppliant for the approval of this resolution by the committee and I suggest this is the time at which he should tell us what he proposes to do.


Edgar John Benson: All I am seeking tonight is approval in principle of a resolution to introduce a bill into this house-a bill which will be discussed on second reading and then referred to committee of the whole where its clauses can be discussed in detail. It is then that specific clauses of the measure should be discussed, not on the resolution stage.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister has not yet decided what he proposes to do.


Edgar John Benson: I have decided what I propose to do and the hon. member will in due course find out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Another statement made by the hon. member for Carleton was that integration should not be detrimental to any civil servant, but should be to the advantage of many. I think indeed under the act, and under the arrangements in the act, which were arrived at after due consultation with the civil service associations as to the methods to be followed, no civil servants are losing in the over-all pension under the integrated plan and indeed, as I believe was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, many civil servants will gain marginally. As I pointed out, the question that was raised by a good many members was why this does not deal with retired civil servants. As I pointed out it is not the purpose of this act to deal with retired civil servants. The main purpose of this act is to deal with people who presently are servants of the crown, and the integration of their pension plan and certain other changes which will affect them.
Pensions
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also said he would have liked to see the pension plans stacked or decked. He said that in fact we really should legislate beyond what the civil servants want and that we should think and legislate in the manner which we believe is to their greatest benefit in the long run, perhaps by making the contribution to the Canada Pension Plan one-half of one per cent additional, thereby giving them a higher pension for the future. The government, in arriving at the solutions at which it arrived in respect of integration of the pension plans consulted with the associations, and their views have been respected in this regard.
The hon. member for Roberval raised some question with regard to the effect of the bill on Quebec. I should like to point out that the sole purpose of this bill is to deal with federal civil servants; it is not a matter in respect of which there should be consultation with the province. We are dealing with our employees here and with authority for their pensions.
The hon. member for York-Humber raised the question as to the members pension plan. If might mention that in this bill the members pension plan is not being adjusted. I should mention also that the judges pension plan as such is not being adjusted. We feel these are special cases and that if they are to be dealt with in any manner they should be dealt with by entirely separate legislation at a future date.
I do not think there were any other matters raised with which I have not dealt generally. There were a number of matters raised in respect of problems concerning individual cases. I will be glad to review these in Hansard tomorrow and if there is anything I can do to assist in this regard, I will be pleased to do so, bearing in mind the fact that this legislation is not intended to deal with pensions of retired civil servants. If the government intends to deal with this particular matter, it will have to be dealt with by separate legislation. This bill is intended to deal solely with pensions of members of the civil service who are presently employed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a couple of questions which I hope the minister might answer as a matter of courtesy. First of all, I am afraid there has been some confusion with respect to the question concerning the wartime service of persons who have continued in the permanent force. The confusion may be all over here rather than over


June 6, 1966
Pensions
there. My simple question is this: is there some provision in the legislation regarding this matter?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman; there is a provision in the legislation which will be forthcoming right after first reading, which allows the government to deal with this in the legislation. The intention is that wartime service will be picked up. There are some complications. One of the reasons regulations are necessary with regard to this kind of legislation is that conditions change from time to time. If you put something stiffly into a piece of legislation, it cannot be adjusted quickly the way it needs to be from time to time because of the different situations which may arise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there anything in the legislation adjusting the formula under which the pensions of widows of retired civil servants are computed?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not too late to put it in.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I am
prompted to say a few words particularly with reference to the statement the minister made that the retired civil servants will not be affected in any way by this legislation. The fact is that retired civil servants feel they have an interest and a stake in the federal Civil Service Superannuation Act and in the fund that is established by this act. Whether rightly or wrongly, the fact is that they have an interest in the fund. They are afraid and concerned that any amendment to the Civil Service Superannuation Act might affect their entitlement under the fund, a fund which was created by the Public Service Superannuation Act.
I know the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue have written to them and have said that in no way will their entitlement under this act be affected by any integration of the Public Service Superannuation Act with the Canada Pension Plan. However, many doubts have been raised in the minds of retired civil servants by the passage of the Canada Pension Plan. Over the years civil servants have felt their rights are protected under the Public Service Superannuation Act by virtue of the fact that it is an actuarially sound funded plan. But then along comes the Canada Pension Plan, a major contributory pension plan, which affects people who retire in the future. The

