1955-06-21

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baiilefords):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the government to send Bill 449 to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and, if so, will the truckers association have an opportunity to appear before that committee?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in reply I would say that the matter is under consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the acting leader of the government or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the government intend to make a protest to the Argentine government regarding the improper detention of Douglas Blanchard?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: Our ambassador to the Argentine is on his way back. When he arrives we shall be able to discuss the situation with him and make whatever protest seems to be proper after we have knowledge of all the facts.


Mr. Fulton:: I would like to ask a supplementary question. Does the minister or the government have knowledge of whether this man is still detained by Argentina? What are the facts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He was released after representations from our ambassador.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is now released?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is now
released, yes.


INQUIRY AS TO COST OF EACH SITTING DAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rosemonl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or to his parliamentary assistant. What amount of money is spent by the Canadian taxpayer for each sessional day?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: shall have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance in his capacity as house leader if he would please set our minds at rest as to what he had in contemplation when he referred in his announcement of business for today to a resolution having to do with amendments to the Criminal Code.


Walter Edward Harris: I was under the impression that item No. 13 on the order paper today referred to amendments to the Criminal Code.



DUMPING-REFERENCE TO ACTION TAKEN BY UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, at the last sitting the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked the following questions:
1. Has the government given consideration to the new regulations issued by the United States treasury with respect to the establishment of fair value on imports in relation to dumping, and also to the bill that was produced in congress last month on the same subject?
I will answer this question first. The answer is that the Department of Trade and Commerce has carefully studied the new regulations published by the United States treasury department on April 12, 1955, to introduce certain changes into the administration of the United States anti-dumping legislation. While they will not make a great deal

Inquiries of the Ministry of difference, the amendments may be regarded as helpful to our exporters. The regulations have been simplified and some elements of uncertainty have been removed. For anti-dumping purposes, recognition is given to the fact that it is normal business practice to have different prices for different classes of customers. In other words, in pricing goods for export a trader will be able to apply the same price structure as he uses in domestic sales without fear of running afoul of the United States anti-dumping laws. Until these new regulations have been in force for a period of time it will, of course, not be possible to know precisely what effect they may have on trade. The government is not aware that any legislation is before congress to amend the United States anti-dumping laws.
The second question is:
Is the government satisfied that these measures do not contravene the provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade?
The answer is: It would not appear that there is any necessary conflict between these new regulations and the relevant provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
The third question is:
If the government is of the opinion that they do, what action is the government taking in the direction of making representations in regard to either the regulations or the bill before congress?
The answer is that we are not of the opinion that they do.


Mr. Fleming:: I wonder whether the minister can expand somewhat on his answer respecting the legislation as distinct from the regulations. The article in Foreign Trade to which I drew the minister's attention yesterday did make mention of the fact that a bill had been introduced in congress on May 5. The minister's statement indicates that the department was not aware of any legislation being introduced. Can the minister expand on his answer in that respect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This question has reference to legislation against dumping, and my officers are not aware that any bill is being introduced affecting dumping. There is the customs simplification bill which has passed the appropriate committee, I believe yesterday, and which we hope will be approved by congress before it adjourns. However, that does not affect dumping, and as I read my hon. friend's question it applied only to dumping legislation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he has any report to make as to the action his department is taking relative to complaints reported in German newspapers about the actions of Canadian soldiers stationed in that country.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a report yesterday but have not yet received it. As soon as I receive a report I shall be glad to make a statement.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 411, to establish national standards for agricultural products and to regulate international and interprovincial trade in agricultural products.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I wonder if the minister would explain just what these amendments are.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amendments proposed by the Senate will be found on page 611 of the reports of the Senate. The first amendment is on page 3, line 14, to strike out the word "requirements" and substitute therefor the word "standards". That is to make the language conform with the language in the dairy act, which is the model for the legislation being brought in.
The next amendment is on page 3, line 21, to strike out the word "requirements" and substitute therefor the word "standards".
Then on page 6, lines 12 and 13, to strike out the words "whether or not the forfeiture is directed by the conviction" and substitute therefor the words "if such forfeiture is directed by the court." It is just a simple change in the wording in order to provide that it is not simply a matter of conviction. You cannot seize a vehicle in which a commodity is being carried simply as the result of a conviction; there must be a direction of the court that the vehicle be surrendered. We accept these amendments.


