1967-07-07

Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the house is discharging his duties for the last time today as he is retiring.
I have no doubt that all the members of the house will join with me in expressing our appreciation to Mr. Raymond for the outstanding and learned way in which he has performed his duties since his appointment to that important post in 1949.
He served his country for many a year, first as member of parliament and then, for 18 years, as Clerk of the house.
Allow me to express, in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), our personal gratitude for his constant courtesy and untiring attention to administrative matters which are of such importance for the debates of the house.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that Mr. Raymond has served his country for a long time with great distinction; first, as many of us recall, as a distinguished member of this house and then, as we all know, for 18 years as Clerk of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister would like to have been here today to express his personal gratitude for the great contribution made by Mr. Raymond. It is my privilege in his absence to thank Mr. Raymond for his courteous attention to all of us and for the remarkable way in which, through his great knowledge of our rules and procedures, he has enabled us to carry out more efficiently the responsibilities entrusted to us by the people of Canada.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
It is now my privilege to move a resolution, to be seconded by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), which I am sure will meet with acceptance by all the
members of this house. I move, seconded by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition:
That the members of this house, desiring to record their deep appreciation of the long and distinguished services rendered by Mr. Leon-J. Raymond, Esquire, O.B.E., as Clerk of the House of Commons, and acknowledging the dignity and profound learning with which he graced his office, designate him as honorary officer of the House of Commons with an entree to the chamber and a seat at the table on ceremonial occasions.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for all of us to pay tribute to one whose contribution to parliament has meant so much. Mr. Raymond has been the friend of all the members of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I recall when he first came into the House of Commons as a member in 1945, and was re-elected in 1949. I remember his first days as Clerk of the House of Commons. I have recollections of the courtesy and innate modesty that have characterized him throughout, but I recall in particular the occasion in 1950 when as a member of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the Empire Parliamentary Association meetings I visited Australia and New Zealand.
Mr. Raymond knows parliament both as a member and as a most distinguished Clerk. He has shown reverence for this institution, realizing at all times that unless the dignities and proprieties are maintained the institution cannot maintain the greatness of its traditions. The rules were his constant companions. He was guided at all times by the principle that while rules have to be made to maintain the operations of the house, they should not be interpreted in such a way as to curtail the rights of members.
As a student not only of parliament but of the law I am proud and happy to join in the resolution moved by the Acting Prime Minister. We shall hope that in the days ahead Mr. Raymond will enjoy health and happiness and that we will see him back on ceremonial occasions, filling with that dignity that has always been his a position that has added lustre to the parliament he has served.
July 7. 1967

Tributes to Mr. Leon-J. Raymond


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party desire to associate themselves most enthusiastically with the motion before the house paying tribute to the distinguished service which has been rendered to this House of Commons by Mr. Raymond. In his public capacity he has served this House of Commons exceedingly well. It is true that we follow the procedures of Westminster, but our procedures and practices have to be adapted from time to time to meet our particular needs. This requires the genius of understanding and interpretation, and this the Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr. Raymond, has displayed to a remarkable degree. He has discharged his duties in a manner that is a credit to this house. He has maintained the high standard and great traditions of the office he has occupied.
However, I should like to add a further word and that is to speak of his personal contribution to all of us who have had the privilege of sitting in this house. His unfailing kindness, his innate courtesy have made him the friend of every member of this house. This has been particularly true of new members, who felt that they could go to him at any time and get the benefit of his advice and encouragement. I think there is probably no topic that has come before this house in many a day on which there has been such complete unanimity as that of paying tribute to a very fine Clerk of the House of Commons, a very generous and kindly gentleman.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, for the French-Canadian group it is my privilege to represent in the house, it will be readily understood what joy it is for us to support the motion of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) to confer the title of honorary officer of this house to such a man as Mr. Raymond who has given 18 years of his life as Clerk of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that for us, a third party, particularly a new party in the house, we owe a personal debt of gratitude to Mr. Raymond for his warm and so understanding reception after our first election.
Mr. Raymond has always been also the first man for the new member to meet and from him we get our first greeting. For the second year member, Mr. Raymond has shown himself to be a valuable adviser, just as he was through the years for any member who sat in this house. Mr. Raymond has always been there to give us the necessary encouragement to fulfil our task.

We feel Mr. Raymond has been a model of simplicity and dignity in the pursuance of his duties. His undisputed competence, due to his thorough knowledge of the two languages, makes Mr. Raymond the perfect model of the Canadian civil servant. Through his frankness and his charitable disposition, and particularly through his fairness, he has earned the confidence of all in this house.
For us and for those who come after us, I feel that Mr. Raymond will be an example to follow, and we wish him long and happy days. Rest assured, Mr. Raymond, that we will always be happy to meet you and to shake your hand.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we wish on this occasion to join in expressing to Mr. Raymond our deep appreciation for the services he has rendered and to express our best wishes to him on this occasion when he is about to enter retirement.
Much has been said about the spirit of helpfulness and courtesy which has marked Mr. Raymond's attitude to the members of the House of Commons throughout the past years. Since coming to this house for the first time in 1953 I can certainly appreciate those sentiments because in my personal contacts with Mr. Raymond he has at all times evidenced a spirit of helpfulness and courtesy that made it easier to become acquainted with the house, its procedures and our responsibilities here.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that we in the Social Credit party support the resolution designating Mr. Raymond as an honorary officer of the House of Commons, with the attendant privileges that this resolution confers.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in this formal parliamentary tribute to the retiring Clerk of the House of Commons. I should like to do this as government house leader, but more particularly for personal reasons. It is appropriate that we should acknowledge in this way the silent service of one whose counsel has played so important a part in the moulding of the practices and procedures of this house.
I know, as one who like most of us came to this house in awesome ignorance of its rules and practices, that I am grateful to Mr. Raymond for his great patience, his wise counsel and his friendly guidance along the
July 7, 1967

tortuous paths of parliamentary manners and mores. Under his guidance I have tried, as other members have tried, to understand the workings of parliamentary practice and procedures. I have observed the Clerk of the House in action at the table. As a result I have come to appreciate that a Clerk of the House of Commons must, in a sense, be a biblical paragon with the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job, the agility of David and the survival qualities of Jonah.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Parliamentary Companion of 100 years ago described the Clerk of the Commons House of Parliament as one who holds an office of great trust and importance. The Canadian parliament has been particularly gifted in its choice of clerks, and Mr. Raymond has followed in the tradition of such names as Bourinot and Beau-chesne. Perhaps, on this particular day, it would not be inappropriate for the Clerk to hear one last citation from Beauchesne, his favourite authority. I quote from Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, 1958, as follows:
-a thousand.. . questions have to be solved by the Clerk who may be consulted at any time by the Speaker and the leader of the house. In the midst of a debate, questions of order of all descriptions may be raised and the Clerk must be ready to supply authorities for a decision-
During a crisis, when the government and the opposition are using all the strategy possible under the rules of the house, the leaders are in continuous consultation with the Clerk with respect to their motions and amendments. A wrong interpretation of the rules may then lead to the most dangerous miscalculations, and the Clerk has to be very sure of his ground when he thus advises the men whose political future must be decided on the floor of the house.
1 am sure Mr. Beauchesne was not simply attempting to justify his own status when he maintained that the Clerk's executive duties are absorbing and keep him busy the whole year round. He comments as follows:
If a member of the house loses his railway transportation card during the summer, as it sometimes happens, the Clerk has to issue another one under a new number and send out forty three notices to the railway companies.
In conclusion, I am sure the house would wish the retiring Clerk many years of pleasant contemplation and other restful pursuits in his well earned retirement. We hope, as well, that from time to time he will take advantage of his entree to this house so we may still benefit from his guidance and experience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Tributes to Mr. Leon-J. Raymond,


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to multiply words, but as one who has enjoyed Mr. Raymond's friendship for the 22 years since he first entered parliament I wish to express my own appreciation of the tremendous contribution he has made to the House of Commons of Canada. The things that have been said by those who have already spoken have been said with deep sincerity, they have been said on behalf of all of us, and they are all true. Mr. Raymond has been a true friend to all members of the House of Commons. He has exercised his responsibilities with that care, integrity and impartiality that are so necessary to the important office that he has held for the past 18 years.
Not only has he been a friend to us all; not only has he worked diligently; we have known that his feeling for parliament has been like that of his distinguished predecessors. We are happy to associate his name with those of Bourinot and Beauchesne on this historic occasion.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
I happen to remember Mr. Raymond's first speech as a member of the House of Commons. I remember it because I was following him in the debate that day, and I recall the thoughtfulness of his address to us on that occasion. I went to the library this morning to look it up again. My memory of it was correct; it was a thoughtful speech on the problems facing the world and on the various problems facing Canada, economic and social, as well as the need to build a united country on the basis of our two founding races.
Although it was made many years ago, the thoughts contained in this speech are still very timely. There is one paragraph in it which I should like to put on record again at this time. It is to be found at page 70 of Hansard for March 19, 1946, at which time the House of Commons was debating the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As I say, Mr. Raymond had dealt with various problems which were facing the world and facing Canada. He had built up quite a picture of the difficulties which had to be met. Then he said this:
The following statement may appear rather childish, Mr. Speaker, but I am convinced that all our problems can be solved provided we base their consideration on a spirit of mutual trust. However, this sentiment can only be awakened, nurtured and matured provided justice and charity govern the consideration of all these problems.
When Mr. Raymond uttered those words he had no notion, of course, that a few years

July 7. 1967
Tabling of Papers
later he would be the Clerk of the House of Commons. But I draw attention to the three characteristics he emphasized, mutual trust, justice and charity. These are the characteristics which have marked his regime as Clerk of the House of Commons and which have helped to make his services to us so helpful and so successful.
I join with others in expressing warm personal greetings to Mr. Raymond. I wish him health and happiness in the years ahead. It is perhaps unfortunate that his position does not enable him to say a few words from the floor of the House of Commons; he is probably glad he cannot. But may I add the wish that in the years of retirement ahead he will have time to write a book and enrich our knowledge of the practices of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I beg to table in French and in English copies of the report of the international joint commission on the improvement of the internal Champlain waterway for commercial navigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: With the leave of the house I should like to table correspondence I have exchanged with the prime minister of Quebec-the letter I wrote to him on June 22, and his reply to me of June 30-relating to deposit insurance.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the house allow the hon. minister to table these papers?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External

Affairs) tabled the report of the secretary general on the withdrawal of the United Nations emergency force, in both French and English.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the parliamentary secretary consent to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the house adjourn immediately following the giving of Royal Assent to the supply bills referred to in paragraph (5) of the special order made Monday, June 26, 1967, and to any other measures, and that the house shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 25,	1967, at
2.30 o'clock p.m.; provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


An hon. Member:: Smile, you're on candid camera.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am made speechless by that blinding flash.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I assure the Minister of Transport who led that round of applause that I have tremendous powers of recovery when it comes to making a speech.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to one aspect of the motion which the leader of the house has just moved, and if I cannot persuade the house to accept an amendment to it I shall have to oppose the motion for the reason I shall specify.
First may I make it clear that I am not opposed to the idea of parliament taking a
July 7, 1967

recess. Editorial writers in some of our newspapers notwithstanding, I think parliament should take a recess, that we should have the benefit of being back among our constituents and other benefits which flow from a few weeks away from Ottawa. But I object as strongly as I can to the idea of our breaking for a summer recess without dealing with the question of the pensions of retired civil servants. The motion now before us has been worded in such a way as to make it impossible for this question to be dealt with before we recess.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
I wish to point out that this motion is somewhat different from the usual motion which is made to provide for a break in a session of parliament. On occasion such a motion has been made without notice, requiring unanimous consent. The government was quite right in anticipating that such consent might not be forthcoming today, for I would not have agreed. On other occasions when a motion has been put on the order paper to provide for a recess there have been consultations among the house leaders. Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that there were consultations with regard to the date that we are to come back, namely, September 25. I for one agreed to that date, so I am not now objecting to it. But unlike other occasions I was not shown the form of this motion until I saw it on the notice paper attached to yesterday's Votes and Proceedings.
When I look at the motion I note it is drafted in such a way that once the government has arranged for the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General to come and give royal assent to the supply bills we passed last night, nothing further can be done in this House of Commons. I object to this way of doing it. I object to our not being consulted as to the form of this motion, and I object very strongly to the government's performance with respect to the question of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants.
As I indicated a moment ago, I intend to move an amendment to this motion which would accept the fact of adjourning, which would accept the fact of a recess until September 25, but which would require that before adjourning we deal with the question of the pensions of retired civil servants.