government says, that this major plan, which affects the pensions of future Canadians is not based on an actuarially funded plan. Immediately the question arises in the minds of retired public servants: If the Canada Pension Plan is not based on a funded basis, why should ours be?-keeping in mind the fact that the vast majority of retired civil servants are living under severely handicapped conditions by virtue of the fact that their pension is fixed whereas the cost of living rises? So, in the every day events these people say: Why should our pension be fixed; is there no responsibility on the part of the government toward its employees?
These same civil servants have in mind that in 1959 the previous government of this country passed an Act, the federal Civil Service Superannuation Adjustment Act, which did adjust the pensions of a large number of retired civil servants. So the fact is that these retired civil servants are justly concerned in respect of how their position is affected by the integration of the Public Service Superannuation Act with the Canada Pension Plan. I think the only way in which these people can be satisfied is by their having an opportunity to present their case to representatives of the House of Commons. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this resolution No. 51, at the appropriate stage, should be referred to a special or standing committee.
The Canada Pension Plan is a very complicated piece of legislation. It was referred to a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. Speaking from memory, I believe that committee held 51 sittings. I think there were something in the order of 30 briefs presented to it. It was a complicated piece of legislation.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In order to understand integration of the P.S.S.A. and other pension schemes with the Canada Pension Plan, we must clearly understand not only the Canada Pension Plan but the other acts which must be amended in order to complete this integration. If it was necessary, and certainly it was, to submit the proposed Canada pension to a committee then even more so is it necessary to submit to a committee the proposal to integrate these other pension plans with the Canada Pension Plan.
At this stage the minister cannot, of course, describe in any detail the proposal for integration of these plans, but various statements have been made by him and by others as to
June 6, 1966

the general proposals. Assuming that these proposals will be incorporated in the bill, which the minister will in due course present, I predict there will be grave anomalies disclosed when integration is attempted.
I predict that many civil servants will find themselves in the fortunate position of having an increase after the proposed integration of something like 25 per cent in their pensions, whereas other civil servants will find that there will be no increase. More power to those who receive 25 per cent more, but how will this fact sit with those who receive no increase whatsoever? Furthermore, I predict that if the bill to be introduced by the minister conforms to the statements he has made up to date, we will find that in certain cases potential widows of civil servants yet to be retired will receive pensions larger than the earnings of their husbands. All the more power to those widows; but how will this fact sit with other Canadians, and particularly those who are now widows of civil servants who receive nothing whatsoever from either the public service superannuation fund or the Canada Pension Plan.
I predict that when we come to the details of the bill we will find grave shortcomings as result primarily of the fact that the Canada Pension Plan is not an actuarially sound funded pension plan, and that when such a plan is integrated with others that are actuarially sound on a funded basis serious inequities will be disclosed. This was predicted by many experts who gave evidence before the Canada Pension Plan committee.
The main points of my argument are these. Retired civil servants are very concerned that the proposed integration of the P.S.S.A. with the Canada Pension Plan might affect their rights. Second, they are concerned that since the Prime Minister and this present government have refused to accept any responsibility to these retired employees, that is all the more reason they should be heard. Third, I feel that because this is such a complicated matter involving the integration of complicated legislation, the integration of various civil service superannuation acts with the Canada Pension Plan it should be submitted to a special or standing committee in order that various representatives of public service organizations and public superannuation associations would be given an opportunity to present their case and hear the expert evidence.
Pensions
I am sure that many other members of this house will find it extremely difficult to understand the intricacies of the integration of these various acts with the Canada Pension Plan. However, if this were sent to a committee members of the civil service, including members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. and others who will be affected, including retired employees, would be able to give evidence, and hear evidence of experts, and this matter would become somewhat more clear.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution is carried, I should like to correct an error which I made earlier.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to the minister giving an explanation at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I should like to correct an error I made in an answer I gave recently in which I indicated that changes in the proposed bill to take care of past services of employees in order that they would get credit for wartime service would be handled by regulation. In checking the situation I find that this is handled by an actual clause of the bill.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson (for Mr. Sharp) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 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 Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act and the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, is there to be one bill only? Surely the minister is not going to attempt this sort of legislative travesty?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is not a legislative travesty, and I should like to refer the hon. gentleman to what was said recently in the British House of Commons when an omnibus bill was introduced to create three new portfolios and appoint four parliamentary secretaries. The opposition objected to the government's action and likened it to legislation of 1860 when-
June 6, 1966