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


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 352, respecting the inspection of meat and meat products entering into international and interprovincial trade.


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


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 481, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that it was the Prairie Farm Assistance Act that was being called. I had one or two words to say about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the hon. member was caught by surprise, but the second reading has already been pronounced and I was putting the motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole. I do not think the hon. member will be prejudiced because he can make the representations he wishes to make on clause 1, in committee. Perhaps we were a little hasty in our proceedings but, since this was announced last night and has been on the order paper for some time, we thought that perhaps hon. members were agreeable to let the second reading go by. Is it agreed that I now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house in committee on Bill No. 481, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Cultivated land.


John George Diefenbaker: Things were going so fast a few moments ago that I missed out. It is unusual in this house for things to go quite with that celerity. I can say now what I intended to say a few moments ago. As far as the amendments in question are concerned, they do in general cover the unusual conditions resulting this year and last year from a larger amount of moisture than in living memory. I would, however, like to make one or two general observations.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
The necessity for the clause that removes the need of contiguous sections has been established. Indeed, in many cases this year farmers have been denied prairie farm assistance payments while a neighbour across the line or in the next section is receiving it. That discrimination has created a very considerable amount of ill feeling. This amendment is the major one, as I see it, and will go a long way to meet that criticism.
I have one suggestion to make to the minister in this connection, in view of existing circumstances, which could not have been anticipated. As a rule, I am very much opposed to anything in the nature of retroactive legislation, but may I ask whether consideration has been given to this new definition as provided for by the amendment being applicable this year in such a way as to cover the farmers who are now denied the payment in respect of the 1954 crop? I do not think it would be a very costly matter. It would not be a serious invasion of the rule that is usually applied, that retroactive legislation should not be passed, but it would meet a situation that is particularly grievous this year.
In so far as the other clauses are concerned, which provide for amending the definition of cultivated lands, and which will enable payments to be made on those lands that have been flooded, I think that these amendments are worthy of commendation and of unqualified support. However, I ask the minister this question. In order to cover the situation thoroughly, for instance, should not paragraph (d) (ii) of subsection 1 of section 2 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act be altered in one particular? It reads as follows:
(d) "cultivated land" means land that in the year of award was seeded to crop or was In summerfallow and includes . . .
(ii) land of a farmer that in three out of the five years immediately preceding the year of award had been seeded or summerfallowed, but owing to natural causes beyond his control could not be seeded or summerfallowed in the year of award:
Is it necessary or does it not reduce the ambit of this legislation to have the second "summerfallowed" inserted? In other words, should the last line not read "beyond his control could not be seeded in the year of award"? It is difficult to imagine a situation, regardless of flood conditions, where some degree of summerfallowing could not be done. I bring that matter to the attention of the minister and ask him whether he has given consideration to that portion of the section which, in my opinion, may work a hardship on those who are intended to be entitled.
A similar representation would also apply
in the other portions of the amendment in