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is an interjection from over there, but I am not sure that I understood it.
Motion for Adjournment
A lot has been said today about the workings of parliament. One of the ways in which parliament works best is when there is the keeping of promises, when there is a carrying out of things that have been understood. This question that I am talking about is not only one that has been before us in parliament in a general way for more than two decades but it has been before us in a specific way for more than a year.
I do not intend to go into all the details because I am citing this only in support of my opposition to the motion, but the fact is that after a committee study a unanimous recommendation was made on May 8 this year that the pensions of retired civil servants be increased. We have been assured a dozen times since then, on the floor of this house, that the matter was under active consideration. One cannot talk about the things one is told outside the House of Commons, but one knows what one reads in the press and the indications were clear a few weeks ago that something was going to be done before this session broke. This commitment was very definite, but now we come to the time of recess and nothing is being done.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) is trying to tell us it is a complicated issue. I cannot accept that as an excuse for not acting on this matter. The President of the Treasury Board has as his deputy minister one of the most accomplished individuals in the public service of Canada, a man who overnight could draft a proposition to deal with this matter. As a matter of fact it was dealt with several years ago during the regime of the previous government, and I suggest there has been plenty of time to bring before parliament a measure dealing with the pensions of retired civil servants.
To argue, as the President of the Treasury Board does, that the government across the way has done more for civil servants than anybody else, is nonsense. It is arguing by assertion, and it does not meet the point that nothing is being done in this part of the session about the pensions of retired civil servants.
The plea that is made to me, both on the floor of the house and by Liberals out in the hall, is that I should wait until fall. It is going to be done, they will get the pension increases and they will be retroactive, so what am I complaining about. Mr. Speaker, when people have waited for years, when they have waited for months, when for weeks they have had reason to believe something would be done,
July 7. 1967

Motion for Adjournment then to ask them to wait until fall is unfair and unkind on the part of the government.
I know, if we are asked to wait until fall on this issue, that there will be other matters that will have priority. We would not reach the matter until October or November, and these people would not get their increases until next December or January. I know further, Mr. Speaker, that unless action is taken now we have no guarantee that action will be taken in the fall.
Even yesterday when the President of the Treasury Board was asked questions he did not firmly say it will be done. He did not firmly say any increases will be made retroactive. Rather, he expressed the hope, the personal belief, that it ought to be done. Anyone can read the signs. It means that this matter has not yet been approved by the government and that the whole question is not only being delayed but is in jeopardy.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, after the government's action in referring this matter to a special joint committee, after that committee's thorough consideration, after that committee making a unanimous recommendation that increases be made, and in view of the fact something like this was done a number of years ago, it is unthinkable for action not to be taken on this issue.
To argue that it sets a pattern for pensions in other areas is fine. Of course it does. It is time we were setting such a pattern. It is time the government of Canada acted as a good employer and gave a lead in this matter by facing up to the fact that retired people have the right to be able to live in retirement on incomes that will expand and grow as the cost of living increases and as the standard of living improves. It is no argument against taking action in this field to say it is setting a pattern that will have to be followed in other areas. Of course it will set such a pattern and I want that pattern to be followed.
What I am concerned about is that a government which led us to believe that action would be taken, and has led us to believe that for months, is now saying, "Oh no, you cannot do anything about it before the summer break. We have got to go home some time today and we will deal with this matter in the fall." I regard this as callous, as most unfair, and as quite unnecessary. In my view parliament should stay here long enough to deal with this issue. I think this issue could be dealt with today, but under the government's motion we will not be able to do so because just as soon as we get word from the Senate

that they have passed last night's supply bills there will be a letter read from the Chair to the effect that the Deputy to the Governor General is over there, and so the guillotine will fall and we can deal with nothing further.
If it is necessary to stay another day or two I think this parliament owes it to our retired civil servants and owes it to our retired people generally to do so. I urge that there be an end to the kind of excuses that the President of the Treasury Board has been giving. I urge that there be an end to these appeals from members opposite that some of us be patient and wait until the fall. I say that if we wait until fall and people get these increases in December or January, some of the pensioners involved will not get them. Some of them will have died in the meantime and others will suffer for the want of whatever increase they are going to get out of the government's promise.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say again that I quite approve of the idea of this parliament taking a recess. I was in on the consultation as to the date of our return, and I support the date of September 25, but I do not agree with our leaving now without dealing with this issue. I contend it could be dealt with today. That would be fine, but if it cannot be dealt with today we should stay here until it is dealt with, no matter how long it takes.
Therefore to bring this about, to make the motion one that is acceptable and more responsible I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Barnett):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "and to any other measures," the following words:	"including a
measure respecting the pensions of retired civil servants,"
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that if my amendment is accepted and these words are inserted the first part of the motion as amended would read as follows:
That the house adjourn immediately following the giving of Royal Assent to the supply bills referred to in paragraph (5) of the special order made Monday, June 26, 1967, and to any other measures, including a measure respecting the pensions of retired civil servants, and that the house shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 25, 1967, at 2.30 o'clock p.m.;-
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I need not read the rest of the motion because it is only that first part which is affected by my amendment. I contend that the good name of parliament, as a responsible body which does not fool people, which does not build up their hopes and then let them
July 7. 1967

down, is at stake in this question. We should not break tor our summer recess until we have dealt with the matter of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants, and that is the purpose of my amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish merely to raise a point of order in respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The amendment introduces into the proposal before us a matter which is certainly outside the scope of the proposition itself. The motion deals strictly with the ending of this part of the session and the resumption of the session in the fall. This amendment introduces a declaration of policy in the words following "any other measures", respecting the pensions of retired civil servants. If the amendment were permissible it would be possible for any member to add to it a series of further legislative requirements, thereby obliging the house to take further actions other than those required by the motion which are concerned strictly with the adjournment and resumption of the session. On procedural grounds I submit the amendment is irrelevant to the motion and cannot be entertained or put to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the attitude taken by the minister. No one has a monopoly of sympathy for retired civil servants. Members on this side have continually pressed for action in this regard. The government gave an implicit undertaking, at least it could be so interpreted, that action would be taken. I am surprised that the minister now repudiates, by raising a technical objection, the promise that retired civil servants would receive a measure of consideration which the government has not given. The minister has said that parliament would be placed in an impossible position if this amendment were passed. Let me point out that a committee of both houses unanimously supported this measure some months ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: There can be no justification whatsoever for the argument raised by the minister. However, it will be supported by those members who support the government. They will by their support be joining together in repudiation of the undertaking of the government, reinforced by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, but I think I should remind him and
Motion for Adjournment other hon. members that the motion has not yet been put to the house. We are considering the point of order raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I suggest that our discussion should be limited to that point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you separate the wheat from the chaff, the chaff having been placed before the house by the minister. That is the difficult position in which we are placed. When the minister advanced this argument I took it that he was not serious about it, and that this was just another roadblock put forward by the government to delay action.


Miss LaMarsh:: He is a better lawyer than you are.


John George Diefenbaker: I think everyone is
pleased to have an adjournment in sight. My own opinion is that parliament undermines itself when it sits as long as it has in the last few years. In this way it destroys itself. I cannot understand why the adjournment is until September 25. I could understand it if it was until September 18 because that is my birthday. An adjournment until September has some significance. I would ask Your Honour not to let the house be hogtied by a technical argument such as the one advanced by the minister for the purpose of bailing the government out of difficulty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as government house leader, has raised a point of order. It is a very clear and simple one, and I suggest that the answer to it is also very clear and simple. I ask Your Honour to note the words immediately preceding that point in which I suggest we insert the words of my amendment. Those words are "and to any other measures". The minister suggests that this is a restrictive motion and relates merely to royal assent to two supply bills.
The government in its own motion put in the words "to any other measures". What the minister has said is quite correct. Anybody could bring in another measure and be within the four corners of that phrase. I am not adding something new by my proposal, and I suggest it is within the four corners of that phrase.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely.

July 7, 1967
Motion for Adjournment


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is not the limitation here related to measures which are ready for royal assent? The effect of the amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is an instruction to the house to initiate and pass a measure, which is totally different. Surely this is not related to the motion which would require the house to deal with measures ready for royal assent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the minister that had he wanted to present that kind of a motion he should have consulted with his experts so that it would say what he intended it to say. In fact the motion refers to "any other measures". It does not refer to any other measures that are ready for royal assent. Nor does it refer to any other measures that are now before the house. It only refers to "any other measures". The minister is now trying to tell us what was in his mind. This is the same argument we have heard from him before in respect of the medicare bill, the pension bill and so on.
You must be guided, Mr. Speaker, not by what is in the minister's mind but by the words of the motion before us and the words of the amendment I have proposed. I submit that the words in the motion are "and to any other measures". The minister says that if my amendment was accepted and passed, any other measure could be proposed. He says it is an instruction to the government. In the strict sense of my amendment, it is an instruction to the house to sit here until we have dealt with this other measure. It would then be in the hands of the government to bring in that measure.


Mr. Byrne:: Blackmail.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the second or third time today I have heard the word "blackmail" uttered by someone on the other side of the house. That is the answer of Liberal members to the 45,000 retired civil servants and widows who have expected this government to keep its promises. This is their answer to my effort to get the government to keep its promise. I submit that is a word that ought not to be used, certainly not by members on the opposite side.
[DOT] (12 noon)
Surely parliament, not the government, is the master of its times of sitting and when it is to be here. Surely parliament has the right to say that we shall stay here until certain things are brought before us. If we cannot make the horse drink, at least we can lead it to the water.
I suggest that the amendment is perfectly in order. When I was looking at the motion and trying to draft an amendment I felt I should call the Minister of National Health and Welfare and thank him for having worded the motion in such a way that there was no problem. I repeat that the motion says without any qualification, that we shall stay here until we have received royal assent to two specific bills "and to any other measures", so I identify one such measure, namely, a measure respecting the pensions of retired civil servants.
I submit that the amendment is perfectly in order and that Your Honour should allow it and should allow the house to decide its own affairs so far as our times of sitting are concerned. While the debate has been going on I have been looking at the citations in Beau-chesne regarding amendments. There is citation 201 on page 168, the gist of which is that a motion may be amended by leaving out certain words in order to insert others, or by inserting other words. My amendment does that. There is, of course, citation 203(1) which provides as follows:
-every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
I submit that what is before us is a motion having to do with the times of sitting of the house, in direct relation to how much business we shall pass. I am proposing that the "other measures" which the government says should be finalized before we leave here should include the specific one I have named. I contend that my amendment is in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word in direct reply to what the hon. gentleman has said. I do not think there is any substance in the argument he used about the words "other measures", but if there is it would clearly indicate that his amendment is redundant. If "other measures" would include this measure, then it is quite unnecessary to put it in. But of course it is quite obvious that it does not have that significance at all and that what the hon. gentleman is seeking to do by his amendment is to do indirectly what he has no right whatever to do directly. There is no motion and no notice of motion on the order paper of this house-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -for this measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.
[Mr. Knowles.)
July 7, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can call "Shame" all he likes. He poses as a great authority on the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He knows he can never win an election and sit on this side of the house, and he is trying indirectly to substitute himself for the government-and to substitute his motion for the message from the crown that would have to precede any such measure which the government alone, under our parliamentary system, has the right to bring forward.
Not only is the hon. member doing that but he is seeking by a procedural motion to direct this house in advance that it must pass this bill which we have never seen and whose contents we do not know anything about. The hon. member is seeking to say that the Senate must also pass this bill because he says we are not to adjourn until the bill is ready for royal assent.
I suggest that not only is the hon. member vastly expanding the motion but he is seeking to do indirectly what he knows perfectly well, as a private member who has never been able to get enough confidence in this country to sit on this side of the house, he could never do directly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport always manages, under the guise of dealing with a point of order, to bring in all the political connotations he possibly can.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If there is anyone who ought not to be talking about the confidence of the country, it is a government that is now trying to find refuge behind the rules of the house to cover up the fact that they have betrayed a promise they made to the retired civil servants of Canada.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the minister wants to rise on a question of privilege. I have the impression that we are now slowly slipping into the debate which might take place, and which I assume will take place, either on the amendment proposed by the hon. member if it is accepted and, if not, on the motion itself. The motion is, of course, a debatable one and hon. members
Motion for Adjournment have at least this day to debate it. Therefore I suggest that we try to limit our consideration at the moment and follow the excellent example of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition a moment ago. Having made these comments, I recognize the Minister of National Revenue on his question of privilege.


Edgar John Benson: My question of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker. It has been implied several times that something would be done by a specific date. This is just not the case, and hon. members opposite know it as well as I do. The committee reported back in May. The government has been considering the matter. I have stated that it is under active consideration and that I hope action will be taken in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: Hope springs in due course.


Edgar John Benson: But at no time has the government promised that action would be taken before the house adjourns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that a promise was made. Whether a date was attached to it or not, the time has come for the promise to be implemented. These promises are made with an indefinite date in mind which never seems to arrive. They are the Hamlets of Canada-tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. But tomorrow never comes.
I agree with Your Honour that we are getting off the point of order, but I can assure Your Honour the debate started to slip in that direction before I rose to my feet. May I deal with the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport. It is with reference to the phrase "and to any other measures." If the house has the right to discuss any other measures before the adjournment, then surely the house also has the right, in the control of its own business, to indicate what one of those measures should be. The item which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is seeking to have the house delineate as an item for discussion prior to the adjournment for a summer recess is that having to do with pensions for retired civil servants. It seems to me that since the government itself put this phrase into the motion the house has the right now to indicate what item it would like to discuss prior to the adjournment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their assistance to me in ruling on the very interesting point of order raised
July 7. 1967

Motion for Adjournment originally by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I have had the usual consultations in the light of the advice given to the Chair and I am now in a position to render a decision, or at least give an expression of opinion.
It seems to me there is something to what was said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he suggested that it is a new proposition which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seeks to introduce in the consideration of the motion. To my mind this amendment goes even further in that to a considerable extent it is a substantive amendment raising an entirely new question and would require notice.
However, there is some doubt on this point and I might have tended to accept the amendment if there were that objection only. There is another objection which is more serious and which I take the liberty of bringing to the attention of hon. members. I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 260(1) which reads as follows:
The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons, for the past 25 years, to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money. Our Journals are full of precedents to this effect.
To my mind this citation is exactly on the point, and because of this I must rule the amendment out of order.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word on the motion. The members of this party are extremely disturbed that the house should propose to adjourn for a summer recess without dealing with the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The fact that the retired civil servants have over the years seen the cost of living rise annually, which has meant a diminution in the purchasing power of their pensions, has caused great distress among them, and this distress has not just been felt in the last two or three years or the last two or three months. The government has been in office for over four years.
As my colleague said, the previous government dealt with this matter and the present government, fully aware of the distress which has been caused among the retired civil servants, claims to have been studying the matter. It was referred to a joint House of Commons and Senate committee which put forward a unanimous recommendation for action. There

have been months of delay. We have been told that the matter was under active, serious and urgent consideration. Consideration has been given to it every time but no action is ever taken.
We had hoped that in view of the fact that the government had plenty of warning it would have brought in legislation to deal with this matter before the house recesses for the summer. The complexity of this legislation is no excuse. There have been plenty of precedents for this legislation and there has been plenty of time to deal with this matter. If the ministers are so busy with other matters that they think this one is less important and can be delayed, then they are wrong because the Canadian people, who have a high regard for civil servants, feel that they have an indebtedness to them and owe it to them to see that they do not suffer by virtue of the rising cost of living and that their pensions should be adjusted to meet the rising cost. Since the government has completely failed to do this, we think that the house has no right to recess until this great injustice is remedied.
Since the government refuses to act, we have no other recourse but to vote against the motion to adjourn, and not because we do not want to see the house adjourn because we recognize the need for members to return to their respective constituencies. But surely no recess is more important than the passage of a measure to relieve the distress of the retired civil servants of this country.
When the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) speaks about blackmail because we are trying to get the government to live up to its commitments, I want to tell him that the people of Canada will not consider it blackmail and that anybody who can get this government to keep its promises is doing a public service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the hon. member for Kootenay East says it is blackmail of the taxpayers, I challenge the government to ask the taxpayers of Canada whether they want to upgrade the pensions of the retired civil servants of this country. Let the government not blame the taxpayers. The government is not covering up for the taxpayers; it is trying to cover up for its own inability, inefficiency and failure to grapple with a problem whose solution is long overdue.