Combines Investigation Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is debate allowed at this point?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. C-169, to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we could have
enough time to find this amendment in Votes and. Proceedings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I could assist the hon. member by advising him that the amendment can be found at page 585 of Votes and Proceedings for May 27.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have an explanation from the minister as to the purpose of this amendment and his understanding of it.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in the original bill, the principle of which has been adopted by this house, was paragraph (b) of clause 1 providing that the extension of the exemption of the fisheries industry in British Columbia from the application of the Combines Investigation Act would last until either December 31, 1967, or any later date until such time as this house, on the resolution or motion of 10 of its members, adopted the decision to repeal the exemption. What was called in question in the Senate was the principle that the bill as originally drafted provided only for a motion of this house instead of one of either house. The bill has now come back to us with clause 1, paragraph (b) which first read as follows:
The thirtieth sitting day of parliament next after the day on which any resolution of either house of parliament, based on a notice of motion in that house signed by any ten members thereof and made

in accordance with the rules of that house, that this section cease to be in force is concurred in by the other house,
The amendment from the Senate has the same effect but provides for there being a motion originated by 10 members of either house which is passed in the house and concurred in by the other house. In other words, the Senate objected to the House of Commons being solely in control of the decision and requested that it also be given the privilege of originating the motion which would bring about the end of the extension. The measure now has to be concurred in by both houses instead of only the House of Commons as originally drafted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.


George James McIlraith: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. C-150, to amend the Research Council Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may we have an explanation of what appear to be five amendments to this bill?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was a little too quick for me. The amendment is to make clear that the minister in charge of the National Research Council must be a member of the Committee of the Privy Council on Scientific and Industrial Research. As the bill stood it was theoretically possible that the minister in charge might not be a member of the committee of ministers charged with considering this subject matter. The other changes are consequential thereto.
The substance of the changes appears in item 1, referring to clause 3 (e), which provides for the designation of a minister. The point is that there should be a slight amendment in the clause to make it clear that the minister must be a member of that Privy Council committee. The other changes of course are consequential, substituting the word "minister" where the word "chairman" appears in the act and the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
June 6, 1966


[Stage Direction]
House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-2, to amend the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act-Mr. Nicholson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, on second reading of this bill, at the suggestion of members of more than one of the different parties or groups in the house, this bill was referred, at my request, to the committee of the house on labour and employment, not only that it might be discussed clause by clause but that representations might be made by the Canadian Construction Association and other organizations who had intimated they wished to be heard. The matter came before the committee on at least three different occasions and was considered clause by clause. There was a unanimous report from the committee, and the bill was reported without amendment. I can see several members present in the house tonight who participated in the debate and discussion in the committee stage.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, did the minister say that this bill as it stands was recommended back to the house by the unanimous vote of the committee?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Without amendment?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Without amendment.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Canada Elections Act [DOT] (9:10 p.m.)



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise an item of business which I think will commend itself to the house. I will mention and explain it now since it is not the type of item that is on the order paper.
The elections act requires that the Chief Electoral Officer be appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You won't need that for a year or two.