Prairie Farm Assistance Act which the word "summerfallowed" is mentioned. If it should refer to summerfallowing at all, should it not say "in whole or in part"? I ask this because the question as to when a piece of land has been summerfallowed has been productive of a great deal of litigation over the years. When is summerfallowing completed? Unless the words "in whole or in part" are inserted after the word "summerfallowed" I can see that, on a strict interpretation of the qualifying sections and the amending sections, many could conceivably be denied any entitlement.
I think those are the only observations I have to make. I feel that these amendments are necessary in that they cover a situation which has become apparent in the last few years. My only suggestions, in order to make the amendments more workable, are those that I have placed before the minister. One is to make the general section 3 retroactive in order to cover the situation that we have today in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba; and the second is to add after the word "summerfallowed" the words "in whole or in part" in order to cover the situation arising out of the amount of litigation as to the meaning of the word "summerfallowed" which has indicated the need for those words being added.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I shall not of course refer to section 3 until we get to it, but I think the same argument applies to section 1 in connection with the matter of whether or not the bill is retroactive. In reading the main act it will be found that the year under this act is from August 1 until July 31. There are almost six weeks left in this year. Any adjustments which are required to be made would be made before August 1 in any case. I think there is authority in the bill. As a matter of fact my understanding of the case is that it is retroactive to that extent.
Coming to the suggestion that was made, we did give consideration to the idea that has been expressed, and it was the thought of the draftsmen that the section as it reads, taken together with the administration of the act over the years, does mean what my hon. friend is suggesting even as the wording is now. It reads:
. . . land of a farmer that in three out of the five years immediately preceding the year of award had been seeded or summerfallowed-
I understand there is no objection to that. That is clear.
-but owing to natural causes beyond his control could not be seeded or summerfallowed in the year of award.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the one.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think in effect that part of it would be applied in much the same way as the words used by the hon. member for Prince Albert suggest. I do not think there would be any change. There certainly would not be any change in the administration. We have been accustomed to taking the word of farmers and their neighbours as to what they intended to do with the land or what had been done with it and then arrive at a conclusion whether or not the man did intend to summerfallow the land. It is pretty difficult to go beyond that.
A very considerable part of the payments made this year have been made on lands that could not be properly seeded in the year gone by, but when an attempt had been made to summerfallow. There was no difficulty about that. The difficulty was in connection with land that was not seeded or summerfallowed last year at all because it was flooded or there was some other reason they could not get on the land at the right time to do the work. It is possible now to make payments if the land was not seeded last year and not seeded this year because of conditions over which the farmer had no control if it had been seeded and/or summer-fallowed in three of the last five years. I think it is necessary to have it as broad as it is in order to make the necessary payments.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some comment on the amendment to the act now before us. I am quite sure western farmers will welcome the change making some provision for land which cannot be seeded because of flood conditions. I am sure it will be of some assistance to them, but I should like to point out to the committee that the maximum awards made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act of $250 in areas eligible on the basis of $1,50 an acre and $500 in areas eligible on the basis of $2.50 an acre are very small amounts of money so far as compensation for crop loss is concerned. When one considers western farmers' costs of operation today and the fact that a load of fuel will probably use up $200 or $300, one can readily understand that the P.F.A.A. awards as now made do not in any way compensate for crop loss in western Canada.
However, we favour any adjustment which will make payments possible to farmers who, through no fault of their own, are losing the opportunity to get revenue from their land. I should like to point out that in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 16, 1955, there is a comment to the effect that the Minister of Agriculture had stated that in the last 16 years farmers had paid, through deductions on the sale of their grain, more than they

had received from the fund. That is a fact, and no one should look upon these payments as being a subsidy to western farmers. They have paid into the fund over the years. It is true that when conditions are such that they lose their crop they receive some compensation.
I should also like to point out that there are many types of farmers who are not covered by the present legislation. I should like to direct the committee's attention again to the Winnipeg Free Press article of June 16 entitled, "Embittered Cattlemen Miss Help." This article points out that the livestock producer receives no compensation for crop loss under the present bill. Inasmuch as the grain farmer does get compensation, they are taking strong exception to the act as at present constituted.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to ask the hon. member a question, because he comes from an area in which there is considerable livestock. The fact is the very opposite to what the hon. member says. I think he will recognize that the livestock producer does not pay anything on livestock, but he is paid even if all his grain is fed.


Edward George McCullough: The
fact is that that is not always so.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is always the case.


Edward George McCullough: So the
article is quite true; and the attitude of the cattlemen to the act holds good.
The greatest objection to the amendment being made is with respect to the change in the section which will make provision for going back to the rectangular block in making awards, or for taking areas out. I feel that this amendment, as it appears in the bill, is a retrograde movement, and will bring us back to the position we occupied formerly when the act was constituted on a rectangular basis.
I think it was a concession to the farmer when the government agreed to bring in an award made on the basis of a block of contiguous sections. I fully realize that there might be some injustice in the way in which the act is now constituted, but-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I point out that we have not yet reached clause 3 in the bill. Because the hon. member for Prince Albert was not present during the debate on second reading he was permitted to discuss clause 3 or to say something about its application. However, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to insist upon a discussion of the clause now before the committee.
50433-319i
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Edward George McCullough: I have been making a general statement, and have not been referring specifically to any clause.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suggest my hon. friend should have made this speech on second reading. If he desires to make it, he may do so when we reach clause 3; but I am not prepared to discuss it at the moment.