Mr. Churchill:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Now that he has displayed his
July 7, 1967

complete lack of confidence in the government, would he inform the house why he and his party have so frequently sustained the government by their votes during the last two years?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that many times we have moved motions of non-confidence in the government which would have been passed had it not been for the absenteeism of members of the official opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of us in the house would want to welcome the hon. gentleman who has just spoken back to his seat, particularly when he knows now that his leadership has been confirmed. However, some of us were a little mystified by the conclave which took the hon. gentleman away from the house. We know now that he is the leader of the reactionary group in his party and that the forces of liberalism which sought to assert themselves at the convention were regrettably unsuccessful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now we know why the external affairs of our country are in such a mess.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend drew a picture of the government leaving business unattended. That reminds me of what I saw on page 7 of the Globe and Mail this morning indicating that the N.D.P. convention broke up without dealing with the resolution on a guaranteed annual income.
Under the rules of the house it is not possible to challenge the sincerity of an hon. member, and I certainly would not challenge the sincerity of my hon. friend when he says that we must not adjourn today unless this very important matter is dealt with. My hon. friend, however, should not seek to convince any of us that he is really serious in that proposal. I suggest there is no one who would be more disappointed if we did not adjourn today than my hon. friend who, after his leadership race at the convention, is now looking forward with justification to a well earned rest.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) has dealt with this matter. He is the minister in charge of it. Yesterday he replied to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and pointed out the government's intention with regard to retroactivity. He has recognized, as has the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on a number of occasions, the concern
Motion for Adjournment and the interest of the government in this problem. As my hon. friend knows, this matter was considered very carefully by a joint committee of the house in the last session of parliament. No less than eight meetings were held at which evidence was received from 21 witnesses. A report was filed by that committee late this spring. It contained certain recommendations which are now before the government.
In the light of what the Minister of National Revenue said yesterday, it is not fair for my hon. friend to make the suggestion that he made a few moments ago. No government in this country has done more by way of old age retirement plans for civil servants and others than has the government represented by the party which sits to Mr. Speaker's right.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Whom does the minister have in mind, Judge Lan-dreville?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not a fair argument to suggest callousness on this side because we have all agreed on a program of adjournment. It is not fair to suggest that because the government is a participant in the adjournment proposal it is callous and uninterested in the economic stress which faces a section of the population of our country. The government is considering the report and it will give it the consideration which has been urged on it by the committee which gave the matter such thorough study. We on this side of the house are as concerned about the plight of retired civil servants as is my hon. friend or anyone else in the house.
In conclusion I want to say that I speak with friendship and affection for my hon. friend. As the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) said, my hon. friend has been busy. He has been too busy to follow what has been going on in the house. I am sure we all understand that because many others have preoccupations. My hon. friend has not been allowed the opportunity of knowing what we have been doing here because, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said in Toronto on Thursday, my hon. friend has been preoccupied.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am one of
those who greatly admire the ingenuity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). He can produce a smokescreen at

July 7, 1967
Motion for Adjournment any time. He has done so today. The aspersions he has cast on his allies in the New Democratic party do not indicate that appreciation of good things of which the minister is usually purported to have a monopoly. He said that the New Democratic party had gone right. Well, as I read what they had done I felt they had adopted Walter Gordon, the President of the Privy Council. They adopted him and it began to look to some of us as though a future alliance was being built up, if not in fact, then indeed in name. This reminds one of the old song, "Walter, Walter, Lead Me To The Altar."
All these things are indications. The Canada Development Corporation has a new name, the Canada resources corporation, but behind in the shadows standeth Walter keeping watch on his own. I had hoped that the alliance of the last several years between the socialists and the neo-socialists might lead to the culmination-


Mr. Starr:: They are going to have more meetings.


John George Diefenbaker: -of a happy reunion. Today they are just playing with one another.
I was amazed at the argument advanced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It had all the clarity that he normally exhibits when answering questions on foreign affairs. He said his heart bleeds for the retired civil servants. He referred to their economic distress. He recognizes the need and he feels, with all his heart, that something should be done. But when he is asked to do something he increases the salaries of the highly paid civil servants. He multiplies those increases and forgets those who were retired years ago and who today, he admits, are living in economic distress. This government has been recreant. The same situation prevails in other fields to which I shall not refer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend a question, a very kind question? Why did my hon. friend not act in 1962 when I asked him to do so?


Michael Starr: What have you been doing in the last five years?


John George Diefenbaker: Interruptions of that kind result in no detour on my part. I say to the government, you have failed to act. You have deceived parliament and the retired civil servants. Now you say, "Give us a little more time to continue the deception. Next fall we may act; we are going to do something." The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson)

said, "We hope to do something." Let him give an undertaking now. What are you going to do? Let us have none of these hypothetical promises and nebulous excuses. They say they are working on it. The very countenance of the Minister of National Revenue indicates how deeply he is thinking about this subject. Can he not come up with an opinion? Does he not agree with the committee that was composed of members from all parts of the house? Is it so difficult? Why is there this delay? It is simply that this government is playing with the retired civil servants and intends to continue to do so.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to congratulate the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) upon what may be his last speech in that position in the house. I hope that in our concern, and everyone else's concern for retired people, we will also consider retired leaders of the opposition. With respect to our position-


John George Diefenbaker: That is rather high class wit.


Edgar John Benson: -with regard to pensions for retired civil servants, I should like to point out that there was an adjustment made in 1958 by the government led by the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to point out also that there was no further adjustment made from then until 1962, by which time he ceased to form the government. I should like to point out further that there was a deficit of hundreds of millions of dollars in the superannuation account when the hon. gentleman left the government. This matter was referred to a committee-


John George Diefenbaker: Haven't you got a surplus today?


Edgar John Benson: -which indicates the deep concern of this government for retired civil servants. My hon. friend says the matter is a rather simple one. It is stated that the committee has reported, so we should simply come up with a proposition, give it to the house today and that would be the end of it. I should like to assure him that the matter is not as simple as that. This government for the first time in history, when it passed the Canada Pension Plan and the amendment to the old age pension, attached a cost of living index to them. This was new ground in Canada. I should like to point out that to my knowledge none of the labour unions in
July 7, 1967

Canada has a cost of living index attached to their pension plans.
When we reach a decision on this matter, if it is to be a permanent solution as hon. members opposite have suggested, then perhaps there must be some sort of cost of living index attached to it. This is not a simple matter. The worst cases of retired civil servants, indeed the worst cases of all pensioners throughout this country, have been taken care of through the supplementary old age pension plan which guarantees every older Canadian, whether or not he be a civil servant, a minimum income of $105 per month when he becomes pensionable. This pension has the cost of living index attached to it.
Very careful consideration has been given the report of the committee. I have assured hon. members in answering their questions that the whole matter is being given careful consideration. We intend to continue this consideration. Our course of action will be announced in the fall. I have said publicly and privately what my own hopes are in connection with this matter, but it is up to the government to make a decision on the specific plan that will be brought forward. We should not make a decision that will give somebody $25 and somebody else $5. This is not the way to solve this problem. It has to be solved in a way that will prevent its recurrence every few years, as happened under the Leader of the Opposition when action was taken and then nothing happened for the next four years. I believe the retired civil servants got behind relative to the cost of living at that time as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if the government had not given any consideration to a formula prior to receiving the report on this matter from the joint committee of the house and the Senate?
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government has given consideration to many formulas, including the formula used in 1958 which we deemed not to be appropriate as a method to solve this problem finally. We are continuing our consideration of this matter but it is not quite as simple as my hon. friend tries to point out. People are receiving pensions from the civil service having worked for varying periods of time. One could argue that if one made a flat rate adjustment of some sort and somebody receiving $110 a month received $125 or $135 a month, that person may have worked for the civil service for only a very
Motion jor Adjournment short period but would be treated in the same way as long-term employees, which would be unfair. It is a complicated matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to interrupt the minister but I think I should take the liberty of reminding all hon. members who are taking part in this discussion that contributions to the debate must be, to some extent at least, relevant to the motion before the house. I assume it is in order to refer to the pensions of retired civil servants, but remarks should be related to the question as to whether or not we adjourn. That is the question which is before the house.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is very important that a number of us say something on this matter. There is no monopoly in this house, certainly none on the other side, when it comes to diverting attention away from the real issue that is under discussion this morning. That issue, as Your Honour has just pointed out, is whether or not we adjourn or take time off-I do not call it a holiday because most of us know better than that, though it will provide a change of scene and some respite for us-before we deal with the pensions of retired civil servants.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has had so many years of practice at covering up that he has tried to cover up this matter with a very entertaining diversion about the recent convention held by our party. Other diversionary tactics have been tried. But the fact remains that this matter must be discussed now and we must decide whether or not this government is falling down on its duty by not dealing with the pensions issue before we adjourn.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) indicated that the government could not in the last five minutes bring in a pension plan, or he indicated that the government should not be expected to do that. I suggest there is no validity to that argument. This matter has been under discussion for a long time indeed.
All I want to do at this stage is to adduce the evidence of a witness, one not from our group but one that speaks for a great many people across this country. There are many other witnesses of this type. I want to quote an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Province on June 24, 1967. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Province does not belong to our party. It is not influenced by our party; neither does it give credit to our party unless that credit is very dearly earned

July 7, 1967
Motion jor Adjournment indeed. In dealing with the question of retired civil servants' pensions, the Vancouver Province has this to say in an editorial:
The New Democratic party has sound reasons for threatening to keep parliament sitting until legislation is introduced to increase the pensions of retired civil servants.
In view of the rising cost of almost everything, the tiny pensions given many former civil servants are a national disgrace.
I picked up a paper this morning, Mr. Speaker, and read that the cost of living index is up once again. The cost of food is up a full percentage point and the cost of clothing, rent and other essentials is again up, showing a steady rise. The editorial continues:
Finance minister Sharp last March disclosed the pension levels of Canada's 30,922 retired civil servants. At the lower end of the scale, 458 draw federal pensions of less than $20 a month.
Pausing there, Mr. Speaker, may I say that these people have given their lives to this country by working in the civil service. I think it is an insult to suggest that these people are looked after by the addition of the old age security supplementary pension to their income. We are insulting our retired civil servants by failing to look after them better than this. We are also insulting the old people of this country by offering them this sort of pension. The article goes on:
At the higher, 2,382 get allowances of $300 or more a month.
This is the argument used by people who are anxious to justify what the government has done in the matter of pensions.
In between, 28,082 draw pensions that range from a meagre $30 a month-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether the hon. member is not straying a little from the motion now before the house. It seemed to me that the first part of her argument was relevant, but perhaps she is now getting away from the subject before the house.


Winona Grace MacInnis: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, that is why I do not want to go home until we have dealt with this question. I think this is exceedingly relevant. It is why I think that we as members of parliament are falling down on our duty. We are failing to do something for those people who have incomes of this type. However, I have nearly finished with the figures, and I believe they are very relevant.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether it is the figures that are wrong? I would point out that they are accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: No, it is the hon. member who is out of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
will skip the figures then and continue with the editorial. However, I must point out that 20 per cent of all retired civil servants receive between $100 and $150 a month. Now I have finished with the figures. The editorial continues :
Is this the way a nation with one of the world's highest living standards proposes to recompense its public servants for a lifetime of service? Do these cheese-paring allowances reflect Canada's grateful thanks?
Obviously not. A Public Service Alliance brief calling for wide improvements in civil service pensions has been endorsed by representatives of three political parties, including the government.
I am getting rather nervous now lest by continuing to read I will be out of order, so I will desist. I just want to say that in spite of the cynicism expressed by the minister a moment ago, there are members of the House of Commons of all parties who would willingly stay here for several days, if need be, if we could get action on this matter before we go home for our much needed respite in our own constituencies. There are members of the House of Commons who put their duty to the people of this country-the retired civil servants in this instance-ahead of their own holiday plans and who would cancel their plans to go home in order to stay here to deal with this matter. I do wish, Mr. Speaker, that members on the other side of the house would recognize that there are members in all parties, even their own, who would be glad to stay to deal with this matter.
I know I am not out of order, or I do not think I am, when I say that I feel sure that the work that has been done over the years by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) puts him way beyond the cackling that I hear from some quarters that this is a last minute move to seek political advantage. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has fought and fought and fought for this particular group of pensioners, and I feel that if by staying a little while longer we could get some action from the government we would feel a lot better when we go home. I am also sure that the government would on mature reflection feel a lot happier too, as well as feel a lot happier
July 7, 1967

about their own prospects at the next election.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the motion before us to recess the house for the summer is one that has been agreed upon by all parties in the house. However, that does not preclude our saying some of the things which have been said about the government's failure to act on behalf of certain segments of the community and of the economy.
I was shocked to hear the callous words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) when he spoke of those in economic distress. He admitted that in 1962 he rose in the house as an opposition member and asked the government to do something about the matter which we are now discussing. The present government then came to office and declared a war on poverty. For five years the Secretary of State for External Affairs has done nothing to declare war on the poverty which affects retired civil servants.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Michael Starr: Does he not realize that some retired civil servants are living in squalor in one room, with hardly any amenities? Does he not realize the economic distress some of them suffer? Has he not heard of the suicide attempt of a widow of a civil servant which was occasioned by her economic distress? In his callousness is he going to continue to leave the matter unattended, as he has left it unattended for the past five years?
I realize that his interests range far beyond the war on poverty in this country. He is interested in the war on poverty in other countries. He is interested in wars between other countries, wars he has unsuccessfully tried to deal with. Even more unsuccessful have been his efforts to deal with poverty in Canada.
I know that nothing has been done because the government is not prepared to do anything. The cabinet is divided. Some in the cabinet feel that action ought to be taken now, while others are definitely against any action at this time. I wonder whether the government intends to do anything about this matter. The Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) said that he hoped something might be done. That leads me to believe that he wishes to do something to correct
Motion jor Adjournment the situation but that his colleagues are against him.
It is small wonder that no action is being taken. The government is divided. In the cabinet there are those who wish to do something for those in economic distress, for the retired civil servants, and there are others who are callous enough to do nothing. What is the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Which of those categories does he occupy?