George James McIlraith: As hon. members know, the office is vacant and the practice has been for the Prime Minister to communicate with the leaders of the opposition groups to acquaint them with the name of the person he proposes be appointed and to ask for their concurrence. I am told that the correct action has been taken in accordance with the precedents and I should like therefore to move the following resolution:
Whereas Nelson Jules Castonguay has submitted his resignation as chief electoral officer: and whereas subsection 2 of section 4 of the Canada Elections Act, chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada 1960, provides that in the event of a vacancy of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer the vacancy shall be filled by resolution of the House of Commons;
Be it therefore resolved, that Jean-Marc Hamel be and he is hereby appointed Chief Electoral Officer.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the house leader has indicated, this resolution has the concurrence of the leaders of all parties, and thus becomes an act of the House of Commons rather than a governmental act. I am sure that we all concur in it, but I do not think this moment should pass without at least a word being said in appreciation of the work that has been done for parliament and Canada by the Messrs. Castonguay for as long as I can remember.
Both Mr. Nelson Castonguay and his late father, Mr. Jules Castonguay before him, have served us well, and I think that in accepting the resignation of the younger Mr. Castonguay we should pay a word of tribute. I had thought there might be another Castonguay coming along but apparently we are

June 6, 1966
Canada Elections Act
changing the name of the Chief Electoral Officer, and we concur in the appointment of Mr. Hamel.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate if I put on the record a few words regarding the new appointment. I will be very brief about it.
Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel of Lotbiniere, Quebec, is a graduate of Laval University. He has been in the federal public service since 1950, and I believe a great many hon. members will remember his work around the House of Commons in the staff organization work during the last two years. I am sure that those hon. members who knew him when he was director of administration on the staff of the House of Commons will be particularly well pleased with the nomination.
Since November 1965 he has been an assistant to the undersecretary of state. I for one think we are fortunate to have a man of his qualifications available to serve in this important position, because there will be much new work consequent on the redistribution of seats. I am particularly happy that Mr. Hamel is well qualified in administrative work.
I should also like to place on record a word of appreciation for the former chief electoral officer's services, and, if I may be permitted to do so, to refer to his father who preceded him in that office. For some 39 years the two Messrs. Castonguay have been the chief electoral officers of Canada. I think it would be proper for me to say we owe a word of appreciation to the father, the late Jules Castonguay, for his services from 1927 to 1949, and to Nelson Castonguay from 1949 until the present time. I always have felt that they have undertaken this work with a good understanding of the basic requirements of the job, and yet a delicacy of touch-if I may use that phrase-which is necessary in this kind of public job. I want to commend them for it.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Nelson Castonguay was responsible for the administration of the act during the last six general elections since 1949.


Mr. Churchill:: If you include 1949, it is seven.


George James McIlraith: I am not sure whether he was appointed before or after the 1949 election. In any case, I am quite sure that many hon. members here who have had occasion to

come into contact with him, whether in committees or elsewhere, will agree with me on the desirability of placing on record our acknowledgement of the high degree in which he possessed the fairness and impartiality that has been traditional in this office and which is greatly to be desired and indeed necessary in the proper administration of the functions of the office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say that we concur wholeheartedly in this appointment. I suppose it is fair to assume Mr. Hamel will not be called upon to call an election on Sunday at some future date.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit party I would like to concur in the remarks that have been made both in regard to the appointment of Mr. Hamel and also in the words of gratitude that have been expressed for the very capable services of Mr. Nelson Castonguay. I note with some degree of satisfaction that all parties have given their wholehearted approval to this appointment. We are grateful that the Prime Minister brought it to our attention in the way that he did. I should only like to say that the challenge before Mr. Hamel is indeed a great one if he carries out the duties of chief electoral officer with the same degree of efficiency that his predecessors have set. I think that if there ever was a thing on which we were unanimous in this house it is this, and therefore we are happy to be able to add our word to it.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with previous speakers, on behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste, to pay tribute to Mr. Castonguay who has presided over elections since 1949. Mr. Castonguay proved equal to his task, and I believe all those who had to deal with him were quite pleased with him.
I take this opportunity to extend to the new incumbent, Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel, the fullest co-operation of our group, and we are sure he will be able to perform the duties assigned to him this evening with tact and efficiency.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: want to congratulate the Minister of Public
June 6, 1966