Edward George McCullough: wish to say is that we in this group favour the change by which the farmer who loses his crop owing to flood conditions, or for any other reason, is covered. It is well understood that the act was drawn up in the first instance to compensate farmers for loss of crops due mainly to drought. The present extension of the act will give coverage to those farmers who lose their crops for any other reason, and I favour that provision.
But, as I say, when we come to the clause which makes provision for going back to the rectangular block we in this group intend to oppose the amendment so that it will continue on the present basis.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I think there will be general satisfaction over the proposal to make payment on land that cannot be seeded. The original purpose of the act was to deal with drought conditions, but during the past few years the farmers have suffered heavy loss as a result of flooding. It is only logical that land that is flooded early in the season and hence cannot be seeded should be eligible for payment under the act.
While I say this about that particular proposal, I do not believe there will be the same amount of enthusiasm displayed in regard to the amendment which would have the effect of reverting to the rectangular block. However, I shall leave what I wish to say on that point until we reach clause 3, because I think there are two sides even to that question.
However, in dealing with the general subject matter of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act I find a lot of dissatisfaction throughout the country, especially in areas where payments are made continuously and in areas where payments are made only once in a while, over the fact that the farmers are compelled to contribute to this scheme without receiving any guarantee that, in the event of crop failure, they will receive any assistance.
For a number of years the farmers have been asking that losses should be assessed on an individual basis, and that is the reason why from time to time amendments have been made to the act reducing the size of the basic area. It is interesting to note that today all farm organizations are asking the

Prairie Farm Assistance Act government to bring in a system of crop insurance. This was advocated by the federation of agriculture in their brief to the government; it was advocated by the western pools and also by the farm unions.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been in operation since 1939, so up to this time the government must have built up a pretty complete record of the productivity of the land in western Canada. Having that information, it would be a quite simple matter for the government to zone the areas in the west, based upon the productivity of the land, so that the districts could be adjusted in accordance with crops in areas over a period of time. Votes could be taken in each of those districts as to whether or not the farmers would like to continue under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, or come in under a crop insurance scheme.
If this were done I do not think any hardship would be created in areas where crop losses occur continuously. The farmers there would vote to continue under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act because, obviously, if their losses were occurring continuously their premiums under a system of crop insurance would be prohibitive. Therefore they would continue under the act. On the other hand, where crop failures occurred only occasionally farmers would prefer to pay higher premiums and be covered against loss under a system of crop insurance so that, in the event of loss, they would receive compensation. Of course under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act there can be no guarantee that in the event of loss a farmer will receive compensation, because the determining factor is the way the land in the surrounding area has been affected. If other land has also suffered crop failure there is a good chance that the farmer will receive assistance; but if the other land has not been affected that farmer would not be likely to receive that assistance under the act.
In view of the fact that crop insurance has been in operation in the United States since 1938, I suggest the government could learn a great deal from the experience that has been gained in that country. It is true that in the early years heavy losses were suffered under their act; but for the last six years in the United States premiums and indemnities have balanced-and that in spite of the fact that they have had three years of heavy crop failures.
So in view of the fact that over a period of time the government must have been able to build up a record of the productivity of land in western Canada, and in view of the further fact that the United States has gained a lot
[Mr. Quelch l
of experience in the operation of crop insurance, I suggest the government would be well advised to work in co-operation with the provinces with a view to setting up a system of crop insurance.
I know that in the past the minister has argued that a system of all-risk crop insurance would be ultra vires. It seems to me that if a scheme were brought in on a voluntary basis there would be no question as to the government's not having power. Just as hail insurance companies can write hail insurance in a province, I do not see why we cannot have a national all-risk crop insurance scheme on a voluntary basis.
Even so, if the minister is right when he says that the government would not have the constitutional powers required, there would be nothing to prevent this government passing a national crop insurance act, and then each province passing enabling legislation to come in under such act, as we do in connection with marketing legislation. I hope the minister will give us some assurance that this matter is being considered, especially in light of the fact that all farm organizations today are asking that such action be taken. I want to say a word on clause 3, but I shall wait until we come to it.


Mr. Juiras:: I want to say a general word on Bill No. 481. I wish to commend the minister particularly for the first part of the bill. The bill is made up of two parts. We all know from experience of the last years that the unseeded land has always been a problem when it came to ascertaining the average yield in a township. Quite often it worked against the rest of the land. To what extent it will be applicable in our province of Manitoba only time will tell. However, the principle is a good one and I am sure it will prove to be of some benefit.
I do not intend to refer to any specific clauses of the bill at this stage. However, I should like to say that when we amended the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in 1949 the major amendments were made at that time. We included in the act provisions for river lots. Up until that time river lots were not able to qualify under the act because they were not constituted as a township. The act mentioned only a regular township as surveyed by the dominion survey. We did provide in the definition that a group of river lots could be constituted into a township by the governor in council. However, we did not tidy up the rest of the act and experience has shown that the river lot townships have been applicable only under section 3. Most of the other sections of the act have not applied to the river lot townships. While we

are dealing with this amendment I am going to suggest when we come to the appropriate clause of this bill, that we include the block settlement and river lots that have been constituted into a regular township and so defined by the act. I am going to suggest that they come under, particularly, section 6 because section 6 is by far the most important section of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. When we come to that particular section I shall deal with the question further but I would appreciate it very much-


