Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved

the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 334, to provide for the superannuation of persons employed in the public service of Canada.

Mr. Green:

Will the minister explain?

Mr. Abbott:

Yes. The amendment made by the Senate consists of adding to section 30(1) (ad):

[Mr. Fournier (Hull).!

but saving all rights and privileges of either house of parliament in respect of the control, removal or continuance in office of its officers, clerks and employees.

The government has no particular objection to the amendment.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Neither have I any particular objection to the amendment moved to the bill by Their Honours in the other place, but it does seem to me to be somewhat unnecessary, especially in view of the clearly established control of the House of Commons and the Senate over their employees. Further I should like to point out that the concern which would seem to have prompted this amendment relates to only one point. The subsection of the section in the Public Service Superannuation Act which the Senate wishes to amend is the subsection giving the governor in council power to pass regulations to determine an age beyond which contributors to the public service superannuation fund shall not be continued in employment.

Of course that section applies only to contributors. It does not apply to other employees, of whom we have many in both the House of Commons and the Senate. Even with respect to those to whom the section can apply, it means that the only concern expressed in the Senate amendment is the concern over our right in the House of Commons and the right of the Senate to keep people in our employment after they have passed a certain age.

It seems to me that there are other matters affecting our employees which should give us much greater concern than that. In fact, the only reason I can see for our wanting the right to continue certain employees after a certain age is because we have no pension for them. In other words the aim of this amendment is to keep ourselves in the position of being able to say to some of the employees who have served us faithfully for many years, "We are sorry, we have no pension for you, but we will give you the privilege of continuing to work for us as long as you can walk in the door." That is not good enough.

As I said, I have no particular objection to the amendment; but I think the other place and this House of Commons should be concerned about something more than the one point with which it deals. We should be concerned about finding some way of establishing a proper pension plan for those who have served both the Senate and the House of Commons across the years, including those who serve us for many years on a sessional basis.

Mr. Robichaud:

Would the minister

explain?

Mr. Abbott:

He did.

Mr. Garson:

My hon. friend will find the explanation in Hansard.

Mr. Green:

This is a very short bill.

Perhaps the minister would not mind explaining again.

Mr. St. Laurent:

Why not have it three or four times?

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

It is all in Hansard.

Mr. Giliis:

Mr. Chairman, in the discussion on section 1 of this bill I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that this bill is merely extending the practice of confining in local jails prisoners who are serving sentences of less than two years. I do not know what the situation is in the rest of Canada, but I do know that the situation in regard to that particular matter in the area from which I come is very bad indeed.

For example, within the last few weeks I have seen newspaper clippings

no doubt the minister has seen them also-indicating that in the county jail in that area where most of the prisoners are confined there is a long waiting list. The prison there was built some 50 years ago when the population was perhaps only 50 per cent of what it is today. It was built to accommodate some 45 prisoners. From the latest press stories I have seen, 75 persons are now confined in that institution.

There is no sleeping accommodation; they are doubling up in the cells, and sleeping on tables. I saw an item a few days ago in the press indicating that 50 people who were to be confined in that institution could not be accepted because there was not room for them.

Mr. Garson:

I do not wish to interrupt

my hon. friend, but I must point out to him

Criminal Code

that the condition of which he speaks has nothing to do with the bill now before us. The general practice in all the provinces of Canada, with the exception of Newfoundland, is for those who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of less than two years to be sent to provincial jails of the type he has described in his own province.

We have no control over any jails. They are under the control of the provincial authorities, and if there is inadequate accommodation in his district I suggest it is a matter for the provincial authorities.

The purpose of this bill is to introduce what is a quite exceptional arrangement, and one which does not prevail in any of the other provinces in Canada. Its purpose is to authorize an institution in Newfoundland which is used as a provincial jail to be also used as a federal penitentiary. The reason for this arrangement is that in Newfoundland the percentage of the population which have become lawbreakers is so very much smaller than the average figure in Canada. Only 29 persons are serving sentences of two years and over, as penitentiary inmates, in this institution in Newfoundland. Obviously the setting up of all the paraphernalia and machinery of a penitentiary for that number of inmates would be unwarranted.

We suggested earlier that we might remove these Newfoundland convicts from Newfoundland to Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick; but both the Newfoundland authorities and the Newfoundland prisoners themselves did not wish to have this done. The prisoners preferred to stay in the Newfoundland institution. We think the arrangements made for their accommodation in Newfoundland, on the whole, are quite good. The arrangement is working out very well; it is very economical, and it is satisfactory for all concerned. These are the reasons we ask for the approval of this bill.

The subject matter of the bill has nothing to do with the condition in his province about which my hon. friend from Cape Breton South speaks. If there is inadequate accommodation there, it is a matter which should be taken up by him with the provincial authorities.

Mr. Giliis:

I agree with the minister that this bill has reference to Newfoundland. However, it does provide the same arrangement in Newfoundland as exists in other parts of Canada.

Mr. Garson:

No.