Works upon his delicate touch in paying tribute to Mr. Nelson Castonguay and his distinguished father. I am sure members of all parties in this house would agree that both of them have served Canada well in an office that is not easy to fill on certain occasions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George James McIlraith: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a corporation for the administration of the national arts centre to operate and maintain the centre, to develop the performing arts in the national capital region and to assist the Canada Council in the development of the performing arts elsewhere in Canada; to provide for the remuneration of certain members of the board and the expenses of all members, for the appointment and salary of a director of the centre, for the employment of officers, employees, technical and professional advisers and their remuneration; and to provide also for certain other matters incidental to the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


George James McIlraith: I do not know that there is a great deal I can usefully add, Mr. Chairman, to what is contained in the resolution providing for the introduction of legislation to establish a corporation for the administration of a national arts centre, to operate and maintain the centre, and to develop the performing arts in the national capital region. The bill itself will be examined by all hon. members. As I have said, the three major tasks of the corporation are to operate and maintain the centre, to develop the performing arts of the national capital region, and to assist the Canada Council in the development of the performing arts throughout Canada.
I do not know that there is much to be said at this stage in so far as a description of the arts centre is concerned, because an item will be before the house in my own estimates under which we can deal with that. Perhaps I should mention that there will be three auditoria, one seating 2,300 for opera, music and ballet, one seating 970 people, and a 300 seat studio for drama. They have been carefully designed to meet the requirements of the advisory committees composed of the leading artistic and technical directors in the 23033-3S4
National Arts Centre
country. I believe there is general agreement among these groups who have had experience in successfully directing the performing arts across Canada, that the national art centre will worthily house the performances of the best companies of this or any other country. These buildings will grace the national capital and certainly will equal such facilities in any national capital in the world.
I do not know that there is much more I should say at this stage, other than to welcome the opportunity of having the house consider any and all information that can be made available on this subject. The whole proposal can be discussed in detail when the minister is here to deal with the bill both on second reading and in committee of the whole house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a very important resolution, but in the absence of the minister I do not think we should debate it at length tonight. I think the minister should be here to deal with the bill. The subject matter can be dealt with adequately on second reading rather than at the resolution stage. In view of the fact we are making great progress today, so far as we are concerned, I believe we are prepared to pass this resolution without debate and wait to see the bill. Then we can have a full debate on second reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of this display of unanimity, may I say that we, too, are prepared to hold our remarks on this matter until we see the bill.


Robert Norman Thompson: We give our support to this resolution in principle. I think it is a good suggestion to let it pass in order that there may be a more intelligent debate when the minister is here, and has made her remarks with regard to this subject.
However, there is just one remark I should like to make. I mention this because the Minister of Public Works has referred to the construction of the centre for the performing arts. Although this matter is not strictly related to the resolution, the resolution refers to the machinery for operating it. I am concerned about the tremendous increase in the cost of construction of this centre. I believe the original estimate we discussed was around $9 million.


George James McIlraith: I do not believe that was the figure; it was $18 million.

June 6, 1966
Business of the House


Robert Norman Thompson: In any event, I am mentioning it tonight because I believe we should have some report from the minister, since the cost is now approximately $32 million. We should have information provided by the minister which will help us discuss this situation in greater detail than we can tonight.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I support the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer. I have watched the development of this building to which the minister has referred. I judge from his remarks we will have an opportunity, when his estimates are presented, to discuss the original cost, the present cost and the anticipated cost of the performing arts centre, as well as all other matters relating to its construction.


George James McIlraith: I regret to have to admit, Mr. Chairman, that is so.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllrailh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-194, to establish a corporation for the administration of the national arts centre.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it has been a very warm day and I am very appreciative of
the co-operation of all hon. members in dealing with legislation. I believe it is so close to ten o'clock that it would meet the wishes of hon. members if we called it ten o'clock.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Before doing so, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to indicate the business of the house for tomorrow. We will proceed with the consideration of the budget resolutions, and afterwards item No. 63 on today's order paper, the bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it might not be closer to the truth if the Minister of Public Works were to say that we have run out of legislation on the order paper. I hope he will have something new on the order paper by tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39 A-


An hon. Member:: There is no one here.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the house do now adjourn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 9:35 p.m. the house adjourned.

Tuesday, June 7, 1966