An hon. Member:: He is on both sides.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Does the hon. member want me to answer his question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's comments about the war on poverty seem to be outside the scope of the motion. Perhaps he might sight his guns on the motion itself.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I was only following the theme and words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He said that some of our people are in economic distress. The enunciated policy of the government was that it was declaring war on poverty. Because of the callousness of some cabinet ministers that policy has not been carried out.
I thought the minister was most unkind today to his bedfellows of the New Democratic party. I realize that he thought he had a golden opportunity to try to give the impression that there might be a divorce between the two parties until after the summer recess. As the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said earlier, the N.D.P. has adopted the policies of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon). They feel closely akin to him. It is possible that the meetings that used to be held for the purpose of amalgamating the two parties might be resumed in future.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I think that is a good idea.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a fact.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words on this motion for the adjournment of the house inasmuch as I do not believe that the house should adjourn until it is seized of some facts regarding illegal fill in Lake Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

July 7, 1987
Motion for Adjournment Mr. Cowan: I sincerely trust that hon. members have enjoyed their light laughter, because before I am through I want to inquire whether the government is under the influence of two members of this house who are law partners of a lawyer involved in this illegal filling in of Lake Ontario or whether the government is acting on its own. I have been pushed around for two and a half years on this matter and I will not take any more. I will name them before I am through.
With regard to this adjournment motion I have in my hand-and I am sure that the Department of Public Works has not even seen it yet-a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which was brought down on Tuesday, June 27, with regard to an application by the borough of Etobicoke for the zoning of Lake Ontario out to the international boundary, which is Etobicoke's southern limit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot admit or accept that we have now reverted to a grievance period. Obviously this is what some hon. members seem to think. They seem to think that hon. members may take up any grievance, justified or otherwise, which they may have against the government or against the administration, and discuss it thoroughly in connection with the motion before the house. I feel that there must be some relation between the matters raised by hon. members and the motion before the house, which is a motion for adjournment. I assume that the hon. member for York-Humber will wish to establish this relationship because, otherwise I think we shall be severely infringing against the rule of relevancy.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which will show you how relevant this matter is to the motion for adjournment, and perhaps you will allow me to read the second and third paragraphs of this decision. The house has before it a motion to adjourn until September 25. This decision was given by the Ontario Municipal Board on Tuesday, June 27. The typewritten copy of the formal decision is dated June 30 and reads:
With respect to these lands-
The illegal fill in Lake Ontario.
-the board feels that due to special circumstances affecting them that there ought to be further study made and the board will therefore reserve its decision until such time as evidence is adduced as to the results of such further studies, or in the alternative until such time as application is made to this board for final disposition by any interested party. The board wishes to 
state that an application for final approval with respect to the remainder of the bylaw may be made at any time prior to the one year period, upon proper notice according to directions to be given by the board.
I read this to you for the simple reason that I was present at the hearings on Monday and Tuesday, June 26 and 27, and it is quite possible that an application will be made to the Ontario Municipal Board for the right to erect apartment houses on Lake Ontario while this house is in adjournment. I maintain that the cabinet must take this matter under advisement and give it consideration right away-not next October, next November or next December, by which time the proposed structures may be half up.
With regard to this matter and the gale of laughter that swept the house on the part of the unthinking, I would point out that on June 22 when I was speaking in the house during private members' hour the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), in his paternalistic manner toward backbenchers or private members, pointed out that I was again riding one or two of my hobbyhorses that I ride from time to time. I would not have to trot out these hobbyhorses if the cabinet would take action on the matters that I bring to their attention. I am now bringing up the matter of illegal fill again because of this decision of the Ontario Municipal Board of June 27, the date on which it was rendered, which decision could be appealed during the adjournment period.
This filling in of Lake Ontario is not a matter that is peculiar to the riding of York-Humber or the riding of York West which is represented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), an able, capable and good representative of that area. This sort of thing applies to the entire Dominion of Canada. I speak of this matter of illegal fill in Lake Ontario because the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) has not taken action under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I get telephone calls, personal notes and letters from all over Canada on this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I ask the hon. member to be relevant to the motion before the house.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: With regard to relevancy, may I point out that the former village of Long Branch, which was absorbed as a part of Etobicoke as of January 1 of this year, granted permission to Millgate Park Investments Limited to erect an 18-storey apartment house
July 7, 1967

on illegal fill south of the lakeshore of the township of Etobicoke in 1965 and 1966. Whether or not the granting of the right to erect an 18-storey apartment house on that illegal fill will be recognized by the borough of Etobicoke is, I suppose, a matter for the courts, because the village of Long Branch granted the right to build in what is now Etobicoke. It is now a question whether the developers will go ahead and begin to build during the summer months when it is proposed that this house will be in adjournment.
I have brought up this question on numerous occasions, pointing out, first of all, the illegality of the filling. The Navigable Waters Protection Act covers the matter 100 per cent. On more than one occasion I have referred to the fact that there is a lawyer in the case by the name of James F. McCallum who might be seen performing for his clients at public meetings, before the Long Branch council and in other places where these matters were being discussed. At page 3371-


Mr. Speaker:: While the hon. member is looking for the page perhaps I might remind him again that he does have to show some consideration for the rules of the house which require that discussion should be relevant to the motion before us. The hon. member says he is addressing himself to the question, which is the adjournment of the House of Commons. It seems to me that very little of what the hon. member has said until now bears any relation whatever to that motion. I would ask for his usual co-operation in bringing his remarks within the rules.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I suppose it would be considered easier by the cabinet to order the steel spider for an apartment house taken down next October after the house resumes than to take action now to stop this development.
I was about to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) on March 29, 1966, a year and four months ago, which can be found on page 3371 of Hansard:
The explanation given by the minister to the question raised by the member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) is rather confused.
The member mentioned earlier the name of a lawyer, Mr. James F. McCallum, who is greatly interested in this fill in Lake Ontario, in the Mimico area or on the other side, in Long Branch. When we asked the member for York-Humber whether Mr. McCallum had any associates to help him in his transactions there, he said he was not aware of it and that he did not know Mr. McCallum.
Motion for Adjournment
However, I find that in the Canada Legal Directory, which contains the names of law firms or offices in Canada, under No. 123, appears the name of the law office "Cameron, Brewin, McCallum & Scott, 372 Bay Street". Now, I wonder whether Mr. A. J. P. Cameron could not add "M.P." to his name and whether Mr. F. A. Brewin would not also be a member of the New Democratic party, I do not think Mr. Scott is a member of parliament, nor Mr. Joseph Lemire either-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is continuing along lines which I suggested again a moment ago he has no right to follow. He has to be relevant. If the hon. member does not think that at this point he can be relevant to the motion before the house, we shall have to call on another member who will perhaps be able to do so.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I want to ask the cabinet, before this vote is taken, whether any action is to be taken to stop this illegal fill in view of the fact that the Navigable Waters Protection Act gives authority for doing so and provides that plans for such a building as I have described must obtain prior consent before progress is made. This decision of the Ontario Municipal Board is current and relevant. Nothing has been done by the cabinet. No action has been taken for two and a half years.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning an increase in the pensions of retired civil servants.
We are in favour of an increase but we are also for the settlement of all problems. There have been increases year after year and the more salaries and pensions are increased, the more unbalanced is the economy. And it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and his party, cannot find a solution to balance our economy. There certainly are ways of balancing an economy. The more we increase salaries and pensions the more we create difficulties in the nation, and the more it is difficult for families to live, and poverty is becoming more pronounced. There has never been any solution other than increasing salaries and pensions. For over 20 years the labour unions have been calling strikes to get higher salaries and pensions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am listening to the hon. member with great interest but a very specific motion is before the house. It deals

July 7, 1967
Motion for Adjournment with the adjournment of the house and I hope that eventually the hon. member will talk to that motion.


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of the adjournment of the house, we want to adjourn. What we have done since September, we could have done in three months, if we had worked like men, but we worked like school children. We have done almost nothing for the people, except to increase taxes. We have found no way to balance the economy of the country or to meet the aspirations of the people.
For instance, there has never been an opportunity to speak of family allowances; no means have been found to increase them nor to adjust them to the cost of living. The children need more than the federal civil servants who are paid adequately. Families are in trouble; they are being strangled by taxes; they can no longer afford to live. No solution is found.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should restrict his remarks to the motion now before the house.


Mr. Gregoire:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
You have reminded several members that we were discussing an adjournment motion and that the discussion should be limited to the said motion. If we are considering a motion for the adjournment of the house, I feel that such a motion is not debatable and I wonder why it is being discussed. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I should like to elucidate my point of order.
What is before the house is not a simple motion for adjournment but a complex one comprising several other points, and that is why I suggest it is no longer an adjournment motion, but a motion designed to determine when the house will adjourn, when its sittings will be resumed and what measures will be discussed. It is therefore a rather complex motion which tends to broaden the scope of the debate since in the third line of the motion the following words appear:
-and to any other measures-
Therefore, this broadens the scope. That is why I feel you should allow the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe) to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot substitute his judgement for that of the Chair and I call his attention to the fact that standing order 25 to which he referred does

not apply in the case of a substantive motion like the one now before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: That is what I am saying, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the house ready for the question?


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief since we are on a motion for adjournment. Like the other members, I am anxious to get home, to take holidays and to have the time to go around my riding to meet my electors. Indeed, I am convinced all the members are in the same situation and we surely want the house to adjourn.
Still, before so doing, I take it upon myself to point out that we have been unable to do many things. The government has not been able to get all its legislation passed because, as I said earlier, we wasted a great deal of time on many questions. The debate on some matters could have been much shorter, and the house is to blame, for we made no changes in the rules.
Therefore, I hope we can change the rules of the house in the future so that we may work in a more relaxed way, have shorter sessions, and find time to think of doing something for the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying earlier that we should have had time to discuss family allowances. The cost of living has increased fourfold since 1944 but the rate of family allowances has not been raised.
On the other hand, taxes have increased and, each time they are increased and each time the salaries are increased, sometimes as a result of strikes, the cost of living goes up. When the cost of living goes up, the currency is depreciated, and this drags down the entire economy of the country.
July 7, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member goes off in a new direction, I would like to remind him that he should restrict his observations to the motion now before us.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, up to now, we have always observed the rules and I thank you for your observations. I will submit to your decision because we have heard many speeches and I shall not be long. I would have a number of remarks to make but since the rules must be observed, I shall cut them short. If we have not had the time to do all that should have been done, the motion of the New Democratic party must wait, as other things wait.
Therefore, let us wait, let us keep on going as we were before, let us keep on waiting and, during all that time, the people will manage as they can. As far as we are concerned, we still have the satisfaction, or the pleasure, to have done our duty at least during the session.
We have felt some after-effects, and we have followed the rules of the house. We have done all we could. I am glad to have done my duty, to have done only what was possible. I would have liked to do better yet and I think that all the members are in the same situation. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all the hon. members. If we have not done everything, at least we have done something, and we wish that the people will benefit therefrom as much as possible.


Mr.   Mariin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say to the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) that I listened with interest to what he said this morning-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I remember this morning's proceedings the minister has already taken part in this debate. Is he now rising on a point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was rising to tell the hon. member that I will see to it that the matter he raised is brought to the attention of the ministers concerned as quickly as possible.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just one or two comments on the motion now before the house. I would like to suggest that the discussion we have already had on it and on the amendment that was proposed evidenced very clearly the desirability and necessity of passing the motion. It seems to me that if we took 27053-151
Motion for Adjournment a recess we would be in far better humour following our return to proceed with the business of the house and deal with it in a much better way.
However, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that we all share the concern for superannuated civil servants. It is not limited to just a few members or to one or two parties. It is shared by all of us.
I had the opportunity of being a member of the committee to which reference has been made. I know there is keen disappointment at the fact that the committee's report has not been acted upon and legislation introduced to take care of this urgent problem. I think that today we have been engaged in an exercise in futility and that the time has come to make a decision on this motion.
I do not believe that the motion and the amendment proposed are the best way to deal with a situation like this. Many of us would have liked to add further qualifying phrases. For instance, we have been urging the absolute necessity of introducing legislation to deal with veterans' allowances, particularly the allowances to dependants of veterans. There are many categories of pensioners and I do not think it is wise to concentrate on one category and by this method try to force the government into action.
A few days ago we postponed until today debate on a most important matter, namely, the agreements reached in the Kennedy round of trade negotiations. Time is now running out and apparently that important matter is not going to receive too much attention today. While we are sympathetic to the objections which have been raised to an adjournment at this time, we believe it is urgently desirable that the motion should now pass. For that reason we intend to support it.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about this matter because I am concerned about the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) this morning and about what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. Both these ministers made it very clear that there had been no commitment made by the government that increases in retired civil servants' pensions would be implemented this year. From what they have said I wonder whether the government intends to implement this measure at any time. We all enjoy listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs,
July 7, 1967