Edward George McCullough: May I
ask the hon. member a question? Does the phrase "river lots" appear in the regulations or in the bill?


René Jutras: "River lots" appears in the definition of the bill. If the hon. member will read the definition of township as contained in the act he will find that townships are defined as follows:
"Township" means, in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, a township according to the system of survey authorized by the Dominion Land Surveys Act, chapter 117 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, and in the province of British Columbia a township whose boundaries are confirmed by the official surveys act of British Columbia.
This was added in 1949:
and includes any group of settlements or river lots declared by the governor in council to be a township for the purposes of this act.
Therefore, in effect, these are what we commonly refer to as block townships or block river lots. As far as the act is concerned, they are just as much townships as the regular surveyed townships. But the wording in other sections refers to sections, and there are no sections in the river lots, and consequently application has proved almost impossible.


Mr. Charlton:: It has always been my conception of a debate on the first clause that it was pretty general. We were allowed to discuss almost any clause of a bill in the broad sense. This morning the minister tried to keep the discussion strictly to the first clause. That is not my idea of the discussion on the first clause. It has always been of a pretty general nature.
I should like to add a further word to what the hon. member for Prince Albert said on clause 1 (d) (ii). Can the minister say what would happen, for instance, where a man had intended to seed the acreage but the land was flooded and was so wet that he could not get on it until July? Then it dried up sufficiently so that he could summer-fallow. Is it the intention of this bill to disallow any payment because of the fact that he could summerfallow? That would be perfectly justifiable under the wording of
Prairie Farm Assistance Act this legislation because, had he intended to seed and did not seed, he could be paid. Summerfallow is mentioned in the wording of this bill. If he could summerfallow later on in the season, then he could be disqualified under the present wording.
I can understand that the minister wants this in the bill as protection for himself and his officials in the event that the man intended to summerfallow all the time. In view of the fact that summerfallowing was not carried through he might be paid as though he intended to seed. Does the minister follow me? I think the word "summerfallow" might be a deterrent to some farmers who had intended to seed.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might answer now, that is exactly the point which is involved. Seeding is usually completed by June 10. This year it has carried on to that and a little beyond it. Summerfallowing, if it is done well, is done in June. Sometimes it is done up until the middle of July; but if a person simply withholds from summerfallowing because he wants to draw under this act the inspector has the right to turn him down. He is supposed to go on farming as though this act did not exist. If he finds it is possible to summerfallow in June, and he does not, well, he should not be allowed to draw under the act on account of that. It is only where it is proven that it is absolutely impossible for him either to have seeded or to have summerfallowed right through until, if you like, the middle of July; there would be some date that the inspector would have in his mind in each of the different districts as to when payment would be made.
Summerfallowing is done earlier in Manitoba, for example, than it is up in the Peace river area, but the date will have to be pretty well established in the minds of the inspectors when they are checking as to whether the farmer really farmed when he could have farmed; and if it was not possible for him to farm because of natural conditions over which he had no control, payment would be possible; but if he simply avoided summerfallowing for the purpose of getting under this legislation he would not be paid.


John Alpheus Charlton: What about the other chap who intended to seed but found that the end of June was too late for him to do the seeding that he had planned, but he summer-fallowed? Would he be deprived of the payment under the legislation even though he had intended to seed the land?


James Garfield Gardiner: In most cases that land would come into next year's payment, because if he summerfallows it then he will seed it the next year or he may seed to rye that

Prairie Farm Assistance Act year. It is a quite common practice in the west to seed rye in August on summerfallow, and that could be done. He draws on that particular crop if the conditions the next year are such that he should draw on it; but it is not intended to give him any inducements whatsoever to cease to farm in order to get under this legislation. He is supposed to farm in the way he would have farmed if the act had never been there.


