remember well, General1 McNaughton has been chief of staff with a salary of $10,000 a year. He was appointed1 to the national research counoil at a salary of $15,000, and no provision was made for his superannuation from his position as chief of staff. If he is not superannuated within a month' or thirty days after he is appointed to a higher salaried position, which appointment has been made, his superannuation will be based, not on the salary of $10,000 which he was receiving as chief of staff, but on the $15,000 which he receives in his present position, which does not carry superannuation. I hope that the minister catches my point. If General McNaughton is superannuated1 now he will be superannuated on the basis of a salary of $10,000, but if he is not superannuated until next week he will be superannuated1 on the basis of a salary of $15,000. May I ask the minister if he has taken any steps for the superannuation of General McNaughton right now in order to save several thousand dollars to the public exchequer, or if he is going to wait to give him a fat superannuation later on this week? Was I clear enough? Here as a case where a man is entitled to superannuation based on a salary of $10,000, and it is time right now
to save several thousand dollars of public money to the public exchequer, and the minister sife idle in his seat and does not answer my question. I ask him, will he superannuate General McNaughton right now on the basis of a salary of $10,000 in order not to give him the privilege of having a superannuation on $15,000 in a position which does not carry any superannuation, according to the statute. No answer? Sir, this is a scandal.
No, Mr. Chairman, the item is not carried, because the chief of staff has to look after all these matters that come under item 329, and if you are not satisfied as to that, we will have the statutes brought into this chamber. What I a,m saying is absolutely pertinent to the item before us, and it was because the government was unable to answer that you ruled me out of order. It is a scandal in this house, and a scandal against parliamentary tradition. What does the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) say? I have been kind to him because we were college mates. Let me tell him what the electors of the province of Quebec think of him.
Can we not invoke free speech here, Mr. Chairman? Are we in Russia that we must stand in silence? This is one scandal in which there has been favouritism for the chief of staff who has been instrumental in having the large salaries that are paid to militia men and to himself, and I have a right to denounce it in this House of Commons.
Amendments from the Senate. A bill was sent back from this house to the Senate with the statement that we had concurred in all the amendments except one, the consequential one. That appears on the record but not in the report of proceedings in the house. It apparently was overlooked that that was done. We will take the Senate amendments and I think there are two small bills, and then we will continue with supply.