Motion for Adjournment particularly when he is referring to the leaders of political parties, because he knows what it is to think about becoming a leader. However, no one on the other side of the house has given any clear assurance that this matter will be dealt with in the fall, and the Minister of National Revenue was very careful to outline all the difficulties involved. I do not often speak on the question of pensions because my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is quite capable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has revealed his intention to speak on pensions. Let me suggest to him that the question now before the house is the motion for adjournment.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the adjournment motion and the importance of discussing this matter before we adjourn today because I think-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: -it is important that we get some action on the part of the government or at least a specific commitment that there will be action. This matter has been raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) on several occasions. We have heard statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of National Revenue and the Secretary of State for External Affairs all indicating that they agree with this proposal. The house committee made a series of proposals in this regard and presented the house with a unanimous report.
The Minister of National Revenue indicated this morning that the legislation involved is very complicated. Let me inform him that I am concerned not about the complications but about a commitment by the minister and others that these retired civil servants will be looked after this year. There has been a great deal of talk about when and if this is going to happen, but the emphasis should be placed on the fact that this legislation should be brought forward as quickly as possible, with a provision making the increases retroactive. The implication of the statements made in the last few months-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must again interrupt the hon. member. He must realize that there are rules which must be followed, one of which is to the effect that speeches should be relevant to the question or subject before the house for discussion. The question


now before the house is a motion for adjournment. The hon. member must realize that he cannot completely disregard this rule and the motion before the house for consideration at this time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I was speaking in opposition to the adjournment motion. I was referring to what was said this morning by the house leader. I indicated my opposition by stating that I believe we should deal with the pension legislation referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We should have a specific commitment on the part of the government that this legislation will be brought forward when the house resumes and that it will be in such a form that the increases will be retroactive. I do not intend to take up much more time but I should like to indicate to the house-


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have many problems, as do many other hon. members, which I should like to raise on this occasion. It seems to me that the debate now taking place reopens the earlier debate on the proposed amendment. Although I may subscribe to the idea embodied in the proposed amendment, I do not feel that this debate should be completely open for the discussion of individual problems. I am sure if I raised the problem I am now thinking of your Honour would wonder how it could be related to the subject before us, which is the motion to adjourn.
I have restrained myself with some difficulty from presenting this problem to the house. I am sure that if I had risen and mentioned it you would have ruled me out of order. In all fairness to myself and other hon. members who would like to raise specific problems at this time, I think you should apply the rules to the hon. member and restrict him to the subject now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Mackenzie and feel that his point is well taken. That is why on a number of occasions today I have asked hon. members to relate their remarks to the motion now before us. There must be some order in the house and that is why we have our house rules. They do not allow hon. members to discuss grievances of the type that have been discussed by the hon. members for York-Humber, Compton-Frontenac, and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the limited subject of the motion now before the house.
July 7, 1967


David Orlikow: I will take just another moment, Mr. Speaker, and I will restrict my remarks to the subject under debate. I should like to indicate to the Minister of National Revenue that there has been a strong rumour circulating in Ottawa, not just in this house, that he has sympathy for these retired civil servants but does not have the approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to put forward the required legislation. For this reason we do not feel we should adjourn before the legislation has been brought forward or until an absolute commitment has been made. We all remember what happened in the case of medicare, and until the government gives some indication that it intends to go ahead with this legislation we do not feel that we should accept the statements made and adjourn.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope to stay within the confines of the rules in relation to relevancy to the terms of the subject matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must warn the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate on the adjournment motion.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to say very much about the adjournment motion which has precipitated a great deal of discussion and concern, but I should like to say that the form in which the motion is worded is not in accordance with the usual motion to adjourn. It seems to be a very simple motion but it is worded in a way which is not in keeping with the usual motion for a recess.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I am told that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) consulted with his very learned colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and arrived at a motion that they feit was designed to obviate exactly what has happened today. It seems to me that this kind of machination of the rules for a specific purpose is not in our interest. Members of parliament may have made statements outside the house about what they were going to do, but it seems very foolish for the house, and it certainly makes Your Honour's position very difficult, if ministers, particularly those responsible for house business, arrive at a wording that is designed to eliminate a certain type of discussion but which in fact always has a reverse effect and promotes that kind of discussion. The type of wording used
Motion for Adjournment in this motion offers a challenge to those people who look at the situation as not being insurmountable.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this kind of motion and the way it is put before us. It is a modification of the guillotine. A motion put forward by the house leader should lead to the type of discussion that is required. In future the wording of a motion of this kind should be referred to a committee of the house to recommend a standard wording in respect of an adjournment or recess. It should recommend a form of wording which would eliminate this kind of discussion taking place. I think this would be of advantage to us and to you, Mr. Speaker, in that it would put Your Honour in a much better administrative position than is the case with a motion which is designed to do a specific thing and obviously does not do it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one or two comments about the procedural aspects of the motion and the terms of the motion itself. I intended to say a word or two about the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has unfortunately been called out of the house. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to say something in his presence before completing my remarks.
The motion before the house provides essentially for two things. One is that the adjournment will continue until September 25, 1967, at 2.30 o'clock p.m. This aspect, the timing of the resumption of the session, was discussed through the usual channels and there has been no disagreement about this. There has been some suggestion that the house has been kept in the dark with respect to the adjournment itself. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who has just resumed his seat, suggested that some machinations are at the root of this motion. That, of course, is absolutely false. It is absolutely false because on Monday, June 26, 1967, I outlined to the house the program we had in mind. After having outlined the program I said:
With that program in mind we would hope to adjourn the house on Friday, July 7, unless it were necessary to remain for the following day to secure royal assent. If it is not, we will conclude this part of the session on that Friday.
That is to say, if it was not necessary to remain over until the following day, which would be Saturday, we would conclude this part of the session on Friday, July 7, which is

July 7. 1967
Motion for Adjournment today. So as early as Monday, June 26, the house was served with clear notice that it was the intention of the government to bring this part of the session to a close on that day. I pointed out that we would conclude this part of the session today if it were possible to secure royal assent. That is still the intention.
We must keep in mind that the supply bills passed last night have gone to the other place. The other place is meeting at three o'clock and must have an opportunity to deal with those supply bills. As soon as the other place completes its consideration of the supply bills we will be in a position to secure royal assent.
The purpose of the motion, contrary to the misstatement made by the hon. member for Timiskaming, was merely to take into account the fact that no one could foresee when the other place would complete consideration of the supply bills and when it would be possible to obtain royal assent.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


William Arnold Peters: I have no disagreement with the second part of the proposition put by the minister, that is, that the house was to stand adjourned until September 25 and so on. This is the normal procedure. However, is it not true that the first part of the motion would not apply and could not apply to any other circumstance than the one facing us at this time? It would not have applied the last time we recessed and even leaving out the date it would not have applied to any other circumstance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the work of the session had advanced to the point where it was possible to forecast the circumstances in which royal assent might be forthcoming. If the other place deals with the supply bills royal assent, if it is possible, will be given at 5.15 or 5.30. If the other place continues to discuss the supply bills and that discussion is not completed until later this evening, we will have royal assent at that time or tomorrow, as was indicated on June 26. That is why the motion was phrased in this way. It was in order to take into account the time, possibly prolonged, that might be taken by the other place in dealing with the supply bills.
There is nothing sinister about the motion at all. It is simple. The reason we put this motion on the order paper was so that the house would have an opportunity to deal with

it in the regular way, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had served notice that he would use every possible method to hold up the adjournment of the house.
If I had come into the house later today and asked for unanimous consent to present an adjournment motion, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would have been able to veto the desire of most hon. members to adjourn today by withholding unanimous consent. Undoubtedly that is what he would have done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not clear, then, that this special, unique motion was drafted in such a way as to prevent me from insisting that the house deal with the matter of increased pensions for retired civil servants?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this motion was to give an opportunity to the house to deal with this matter based on an understanding that had been reached by members of the house that we would complete a certain amount of legislative business and the discussion of the main estimates of a certain number of departments. When these estimates had been translated into supply bills it was agreed that we would pass interim supply, after having dealt with so much legislation, and would wind up the session today. That was the understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister another question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Don't abuse the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question of privilege is that every time there was any understanding at a meeting of the house leaders about the ending of the session, it was agreed by all of us that we would wind up the business of supply last night. But any understanding about adjourning today was always clearly stated to be without prejudice to my right to insist that we stay to deal with the question of the pensions of retired civil servants.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has of course illustrated the impasse in which he has placed the
July 7, 1967

House of Commons. Some weeks ago the hon. member for Timiskaming appealed to me as house leader to state clearly what the program of the government was. I stated it clearly in the house and elsewhere as required. I have been asked by ministers on this side of the house to add further items of legislation which they regard as important and which they thought should be passed before the house adjourned. But from the beginning I have adhered strictly to the understanding that I would add nothing further to the list of items that would be dealt with before the house adjourned. Hon. members opposite understand that, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre feels that he occupies a special place in the house and enjoys a special status and that at the opportune moment, after he has chosen his timing very carefully, he can say "The house will not adjourn until my special interest is satisfied". He served notice earlier this week that he would frustrate adjournment and he has done so today and thus placed the house in a totally absurd position.
We have before us a simple adjournment motion indicating the time at which we will adjourn, depending upon the securing of royal assent, and indicating the time for the resumption of the session. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows full well that on an adjournment motion of this kind it is totally improper to debate issues of substance.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has led the house into an absurd situation because, first of all, he forced us to deal on an adjournment motion with the substantive issue of pensions for civil servants. Then the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) felt it appropriate, and justly so, to raise the question of the illegal filling of Lake Ontario. He was followed by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe) who rose to tell us that the financial system of Canada should be changed. All of these matters were to be settled before we adjourn the house. Then the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) said quite properly, "I have other grievances and other matters to raise on the floor of the house. Surely I should have an opportunity to do so before we adjourn." That is the situation.
There is no admission or statement by the government that every grievance is satisfied or that every claim on the government is fulfilled. All we have before us is a simple adjournment motion. I am surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who
Motion for Adjournment is an acknowledged authority on the rules of the house, would take this misguided course of action.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: By taking this course of action today he has obviously put the house in the absurd position that on a simple adjournment motion it is possible to ask that the financial system of Canada be reformed before we adjourn the house.
We talk about the image of parliament. Everybody makes wonderful speeches about it. Well, the Canadian people must have received a wonderful impression of parliament today. The responsibility for creating such an impression lies on the doorstep of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who decided, after the procedure under which we would adjourn had been clearly understood, that he would place before the house his special problem and project. I assume the hon. member is sincerely dedicated to this proposition, but I think his dedication is misguided and his action today has been irresponsible. It has created a very bad impression because the people of Canada may think that we cannot even get the house adjourned, we cannot carry out our own business efficiently and successfully, without getting into a wrangle and in this case over a simple adjournment motion.
His Honour the Speaker has ruled already on the irrelevancy of the debate. If this discussion were relevant the amendment would have been in order. However, it was declared out of order. Following that the Speaker has been on his feet trying to get the house to come to some sense of sanity and deal with the simple motion before it. The only plea I make is that we return to sanity and deal with this motion on the clear understanding that the problem about which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre feels so strongly can be debated when we resume in the fall. If we take the view that the house is not in a position to adjourn until every last grievance is satisfied, then let us decide today to have continuous sittings of the House of Commons from the beginning of the year until the end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to conclude by making a remark about the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). This will be a very friendly remark so I want him to relax.

July 7, 1967
Motion for Adjournment


John George Diefenbaker: I never have to relax tor
any kind of remark.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has often asked me from that side of the house to take the house into my confidence. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition has not taken the house into his confidence and told us whether he will be occupying his seat when we resume on September 25. For my own part I sincerely hope he will be sitting in that seat when we return in September because parliament would really not be the same without his presence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was that a grievance?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister wish to answer questions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One question, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question to the minister is this: Is it not a fact that we are having this debate today and that we are engaging in what the minister calls "this wrangle" not because of one individual grievance but because the government has failed to keep its promise to our retired civil servants?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at no time did the government make a commitment to deal with this matter before the summer adjournment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is all the more reason why we should not adjourn.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


William Arnold Peters: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I listened very carefully when the minister indicated that I had argued on-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that the rules have been fractured enough today and that we should try to respect them to some extent at this point. If the hon. member has a question of privilege it should be a valid one, not simply a reopening of the debate which should be closed by the minister's statement.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, my point of personal privilege is based on the minister's supposition that I argued on a false premise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a debating point.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: Let hon. members over there keep quiet and we will get through more quickly.
a (3:10 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have no difference of opinion with the minister on the other remarks he made. However, he concluded that I was falsely informed or proceeded on a false premise when I said that the form of this motion lent itself to the abuse which has occurred. I believe this is true. The minister has said that there has to be royal assent for the supply bills that were presented and that no additional bills could be presented unless they were followed by another supply bill. My point was-


An hon. Member:: There is no point of privilege.


William Arnold Peters: Well, I feel I have a point of privilege whether or not the members on the other side do. Originally the point of this motion was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should state his question of privilege. Up until this moment he has given no indication whatever that he has a legitimate question of privilege.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the premise I used as the basis for my remarks that the motion had nothing to do with the problem was false. It was not false. The whole argument has flowed from the wording of that part of the motion which reads:
-royal assent to the supply bills referred to in paragraph (5) of the special order made Monday, June 26, 1967, and to any other measures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. This is a point of debate. The hon. member intends to argue with the interpretation placed on his remarks by the minister, and if I allowed the hon. member to make his statement then members on the other side could get up on a question of privilege to disagree with the interpretation placed by the hon. member on the minister's interpretation of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. We could go on for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
July 7, 1967


Mr. Clancy:: I was paired with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Legault). If I had voted I would have voted the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Pennell:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, may I table the final report of the Nelson River
programming board to the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-148, to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of criminal records).


An hon. Member:: No explanation needed. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS

Georges-C. Lachance: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-149, to amend the Criminal Code (restriction on publication of proceedings).
He said:

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is also to facilitate the rehabilitation of those who have served sentences in our penitentiaries. A similar bill is being considered in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and I understand that it is a government bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

July 7. 1987
Inquiries of the Ministry [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not there has been any suggestion from the United Nations that Canada's mobile force be made available in the Congo. If not, has there been any offer on the part of Canada to make the force available in the Gaza strip or those areas between Egypt and Israel, and Jordan and Israel?
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: With regard to the situation in the Congo, there is no proposal before the United Nations for a United Nations presence which would call for the contribution of military forces from countries such as Canada where preparations have been made in anticipation of such circumstances. If the United Nations is faced with such a situation, Canada will of course, pursuant to its obligations under the charter, give the matter the consideration which is habitually given to such situations by the government.
With regard to the situation in the Gaza strip, there is no proposal now for the establishment of a new United Nations presence there. One body is already in existence between Israel and Syria and Jordan; the United Nations truce and supervisory organization on which Canada is represented by some 22 officers. It is thought that this body can serve to carry out the necessary function of observation, and help to make a cease fire effective and ultimately, it may be, to assume other obligations which have yet to be extended to it by the security council.