John Alpheus Charlton: In the past, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act had to do with drought districts. It is probably quite fair that the flooded areas should be brought under the act. I am not arguing against that. I do want to say this, however. It has been said that a crop insurance plan should be brought in. The hon. member for Acadia did not mention the eastern part of Canada. I think something can be said for this act or a similar act being applied to eastern Canada as well as to western Canada. Last fall thousands of acres could not be harvested because of flood conditions following "Hurricane Hazel".


Victor Quelch: When I spoke on the first item of the agriculture estimates I suggested that the scheme could be applied to all of Canada, not merely western Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not remember that having been said, but I do feel it is unfair when a farmer in eastern Canada for reasons beyond his control cannot harvest a crop he has seeded because of flood conditions. I think these farmers have a proper beef. If any consideration is to be given to a crop insurance scheme it should cover the whole of Canada, not just the four western provinces.


Mr. Weselak:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join the hon. member for Provencher in congratulating the minister upon the amendments he has brought in. In eastern Manitoba we find a great difference in the districts. The levels will vary and crop conditions differ generally from section to section. The reduction of the area to six sections in the case of flooding will certainly be of assistance. The Manitoba government set up a crop insurance commission which brought in an interim report on March 25, 1955, in which they indicated that the main dissatisfaction with P.F.A.A. was as follows.
First, the payments are too small. Second, disproportionate amounts have been collected and paid out in Manitoba because this province enjoys relatively stable yields and does not, generally speaking, suffer the crop damage experienced further west.

Third, the act frequently fails to cover losses from flooding, insect damage, hail and other crop hazards which are typically local in nature. Fourth, the P.F.A.A. was designed primarily for drought, which is not Manitoba's main crop hazard. Fifth, the act is too inflexible. The 18-section block used as the basis of qualification is too large and too rigid.
Then they go on, and the twelfth item is that the act does not make any provision for land which owing to adverse spring conditions cannot be seeded.
Those were the suggestions received by this commission during its travels throughout the province. It has been suggested that there should be greater flexibility in the granting of benefits through a reduction in the size of the qualifying -block. I feel that in connection with flood damage the present provision for 6-section blocks will prove a partial answer, if not the whole answer to these complaints which were expressed by people who came before that commission. I thought in all fairness that these should be put on the record.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the minister upon bringing in amendments to this act. Just how far they will go toward meeting the difficulties being experienced in my own province is something I shall have to wait to see. But it is nice to know that something is being done about it. I shall try to keep my remarks as general as possible and not touch upon specific clauses in the bill, but I am worrying over not seeing anything in the bill which will help the fellow who bought land from the government after 1940. He will not be able to participate in any scheme which the minister brings along.
The hon. member for Provencher referred to the river lot business. There is a lot of dissatisfaction about these river lots and the way they are rounded up. I hope the minister will take this into consideration.
I believe the minister is doing something worth while when he is taking into consideration flooded land which prevents people from sowing crops. I do not know whether this provision should be permanently in the act, but at the present time there are many people close to starvation who have no crops or anything. Something will have to be done for them.
Farmers up in the interlake country do not generally grow grain outside of what is required for their cattle. I have a letter here from one farmer who states:
They tell us they'll pay us flood relief but this is based on wheat land. We are not grain farmers,

none of us; we are mixed farmers. I have 90 sheep, 4 horses, 19 head of cattle grazing on about a 30-acre knoll.
That is all he has.
We try to grow enough for our chickens and stock with perhaps 100 to 1,000 bushels to sell.
These people milk their cows all summer. I do not know of anything in this act that will help them. Another man writes and tells me that his son has got into the habit of swimming every night for the cows. That may seem an absurd statement to make in the House of Commons, but it is true.


Mr. Mclvor:: Do the cows swim back?


William Scottie Bryce: I am surprised at my hon. friend doubting my word. If cows get up on a knoll they will stay there until you go to get them and I think my hon. friend realizes that. That is a terrible position to be in.


Mr. Brooks:: I know a farmer who has been swimming his cows back and forth across a river all summer.