RHODESIA-EFFECTIVENESS OF SANCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the dangerous area, around the community of Kisangani, which is the old Stanleyville, there are in all about 20 Canadians. I believe that these, together with citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries, are not in immediate danger but steps have been taken for their security.']
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question with respect to the situation in Rhodesia? In view of the statements which have recently been made by the prime minister of Great Britain with regard to the situation in Rhodesia and the degree of effectiveness of economic sanctions, may I ask the hon. gentleman (1) whether the Canadian government is reviewing the effectiveness of these sanctions, and (2) whether the Canadian

government intends to advance any proposals, either in the security council or at the United Nations assembly, for tightening up economic sanctions in order that they may prove more effective?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, Mr. Speaker, Canada has fully subscribed to the requirements of the mandatory sanctions imposed by the security council a few months ago. Canada is not in a position by itself to assess the effectiveness of these sanctions. The Secretary General will be making a report to the security council soon on the sanctions and then, when this report is before the security council the UN member states, including Canada, will be in a position to determine whether or not additional economic sanctions are necessary. However, it is noteworthy, as my hon. friend has just indicated, that the recent statement by Mr. Smith shows that the sanctions are having effect.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question with regard to sanctions in Rhodesia. Is it the purpose of the Canadian government through the imposition of sanctions to create serious economic distress in Rhodesia and vast unemployment?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend knows that the purpose for which Britain and all commonwealth countries, and most other countries in the world, have agreed to the mandatory sanctions program of the United Nations is because they wish to bring down a government that has exercised a form of discrimination which in this day and age simply cannot be tolerated by the international community.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask one other supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to take similar action against various governments in the countries of the world that have been established by revolution and military dictatorship, and are therefore illegal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend knows that on the orders of the day such a sweeping question could only bring a sweeping answer in an exchange that would be of little practical meaning.
July 7, 1967



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the explosive situation that exists in the Congo I ask the minister are there any Canadians in the danger areas and, if so, what steps are being taken to protect them?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the dangerous area, around the community of Kisangani, which is the old Stanleyville, there are in all about 20 Canadians. I believe that these, together with citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries, are not in immediate danger but steps have been taken for their security.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will he assure the house that in any action to approve the application of channel 3 for its licence he will have cabinet approval?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I would be permitted to say that, if rumours are true, this may be the last day's attendance by the hon. gentleman in this chamber and he, apart from some of his partisan activities, is a very popular member of the house. I will not go so far as to say we wish him well in any new endeavours, but I know that from a personal standpoint, so far as his health, wealth and happiness are concerned, we would all wish him very well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may add that in connection with many of the arrangements that had to be made, when I had the honour to be the leader of the house when this government was first formed, I always found the hon. gentleman, although he pushed the interests of his party just as far as he possibly could, to be really co-operative, as a good whip should be.
Having said that, sir, I can assure the hon. gentleman that I will endeavour, as I always
Inquiries of the Ministry do, to comply with the law made by this parliament.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Before directing a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the good wishes of my hon. friend, and I can assure him I could never depend on his support for what I have in mind for my future. I might add that I had a sensible, responsible farewell speech prepared, but in the light of what has occurred earlier today I wish to say I agree with some hon. members who said that the Canadian people may have reason to be disgusted, particularly with some of the people on my left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: With reference to the minister's reply regarding channel 3, I would simply ask him whether he will meet the very unique protests made by some of his backbenchers, and some of his front benchers, which have been in line with what I have requested, because I do not believe-and I say this frankly and directly-that approval of this application will be in the best interests of television.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, of course, is making a representation at the moment and not asking a supplementary question.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. I understand that the minister has the prerogative in approving the transfer. Will he give the house an assurance that he will not, alone and unguided, make the decision but seek the views of the cabinet before making it?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this is the same question that was asked previously by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly I could ask this question of the minister, Mr. Speaker. Was it brought to his attention at any time that Mr. Snelgrove and those connected with him during the 1965 election, when Mr. Snelgrove took such an active part for the Liberal party here in Ottawa, boasted they were going to bring about the achievement of having this television station transferred from Barrie to Toronto?


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


Malcolm MacInnis: As a further supplementary question, I would

July 7. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry ask the Minister of Transport if it is a fact that one of the board of directors, not having sat in on any of the hearings, attended the final meeting, voted in favour of it, and at that time the chairman of the board was not even aware of the fact that he was a newly appointed member of the board, and did not find out until the coffee break?


John George Diefenbaker: That would be nothing abnormal for this government.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. It arises out of a report on the C.B.C. screen yesterday of a sale that took place at Christie's, the famous art and antique sales market in London, of a chart drawn by Captain James Cook of the St. Lawrence river, including the area adjacent to Quebec, a chart actually used by General Wolfe in the assault on Quebec. Surprise was expressed in London that there had been no attempt on the part of the Canadian government or any Canadian body to seize the opportunity to obtain this historic chart. My question is this: Did the Canadian High Commissioner in London inform the government of this opportunity to acquire in centennial year a priceless piece of Canadiana for the National Archives? I might add that the bidding did not reach the owner's reserve price.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your Honour did not give the Secretary of State an opportunity to answer the legitimate question I asked, and apparently she was prepared to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The member knows that the minister did not rise to answer the question. There was no attempt on my part to prevent the minister from answering.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, since the house will not be sitting again for

some time perhaps I may be permitted to ask the Minister of Public Works a rather general question. Has the government yet come to a final decision with regard to a redesigned crossing to be built to Prince Edward Island across Northumberland strait, and has any decision been made respecting the schedule of construction? If the answer is no, and I expect it to be, could the minister give some indication of when he hopes such a decision to be arrived at by the government?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first two questions is no. In respect of the time of the proposed redesign and modifications now in the hands of the consultant, I cannot give an accurate estimate. I doubt very much that this will be placed before parliament until after it resumes. As the hon. member knows, I did indicate to the committee which considered these estimates that there would be an opportunity to discuss the matter when this information is available for study.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Transport. When the transport commission holds its hearings in western Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan, will members of parliament, members of the provincial governments, representatives of the municipalities and others interested in rail line abandonment be notified of the dates and places of the hearings?
Hon- J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, according to the notice I received, the Board of Transport Commissioners has arranged a conference to be held in Winnipeg on August 8. I suggest that anyone who wishes to participate in or attend this conference should get in touch with the secretary of the board to ascertain its procedures. I am afraid I do not know now what they are, but I am sure the secretary would reply very promptly to any inquiry.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the conference to be held on August 8 in Winnipeg, will the results of the special technical surveys being done on certain branch lines be available to interested parties before that meeting?
July 7, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a result of a notice I received, I assume that what is to be discussed is not the abandonment of any specific line, but rather the general procedures to be followed in dealing with the applications. For that reason I should not think the results of any study would be relevant to the purposes of the conference.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a further supplementary question. Will the results of the studies be made available to interested parties as they are completed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure any information in the possession of the board or under my control as Minister of Transport which is relevant to the conference will be made available.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question which is related, or could be construed as supplementary. Will the minister put some teeth in the guarantee in respect of certain branch lines, which will assure the replacement of the bridge which was destroyed at Chelan, Saskatchewan, in order to provide service as it was prior to the destruction?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have already taken this matter up with the officials of the Canadian National Railways. As the hon. member suggested, this particular line is a guaranteed line. I assume the Board of Transport Commissioners will have certain jurisdiction in respect of this matter, although it is hazardous for a minister to make statements which probably constitute a legal opinion. In any case I have drawn this matter to the attention of the board.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie, is the minister aware, as I am sure he is, of the serious situation in which the people along this line find themselves as a result of the fire which destroyed the bridge on May 16?
I need not bring to the minister's attention the fact that this loss of transportation facilities to outside areas has resulted in complete stultification. While the minister does not have the authority to direct, will he bring to the attention of the officials of the Canadian National Railways the imperative necessity of transportation through this area, and the fact that there has been a long delay in this regard?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pickersgill: I will be happy to bring the words of the right hon. gentleman to the attention of the railway officials, and I am sure they will be much more effective than anything I might say.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have a further supplementary question. Can the minister give us some assurance that the transport commission will be duly appointed in such a way that representations can be made to an authority which will have greater power than the present board of transportation commissioners?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since parliament decided the Canadian Transport Commission should be established, it is not difficult for me to give an assurance that it will be established. I cannot give a concrete date in respect of this establishment, but I hope it will be early in September.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
CLARKE CITY, P.Q.-REHIRING OF EMPLOYEES On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but in his absence, I shall put it to his parliamentary assistant.
It has to do with a Canadian Press release, under date of July 5, announcing the closing down, at Clarke City, of the Gulf Pulp & Paper pulp mill which had been in operation for 60 years, and the lay-off of its 200 permanent employees. I should like to know from the minister whether arrangements have been or will be made to transfer or place those workers in other industries, preferably in the mining industry of that very region?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the facilities of the Canadian manpower centre have been made available to assist in replacing and retraining the displaced workers at this plant.

PROPOSAL THAT PROCEEDINGS BE TELEVISED On the orders of the day:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister about the expressed desire on

July 7, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry the part of the C.B.C. to film parts of parliamentary procedure as a special centennial project. In view of the fact that all opposition parties have agreed to this suggestion, and in view of the fact the C.B.C. will need some time to make plans, can the government give us some definite indication that it will be agreeable to this project?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already indicated his views in respect of this matter. Whether those views will represent a final decision, I cannot say. I will direct the hon. member's question to the Prime Minister. I can say that this matter is one which the Prime Minister has had under consideration.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I addressed a question yesterday to the Minister of Public Works regarding employees presently employed by this department at North Bay. The minister said in response that he would make a reply today in greater detail. Is he prepared to do so now?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked whether a decision had been made to move the Department of Public Works staff from North Bay to Sudbury. The answer to that question is no, there has been no such decision taken. Perhaps I should add, to assuage any doubts that may be in the hon. member's mind or the minds of those involved, that formerly the North Bay office of the Department of Public Works was required to report to the district office in Toronto. We are creating a new district office in Sault Ste. Marie in relation to a certain portion of northern Ontario, and the North Bay office in future, along with the Port Arthur office, will be required to report to that new district office. It may in its working out involve some changes in personnel, but there is no intention to close the North Bay office.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I realize that yesterday I asked a question that would normally be ruled out of order, but because this part of the session is about to

conclude Your Honour allowed it. I asked a question in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Commission office at North Bay being closed and removed to Sudbury, affecting some 26 employees. The Minister of Labour was not in the house and no minister indicated that he was acting as minister of labour in respect of this matter. I wondered whether anyone took notice of my question and has an answer today. Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare acting as minister of labour?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I took note of the question yesterday, but unfortunately I have not received information in a form to give to the hon. member. I will obtain the information and make sure that he receives it at the earliest possible moment.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Goyer (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Does he intend to enforce at Dorval airport during the summer, the regulations forbidding take-offs and landings after midnight which disturb the sleep of the inhabitants of that area and in particular those of Ville Saint-Laurent?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is not only the hon. gentleman's constituents who would like to be allowed to sleep in peace. About once a month I get a telephone call at about three o'clock in the morning from some irate person in the hon. gentleman's constituency asking why jets are allowed to land at Dorval after midnight. I do not like having my sleep disturbed any more than the people there do.
A very serious effort is being made to prevent, to the greatest possible extent, these landings and takings-off after midnight. There have been a large number of landings and takings-off recently because of the inordinately large amount of air traffic. It is difficult not to allow planes to land if they have been delayed, and if they land and we say they cannot take off until morning we would have a great many irate passengers who are not able to continue on to their destinations.
July 7, 1S67

It is a very complicated problem to solve. We are doing everything we can to keep it down to the minimum. However, it does not seem very advisable this year to detain planes as a punishment, because I am afraid those who would be punished would not be the air lines but the passengers, whose reservations would thereby have no validity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might make an observation in regard to the statement made by the Minister of Transport, it is a terrible thing for a minister of this government to be awakened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) about "no shows" on Air Canada. Up to now they have not thought they could take advantage of my advice as to how to run the air line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My feelings are not unduly hurt on that account. However, Air Canada
have instituted a system of telephoning a few hours before the flight, everyone who has a reservation. In that way they are getting a great many cancellations that apparently people would not make on their own. I understand they are still giving consideration to the other possibility which I suggested, but there are some very serious difficulties in putting it into operation.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choqueile (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the mass importation of eggs, which is creating disastrous conditions for the farmers, would the minister not have an announcement to make as to a policy that could take care of this severe disadvantage for the agricultural class?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not feel this is a supplementary question.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase in a more precise way the question I directed a while ago to the minister.
Is the government willing to announce a policy concerning the purchase of eggs, since the agricultural class is suffering from a mass importation of eggs?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Agricultural Stabilization Board is going to announce an egg purchasing policy today.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what communications have been made by Canada directly to Israel or through our ambassador in respect of the resolution passed by the United Nations, for which Canada voted. This resolution provides that Israel shall desist from its action in annexing Old Jerusalem. What is the reaction of Israel to the resolution that was passed?
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, immediately prior to the general assembly vote I had a discussion about this matter with the ambassador of Israel in Ottawa. The foreign minister of Israel had a meeting recently with the secretary general, and Mr. Eban I think today or late last night announced that his government would be making a statement about the matter some time toward the middle of next week, when it is expected that the general assembly will be resuming its session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister another question in connection with the refugees. Has Canada made any offer, directly or indirectly, to the United Nations, to any of the Arab states or to Israel as to the number of refugees Canada would be prepared to absorb if they were able to come to this country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for me to go beyond the statement made in that connection by the Prime Minister about ten days ago.

July 7, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: There has been
change?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Yes.