William Scottie Bryce: Maybe they have got to like it, but these fellows have not been acclimatized as yet. It is an innovation to them and they have not got the cows trained to swim. Another lady writes to me saying that she has had to build a raft in order to do her chores. When people are inundated with water to that extent, what chance have they of making a living or getting anywhere?
Then there is the problem, which I have referred to the Minister of Agriculture many times, of the man on one side of a road getting nothing while his neighbour across the road gets a benefit payment. This bill is to change the system back to the one we had in the early stages. I do not know whether it is going to help and the minister's officers who have been out in the field may know whether it is going to remedy that situation. The fact is that quite often a man on one side of the road gets nothing while his neighbour across the road may get a payment of $150. I know the minister will answer that a line must be drawn somewhere. But I am afraid the line is being drawn too quickly. We have to find some way to break that down. I was going to say something about the rectangular blocks, but I know it will be ruled out of order and I shall refrain from doing so.
In the interlake country the men are leaving the farms. That is not good for agriculture, it is not good for the country. A year ago the people who had a crop found that it was polluted with worms and rust. Only the individual who was able to get a few bushels of Selkirk wheat had any crop. They have nothing to go on. I have had
Prairie Farm Assistance Act some of the most deplorable letters I have ever come across. One says:
I have been drowned out for two years. This is the third. Definitely no crop whatever this year. Now those who do not raise grain have been paid $200 for only 25 acres, and in three or four cases near here there has not been any land cleared; and some have been retired for seven to 10 years, yet they receive $200. In my case, with absolutely no crop for two years and none this year and with 98 acres under cultivation, I received $72, while my neighbour with 18 acres gets $150.
These are things that should be straightened out. Then there are the individuals who cannot come under P.F.A.A. They will be just as hungry as the other ones. I do not know what we are going to do unless the minister brings in some other scheme to protect them or extends the benefits of P.F.A.A. to everyone in that area. They are very hard up, and I do not know how they are going to get through the next winter. When the minister speaks, I should like him to take a few minutes of his time to tell us about the man who is working in town and hires his work on the farm, or spends so many months in town and so many months on the farm. That is something the people across the dominion would like to have explained. I have heard myself of some cases and have been able to get them settled fairly satisfactorily, but I should like the minister to explain that when he answers. I do not wish to say any more. The minister knows the position in the interlake country. Everybody is drowned out. A good deal of money has been paid there, but it has not helped enough people there. In the case of one man about whom I have told you, he has a good deal of hay land, and the cattle cannot cross on it because it is flooded. It is 800 acres, and everything is under water. Surely there must be some relief that could be given to these people to help them to exist through this winter. I hope the minister will give these people consideration, that is, the people who cannot come under P.F.A.A. but who are just as badly off as those he has helped under P.F.A.A.


Mr. Thomas:: Like the hon. member for Acadia, I believe this bill is going to give some relief to some of the farmers throughout the west. However, there is one thing which was not mentioned here but which should be looked into carefully, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Acadia. That is some sort of revision in the act as far as hail damage is concerned. I have had literally dozens of letters from my own riding this year, some of them from people complaining that they had been hailed out for two or three years in succession. Although they have been paying into the fund

Prairie Farm Assistance Act every year, they cannot get any relief because of hail damage. They, of course, are blaming the officials and everybody in the department, but the fault is not with the officials. The fault lies in the act itself. The very way in which hail falls makes it impossible to make this act apply with any degree of equality.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I just say that there never was any intention under this bill to provide for hail damage. Hail damage insurance policies are provided by insurance companies and municipalities all over western Canada. A farmer can insure his crop against hail damage, but if incidentally he happens to be eligible under this act because the hail went across an area that comes under the act, than he is paid. But this act was never intended to provide hail insurance. That is provided by legislation in the three western provinces, and for the very same reason that I have given on many occasions as to why this government cannot bring in crop insurance. It was decided long ago in the last century after a good deal of discussion that the federal government could not put on hail insurance under the constitution. Therefore the three western provinces passed hail insurance bills. In the province of Saskatchewan the municipalities choose whether or not they come under it. The municipality where I live has always been under it. There one is insured to a limit of $5 an acre, and I usually put on another $5 an acre under a company. We have never come under the act in the municipality where I live until this year, but some have come in this year. The area I am in has not come in, but that is a possibility all the time. If that area is hailed out and it comes under the prairie farm assistance, the farmer gets paid. Areas that have never been under prairie farm assistance, of course, have not come in. There has never been any intention of hail coming under this at all, or anything else that the farmer himself can take care of. The farmer can insure his crop against hail at a very reasonable rate, and in view of that he is supposed to do so. If he does not, of course, the act does not protect him.