HONOURS AND AWARDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure to whom I should direct this question, but the Secretary of State looks her usual courteous and capable self so I will direct it to her. In view of the fact that we have master craftsmen at the Royal Canadian Mint whose work, I am sure we all agree, is unexcelled, why is the Order of Canada medal being produced by Garrard's of London, England, and not by the Royal Canadian Mint?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did not know it was being produced by them, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be happy to find out what the position is. It may be some time before I can give the hon. member an answer here so I may mail it.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I trust his answer will be such that I will not be asking questions on the subject when we return later this year. I should like to ask the minister how he is coming along with establishing the base line co-ordinates under the Fishing Zones and Territorial Seas Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be able to make an announcement earlier than this. I am not in a position to do so. I hope I will be able to make an announcement before I next see the hon. gentleman.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture on behalf
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
no of hon. members from the province of Saskatchewan. In view of the serious drought situation that has developed in several large areas of western Canada in the past several weeks, has the minister had any communication with Hon. Ross Thatcher, premier of Saskatchewan, with a view to setting up emergency measures to provide forage to maintain basic cattle herds? I might say that most of Saskatchewan has had approximately half an inch of rain since May 1.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the premier of Saskatchewan attended here, I think the day before yesterday, and communicated those thoughts to me. He indicated that he would be keeping us apprised of the seriousness of the situation and whether in his opinion an emergency program was needed.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any intentions with respect to the report on divorce which was filed in this house on June 27, and would he tell the house whether he will introduce in the fall legislation on that report?
Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, since the committee's well researched and well thought out report was tabled, officials of my department and myself have been considering it.
It is my hope that in the near future I will be able to make suggestions to the cabinet with regard to legislation, and it is my expectation there will be legislation on this matter in the fall.



POSSIBLE LOSS OF CANADIAN PREFERENCE IN U.K. MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It is based on a report that the United Kingdom may dump Canadian safeguards in a headlong dash to enter the common market. In view of the assurances given by the prime minister of Britain that continuous and close negotiations will be carried on with commonwealth countries in this
July 7. 1967

connection, has the government received any indication from the British prime minister that Canadian interests might be jettisoned if such a course would facilitate the entry of Britain into the common market?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be permitted to answer that question. Liaison committees have been set up in accordance with the agreement reached at the ministerial conference, and last week or the week before members of the Department of Trade and Commerce, supported by other departmental people on the site in London, did have a conference with their opposite numbers in London at which there was no mention of jettisoning.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he now in a position to make an announcement in respect of the appointment of the chairman and vice president to the board of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, not yet.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, who is well aware of the representations made during the past months by leaders in agriculture regarding the agricultural policy of this government. Can the minister inform me whether announcements will be made in the near future regarding a modification of the government's agricultural policy, or will we have to wait for legislation to be introduced in the fall session?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we are appointing a task force to review long term goals and objectives in agriculture, and we hope to announce very shortly the appointment of the personnel of that task force which will work in close conjunction with the
Inquiries of the Ministry government. This will not be a commission that conducts its own deliberations and then reports in a year or two. If any of their recommendations require legislation, of course it will be introduced and brought forward in the normal way. Apart from that, the government will continue to review the needs of the agricultural community and to bring forth any legislation or other direction which is needed to keep Canadian agriculture in the forefront.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order?


Mr. Speaker;: Order, please. Before the hon. member rises on a point of order I wonder whether the house would be willing to hear the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac who has a question. I may say that I have allowed the question period to go over the allotted time.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that family allowance rates have not been increased since 1944, does the minister intend to make a statement in this respect for the future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the problem of family allowances was raised some time ago at a federal-provincial conference and was discussed there. Since then the department has been considering the structure of family allowances with a view, at some future time, to making recommendations to the government. However, there is no intention to introduce any measures in the house in the foreseeable future.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, one last question to the Minister of Agriculture, whom I wish sincerely to congratulate as one of those who are doing the most for farmers since he has assumed his

July 7. 1967
Questions
functions, and my opinion is shared by the farmers.
The question I should like to put to the minister follows upon a statement made yesterday by one of the advisers of the Canadian Dairy Commission before the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development suggesting the possibility of a change in quotas in the implementation of the dairy policy. Will this change be announced shortly?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the dairy commission announced two or three weeks ago that it was authorized to modify the quotas and I think that the commission is giving new quotas every day to dairy producers. In fact, I hope it will continue to make these changes and give the producers the quotas they desire.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is the intention of the house to proceed to the consideration of the first item in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. However, if there is agreement in the house, I suggest we now suspend sitting until we are called to the other place.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this sitting be suspended until the call of the Chair, which will be signified by the ringing of the bell?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is to be a suggestion that we revert to motions, but before I recognize the member who wants to make this motion perhaps I might be allowed to bring to the attention of the house a letter I have received from the Speaker of the Botswana National Assembly. It reads as follows:
On behalf of the National Assembly of Botswana I desire to send to you and through you to the Canadian House of Commons the very sincere congratulations of this Assembly on the occasion of Canada's centenary. We are still only one year old and we derive inspiration and hope for our

future from the progress made by countries such as yours which have in so short a history become world leaders.
May God continue to guide and bless your parliament and country.
Yours sincerely,
A. M. Merriweather.
Speaker, Botswana National Assembly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



QUESTIONS

[u'1.\nInmate population as of December 31:\nPenitentiary\t1964\t1965\t1966Newfoundland\t27\t35\t9Dorchester\t769\t699\t735St. Vincent de Paul\t1155\t1185\t1131Federal training centre\t401\t399\t258Leclerc\t587\t586\t561Cowansville\t-\t-\t149Kingston\t874\t845\t863Prison for women\t125\t114\t84Collins Bay\t649\t645\t632Joyceville\t504\t519\t515Manitoba\t587\t584\t462Saskatchewan\t766\t805\t693British Columbia\t985\t946\t642Matsqui (male)\t-\t-\t343(female)\t-\t-\t24Total\t7,429\t7,362\t7,101\ufeffJuly 7, 1967\n2. Paroles granted:\nFederal institutions\t1964\t1965\t1966653\t822\t909']
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, since we are adjourning until September 25 in a few minutes and as several members would like answers to questions they placed on the order paper, with the unanimous consent of the house, we would be ready to provide answers to 24 questions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions are being answered today: 20, 51, 127, 164, 193, 198, 200, 218, 231, 233, 245, 246, 270, 288, 290, 297, 300 and 318.
If questions Nos. 86, 187, 208, 222, 241 and 265 could be made orders for returns, such returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, sir, that the remaining 73 questions be allowed to stand.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Has the government received any representations from (a) the Canadian Bar Association (b) other organizations or persons, advocating the establishment of a Canadian law reform commission?
2.	If so, what consideration has been given to such representations?
3.	If the answer to part 1 (b) is yes, from what organizations or persons?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minisler of Justice: 1.	The government has received representations on this matter from the Canadian Bar Association, based on a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association (1966). Other representations have also been made.
2.	The problems involved in establishing a Canadian law reform commission have been under study in the Department of Justice, but to date no formal recommendation has been made to the government.
July 7, 1967

3.	Formal representations advocating the establishment of a national legal research institute, the functions of which might be comparable to those of a Canadian law reform commission, have been received from the faculty of law of the University of Saskatchewan.


RAINMAKING EXPERIMENTS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	During the year 1966, did the government carry out any experiments, anywhere in Canada, on land or in the air, in order to produce rainfall and, if so, where did these experiments take place and what were the results?
2.	During the year 1966, to the knowledge of the government, did any private enterprise carry out any research, on land or in the air, in order to produce rainfall?
3.	During the year 1967, does the government propose to carry out or allow any private enterprise to carry out any experiments, on land or in the air, in order to produce rainfall?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	No.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
2.	Informal advice has been received to the effect that private firms carried out experimentation in this connection during 1966 in the provinces of Alberta and Nova Scotia.
3.	No governmental projects are planned.


INDIAN BENEFITS FROM CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Dinsdale: Do the Indians who live and work on reserves benefit from the Canada Pension Plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: An Indian who lives on a reserve benefits under the Canada Pension Plan: (a) from earnings received for work performed off the reserve, and (b) provided he is a contributor to the public service superannuation fund, from earnings received for work performed on the reserve as a federal public servant.
An Indian who lives off a reserve benefits from work performed either on or off the reserve.


CANDIDATES' REPORTS ON ELECTION EXPENSES
Mr. Godin: Have any candidates produced reports since the date on which the Chief Electoral Officer's report on electoral expenses appeared and, if so, what are their names?
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: As far as can be ascertained the following candidates have filed with their respective returning officers their return of election expenses subsequent to the date on which the Chief Electoral Officer submitted his report in that regard.
As required by the Canada Elections Act, each report was accompanied by a judge's order. Fred Stevenson, Peterborough; Ken Binks, Russell; H. D. P. Logan, Victoria, Ont.; Val Scott, York Centre; Edward G. Phillips, York-Scarborough; Paul Labrie, Lapointe; Raymond Dore, Levis; G. B. Alex, Hutchison, Saint-Antoine-Westmount; Robert J. Butler, Halifax; John E. Lloyd, Halifax; Harold W. Parsons, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador; Robert Taft, Winnipeg North; Ron Allen, Bow River.


PENSION OF C.B.C. PRESIDENT
Mr. Ormision: 1.	Is the pension of the president of the C.B.C. approved by the board of directors of the C.B.C.?
2.	Is the pension of the president of the C.B.C. authorized by statute?
3.	What is the formula for determining the pension benefits of a president of the C.B.C.?
4.	Are the pension benefits of a president of the C.B.C. at retirement normally greater than those pension benefits which accrue to a president who resigns prior to the termination of his appointment by governor in council?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Yes, in that it is governed by the terms of the C.B.C. pension plan which was established by the C.B.C. board of directors.
2.	The C.B.C. board of directors was authorized by statute to establish a pension fund for the directors, officers and employees of the corporation and their dependants.
3.	(a) The normal pension benefits of a president are the same as for all contributors -2 per cent of average salary during the highest paid five years within the last ten years of service, multiplied by the number of years of service. This is subject to some reduction in respect of service rendered after January 1, 1966, when the Canada and Quebec pension plans became effective. If 25 years of service have been rendered, earned pension rights are granted in full on retirement at or after age 60, otherwise they are granted in full only at age 65. If retirement takes place before 65, or before 60 in the case of employees of twenty-five or more years of service, pension benefits are actuarially reduced.

July 7, 1967
Questions
(b) If his statutory appointment were to expire after at least five years' service a president would be eligible to receive the greater of: (1) the normal pension rights described above, or, (2) a pension based on final salary rate and on actual service with a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of 30 years maturing at age 50 or actual age if later, (c) On his retirement, the present president will receive only the benefits outlined in (a).
4.	Yes.


C.I.A. FUNDS EXPENDED IN CANADA
Mr. Ormislon: Is the government aware ol any CIA funds entering Canada through the international affairs department of the AFL-CIO of America?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of the Solicitor General and External Affairs as follows: no.


REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION OF STATUTES
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What progress has been made in the revision and consolidation of the statutes of Canada?
2.	When is it now anticipated that the revised statutes will be (a) published (b) proclaimed in force?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: 1.	To date the statute revision commission has consolidated a total of 363 public general statutes in French and a similar number in English. A total of 332 statutes have been revised for a first time in the English version and 7 revised for the second time; 289 statutes in the French version have received a first revision and 3 a second revision.
2.	The commission is attempting to complete its consolidation and report to the governor in council as soon as possible after the 31st day of December, 1967. It is hoped that publication of the revised statutes, 1967, and promulgation will follow some time in the fall of 1968.


FEDERAL GRANT FOR WRITING HISTORY OF CANADA
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	Did the Department of the Secretary of State or any other federal government department grant any amount to Mr. Stanley Ryerson to write a History of Canada?
2.	If so (a) on what date (b) what was the amount of the grant?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the centennial commission as follows:
1.	Yes, Canadian History: British North America 1815-1873.
2.	(a) Contract dated April 7, 1966; (b) $2,000, $1,000 paid out by cheque dated April 25, 1966. The balance of $1,000 to be paid when the history is completed and a manuscript presented to the centennial commission. The centennial commission's subsidy is limited to assisting the preparation of works, not their publication or distribution.


VENTILATION STANDARDS IN CARGO SHEDS AND SHIPS' HOLDS
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Is gasoline-operated equipment permitted to work in national harbours board cargo sheds?
2.	If so, what safety standards are laid down for the protection of stevedores and freight handlers?
3.	Do such enclosed sheds have any mechanical ventilation and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Have any studies ever been made by the government to determine the necessity, or otherwise, of adequate ventilation in sheds and in the holds of ships and, if so, when, by whom and with what results?
5.	What safety standards govern "clean air" in the holds of ships while in Canadian ports?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Transport and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Users of equipment on N.H.B. property are required to observe proper care in the use of such equipment, and the equipment may be removed by the board if proper care is not exercised.
3.	Not generally. Shed doors can be opened to allow adequate ventilation without mechanical ventilation. Most sheds, due to their particular construction, have gravity roof ventilators.
4.	(a) An air contamination survey of transit sheds at Saint John, New Brunswick, was conducted by the Department of National Health and Welfare in April, 1961. The results of the survey were made available to the national harbours board, (b) The board of steamship inspection has considered the ventilation of holds of ships. Cargo hatches are open when cargo is being worked and normally provide an adequate volume of
July 7, 1987

fresh air. However as a result of the board's studies it was recommended that the tackle regulations be amended to govern the use of internal combustion engines used in cargo holds.
5.	Section 63(3) of the tackle regulations, made under the Canada Shipping Act by order in council P.C. 1961-188 of February 9, 1961, provides that "where internal combustion engines are used in cargo spaces the carbon monoxide gas concentration shall not exceed 100 parts per million".


INVITATIONS TO MEETING RESPECTING HALIFAX HARBOUR
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Was the government of Canada or any of its departments or Interested agencies, other than the national harbours board, invited to attend a special meeting arranged by the city of Halifax on June 3, 1967, for the purpose of discussing declining port activity and, if so, which departments were invited and which attended?
2.	Were any departments invited who were not able to send representatives and, if so, why were they not present?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I p.m informed by all departments as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


VOTE BY CHAIRMAN OF LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Simard: Has the president of the Canada Labour Relations Board the right to vote in the case of a dispute among unions where the members of a union are not unanimous in their choice of representation, so that employers will not be required to decide the matter for their employees?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: All members of the board have the right to vote on any matter coming before the board.


UNION DISPUTE BETWEEN C.L.C. AND C.N.T.U.
Mr. Simard: In the case of an inter-union dispute involving an affiliated member of the CLC and an affiliated member of the CNTU, must the CNTU and the CLC be represented in equal numbers, that is, two for the CNTU and two for the CLC?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Every matter coming before the board is dealt with on its merits by the board as a whole without distinction as to the nature of the issue involved.
Questions


CANADIAN FOREIGN AID
Mr. Ballard: 1.	What was Canada's contribution to foreign aid in the years 1956, 1961 and 1966?
2.	What were the amounts contributed in the years 1956, 1961 and 1966 to each country or international agency receiving such aid?
3.	What amounts, in aggregate, for each of the years 1956, 1961 and 1966, were tied to the procurement of goods in Canada?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: 1. The Canadian government made the following amounts available during the fiscal years 1956-57, 1961-62 and 1966-67 for Canada's development assistance program:
	($ Canadian millions)		
1956-57	1961-62	1966-67Bilateral assistance	35.88	56.81	207.77Multilateral	assistance	6.57	15.25	41.49ECIA section 21A	long term credits	42.69	61.77Total	42.45	114.75	311.03
2. The following amounts were allocated to developing countries and international agencies for development assistance during the fiscal years 1956-57, 1961-62 and 1966-67.
Countries
Ceylon	$ 2,000,000
India	18,800,000
Pakistan	12,680,000
Other countries	400,000
Technical assistance	2,000,000
International agencies	
ETAP	1,770,000
UNICEF	650,000
UNRWA	130,000
UN-Korean Reconstruction	
Agency	500,000
IFC	3,520,000
1961-62	
Countries	
South and South-East Asia	
India	$ 25,000,000
Pakistan	15,000,000
Ceylon	2,000,000
Malaya	1,000,000
Other	1,850,000
Technical Assistance	2,000,000
Indus Basin	3,000,000
West Indies Federation	1,600,000
2392	COMMONS DEBATES	July 7, 1967
Questions
Countries
Africa
Nigeria	1,500,000
Ghana	1,000,000
Sierra Leone	300,000
African dependent territories	500,000
Francophone Africa	
(Regional Allocation)	300,000
International agencies	
ETAP	2,100,000
Special Fund	2,300,000
UNICEF	650,000
UNHCR	290,000
UNRWA-cash	500,000
-food	1,500,000
IAEA	50,000
IDA	7,860,000
*ECIC Section 21A	
Argentina	12,325
Brazil	2,558
Chile	13,500
Liberia	1,499
Mexico	12,810
1966-67	
Countries	
South and South-East Asia	
Burma	68,000
Cambodia	204,000
Ceylon	4,500,000
India	109,000,000
Indonesia	124,000
Korea	75,000
Malaysia	2,700,000
Pakistan	27,400,000
Republic of Vietnam	2,000,000
Thailand	600,000
Singapore	400,000
Other	1,229,000
Africa	
Algeria	1,300,000
Cameroun	1,500,000
Congo (Kinshasa)	1,000,000
Ghana	4,000,000
Kenya	2,200,000
Morocco	3,200,000
Nigeria	6,500,000
Rwanda	800,000
Senegal	500,000
Tanzania	2,300,000
Tunisia	1,500,000
Uganda	1,200,000
Zambia	500,000
Other	3,100,000
	
1966-67	
Countries	
Caribbean	
Guyana	2,000,000
Jamaica	3,500,000
Little 8 and	
British Honduras	3,000,000
Trinidad and Tobago	3,600,000
University of West Indies	1,000,000
Latin America	10,000,000
International agencies	
UNDP	9,500,000
UNICEF	1,100,000
Indus Basin	5,500,000
WFP-cash	2,500,000
-food	8,000,000
UNHCR	350,000
UNRWA-cash	500,000
-food	700,000
IAEA	60,000
IBRD	4,550,000
IDA	15,030,000
ADB	2,700,000
*ECIC Section 21A	
Argentina	3,199
Greece	4,836
India	38,500
Mexico	15,239
*For purposes of international comparison, long term credits extended under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act are included in figures for development assistance because of their concessional maturity periods.
3.	As a general rule, funds expended on Canadian bilateral assistance programs are used for the purchase of Canadian goods and services. The external aid office has worked to the regulation that all projects undertaken must have 80 per cent Canadian content unless special authority is obtained from the Treasury Board. Few applications have been made for special authority. On the other hand, many large purchases have been for products with 100 per cent Canadian content, so that the average of all purchases would be well over 80 per cent.


STATUTE REVISION COMMISSION
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	When was the statute revision commission established?
2.	Who are the members of the commission?
3.	What is the total number of hours of meetings of the commission?
4.	Who is the chairman of the commission?
5.	What are the names of the members of the staff of the commission, and (a) for what length
July 7, 1967

of time has each worked for the commission (b) what is the salary of each, and (c) what is the qualification of each?
6.	Is it intended to change the expression "Statuts du Canada" by "Recueil des lois canadiennes"?
7.	Is it proposed to publish a bilingual edition of the Canadian statutes for our centennial?
8.	On what date will the revised statutes be published?
9.	Is it proposed to publish the statutes in loose-leaf books in order that they may be always kept up to date?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: 1. The statute revision commission was established by Letters Patent dated the 4th day of May, 1965.
2.	The present members of the statute revision commission are: The Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, PC., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. (member ex officio). Donald S. Maxwell, Q.C., Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General. Jean Miquelon, C.R., Deputy Registrar General of Canada. Rodrigue Bedard, C.R., Associate Deputy Minister of Justice. Donald S. Thorson, Q.C., Associate Deputy Minister of Justice. James W. Ryan, Director, Legislation Section, Department of Justice.
3.	No records kept of the number of hours of meetings.
4.	The Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, P.C., M.P., is the present chairman of the commission.
5.	The persons at present on the staff of the commission are: Mrs. Florence Rosen-feld, LL.B.; Mrs. Mary Lefebvre; Miss Carmen Morin; Mrs. Simone Gauthier; Mrs. M. E. Sarault.
(a) and (b). Mrs. Rosenfeld began work on April 3rd, 1967, at a salary of $12,000 per annum. Mrs. M. Lefebvre began work on July 17, 1965, and earns $6,000 per annum as C.R. 5. Miss Carmen Morin began work on October 1, 1965, and earns $6,000 per annum as a C.R. 5. Mrs. Simone Gauthier began work on November 1, 1966, and earns $5,059 per annum as a C.R. 4. Mrs. M. E. Sarault began work on October 1, 1965, and earns $4,494 per annum as ST 4. (c) Mrs. F. Rosenfeld is a graduate in law from the University of Manitoba and has practised law in British Columbia. She has worked as an editor for C.C.H. Limited, W. H. Anderson Company (Law Publishers), the Carter commission, and the Committee on Election Expenses.
Questions
Mrs. M. Lefebvre was employed in the capacity of principal clerk by the revision commission for the 1952 revision. Miss Morin, Mrs. Gauthier and Mrs. Sarault are qualified in accordance with civil service requirements for the positions held.
6.	No. One or two individual members of the commission have been considering the suitability of "Recueil des lois revisees du Canada" but have not raised the matter formally with the commission.
7.	The commission intends that the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1967, be a bilingual edition.
8.	No firm date can be given at this time. The commission will attempt to complete consolidation and report to the governor in council as soon as possible in 1968. It is hoped that promulgation and distribution will follow some time in the Fall of 1968.
9.	No. There is no statutory authority for the continuing revision required for a loose-leaf revision system.


RENEWAL OF ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM
Mr. Stefanson: Does the government have plans for renewing the road to resources-program with the provinces and
(a)	if so, when (b) if not, for what reason?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. (a) Not applicable;
(b)	Following an examination of the contribution which the roads to resources program has made to the objective of economic growth or stability, the government plans to discontinue it.


HEALTH AND WELFARE RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications for grants to finance research projects did the Department of National Health and Welfare receive in each of the past three years?
2.	What was the total dollar value of the projects requested from the Department of National Health and Welfare?
3.	How many of the applications made to the Department of National Health and Welfare were approved in full?
4.	How many of the applications were approved in part only?
5.	How many applications for research grants were turned down in each of the last three years?
6.	What were the reasons for the refusals?

July 7. 1967
Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Health grants program: 1. 1964-65, 353; 1965-66, 381; 1966-67, 362.
2.	1964-65, $4,262,952;	1965-66, 6,798,183;
1966-67, 5,239,909.
3.	1964-65, 205; 1965-66, 195; 1966-67, 224.
4. 1964-65, 84; 1965-66, 101; 1966-67, 62.
5. 1964-65, 57; 1965-66, 83; 1966-67, 76.
A few projects were cancelled, or altered, at the request of the researchers or their sponsoring provinces.
6.	Research projects do not receive approval as submitted under the health grants program when they exceed the funds allocated for this purpose and when they are considered by appraisers, consultants and advisory committees to be poorly designed or unsound research.
Welfare grants program: 1. 1964-65, 20; 1965-66, 20; 1966-67, 44.
2.	1964-65, $267,240; 1965-66, $287,253; 196667, $397,794.
3.	1964-65,	4;	1965-66,	8;	1966-67,	18.4.	1964-65,	9;	1965-66,	3;	1966-67,	7.5.	1964-65,	6;	1965-66,	8;	1966-67,	14.6.	(a) applicant unable to engage staff qualified to conduct the research; (b) terms and conditions of grant were met but no funds available; (c) purpose of project not of sufficient importance in relation to the objectives of the grant; (d) design not suitable to achieve purpose of the proposed research; (e) purpose of project was too broad and general; (f) submission was received too late for consideration by research advisory committee.


PAROLE OFFICERS. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole officers are employed by the Department of Justice, and what is their jurisdiction?
2.	How many of these are trained social workers?
3.	How many are university graduates in the social sciences?
4.	Does the department make provisions for bursaries for the training of more parole officers and, if so, how many bursaries and for how much?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.
There are 74 parole officers employed by the National Parole Board, which now forms a part of the Department of the Solicitor General.
Parole officers interview inmates of penal and reform institutions, both federal and provincial, and investigate home conditions

in order to appraise their prospects for rehabilitation in the light of conduct, industry, maturity and prospective community environments. They make comprehensive reports of their findings and make recommendations to the board.
Parole officers provide supervision for parolees either directly or indirectly through after care agencies. They are empowered to suspend parole and make recommendations for revocations, continuation or forfeiture of parole.
They also review applications for remission or suspension of court orders prohibiting operation of motor vehicles under the Criminal Code, conduct investigations and make dations to the board.
2.	Thirty-three of these parole officers are trained social workers.
3.	Thirty-nine are university graduates in the social sciences.
4.	The department does not make provision for bursaries for the training of more parole officers. Rather, it promotes and encourages existing parole officers to improve their professional qualifications, particularly in the fields of social work and criminology. Departmental assistance takes the form of educational leave with pay and reimbursement of tuition fees.


PRISONERS IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many prisoners were there in each of the penitentiaries in each of the years 1964, 1965 and 1966?
2.	How many prisoners were released on parole in each of the said years?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Gregoire: 1.	What are the names of each of the crown corporations?
2.	Where is the head office of each located?
3.	Who are the auditors of each of these crown corporations?
4.	Where does each of these auditors have his main place of business?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL PURCHASES OF CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What were the government of Canada expenditures in each of the last two fiscal years for purposes of purchasing supplies of drugs and devices of a contraceptive nature?
2.	By what departments were these expenditures made and what was the amount in each case?
3.	From what drug manufacturing or distribution firms were these purchases made?
Return tabled.


CONTRACT AWARDS BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Godin: 1.	Are the proprietary crown corporations, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, required to call for tenders before awarding a contract and, if so, what are the statutory or regulatory provisions requiring them to do so?
2.	Are they required to award the contract to the lowest bidder and, if so, what provision requires them to do so?
Return tabled.


CLEAN UP AND BEAUTIFYING OF FEDERAL PROPERTIES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the federal government or any departments thereof a policy of cleaning-up and beautifying government properties in this centennial year?
2.	If so, how much money is being so allocated and for what projects?
Return tabled.
Royal Assent


INVESTIGATION OF NEWLY DEVELOPED ICE PLOW
Mr. Harkness: 1.	Has any department of the government, particularly transport or Indian affairs and northern development, investigated the ice plow developed and tested by Alexbow Limited?
2.	If so, what conclusions have been arrived at in regard to this device?
3.	If not, will steps be taken to have the device fully investigated and tested?
Return tabled.


PILOT TRAINING FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many foreign students received pilot training courses in Canada during the years 1966 and 1967, and from what countries did they come?
2.	Are these courses intended to provide pilots for civil or military service?
3.	What is the cost to the government of Canada and by whom are these courses given?
Return tabled.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, July 7, 1967
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Roland A. Ritchie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 7th July, at 5.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before we proceed further with the ceremonial part of the afternoon, may I be allowed to remind hon. members that they are invited to attend in room 16 after the royal assent, where we will be honoured by the presence with us of the Clerk of the house, Mr. Raymond, who is looking forward to the opportunity of exchanging greetings with his friends in the house.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Lieutenant-Colonel Alfred Fortier, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
[Stage Direction]
July 7, 1967
Royal Assent
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
An Act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
An Act to revise and consolidate the Interpretation Act and amendments thereto, and to effect certain consequential amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the Bills of Exchange Act.
An Act to incorporate Western Farmers Mutual Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate Farmers Central Mutual Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate United Investment Life Assurance Company.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1968.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1968.
Mr. Speaker:: May I add as a postcript to the invitation I extended a few minutes ago that this invitation is, as usual, extended to the officials of the house and to members of the press gallery.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, to Monday, September 25, pursuant to special order.