Victor Quelch: The minister is surely not suggesting that we have got ourselves into such a situation that the federal government and the provinces working together could not, if they so desired, put in a system of crop insurance.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I am saying is that the government of Alberta, the government of Saskatchewan, or the government of Manitoba-they are three different parties, and

so I am not talking about one party-any one of those provinces, can bring in crop insurance and this government could assist after they have brought it in, if they felt inclined to do so, but the first action has to be taken by the provincial government. They have the authority to insure, and we have not. I may say that when this legislation was passed the province of Saskatchewan went very fully into the matter of insurance, and I have a summary of the report here before me. It was thought that at some time they would come in, but they never have. We are not criticizing them for that. That is their own decision. Apparently they think this legislation is fairly good and that nothing is necessary beyond that. But this is not something which we say to the provinces, "We have come into this, and you are not able to do anything about it". They were able to do all we have done, and they could add to it if they desired to add to it. If they do not desire to add to it, of course, we are not criticizing them.


Victor Quelch: Has the federal government intimated to the provinces that, if they did set up insurance, they would be given assistance by the federal government?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the way that these things are done. If they say they are going to bring it in, it will then be a matter of saying whether this act should be supplemented or whether something else should be done. But they have not done so and I am quite satisfied that no government sitting here would try to work in that way.


Victor Quelch: The farm organizations have asked them to.


Ray Thomas: I can sympathize with what the minister has said and I can agree with him wholeheartedly that the act was not intended to cover hail. The fact remains that, now that it does cover hail, if the block is hailed and is declared eligible the farmers can collect under P.F.A.A. But it is disheartening to farmers to be hailed out year after year and to see their neighbours collecting from P.F.A.A. when they are not able to get anything because their area has been declared to be ineligible. That has happened on many occasions. I obtained a copy of a letter just recently that was sent to Mr. Rowbotham in Edmonton-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just clear up that point? I do not want to be misunderstood. These farmers would draw under P.F.A.A. It is not because of hail or because there was not any hail. They draw because that township is in under the act and whether they are hailed or whether they are not

hailed, they will draw; and they will draw the same amount as do their neighbours.


Ray Thomas: But the fact remains that these people who are in ineligible townships or blocks that have been declared to be ineligible are not collecting despite the fact that they have been paying into the fund for years. It is extremely disheartening.
As I was going to say when the minister interjected, I obtained a copy of a letter which was sent to Mr. Rowbotham's department in Edmonton complaining about the treatment they had received under P.F.A.A. It was signed by no less than 47 farmers in one area. That letter, coupled with dozens of complains that I have had, would indicate that there is a very large area in there which has been hailed out. As the minister knows, the hail travels in strips and it is impossible to make the act apply. If the minister is going to make the act apply to hail, I would urge that he change the act in such a way as to bring it down to a sectional basis or an individual basis, or change it in some way so that these people who have been paying into this fund for years can collect when they are hailed out.
There is one more thing to which I should like to refer. In the western part of my riding there is an area which was declared to be outside the act because it was considered to be a submarginal area. I realize that it was declared to be submarginal by the combined departments of agriculture of the federal government and the provincial government. However, since that time it has been discovered that certain crops grow well in that area. A good deal of clover is grown as well as alfalfa, and a good deal of success has been attained. These people who are now growing good crops of certain types are still unable to come in under the act. I received a couple of letters during this last spring with regard to people trying to get under the act; according to the department they are unable to do it because the land has been declared to be submarginal. I would ask the minister to look into some of those areas again. In view of improved methods and improved knowledge as to what crops should be grown, possibly some of these areas could now be included under the act because conditions have changed since they were taken out of the act or at least were left out of the act when the act was first incorporated into the law.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, the constituency of Yorkton happens to be one of those areas which have been greatly affected by flooding conditions during the last two or three years, and one particular area in the Assiniboine valley for even longer. The
Prairie Farm Assistance Act unusual water conditions of the past three years which have given parts of the prairie provinces an unusual rainfall and have caused the flooding out of much land which for years was productive farm land producing good crops makes an amendment to this act most necessary. I would say that, for the most part, the fact that flooded areas are being included under this act has been extremely welcome. Other parts of the amendment to the act under this bill will be criticized on good solid ground, in my opinion, when we come to them.
The people in the prairie provinces who went through the drought years are rather at a loss to understand why this change in weather conditions should so seriously affect them and they are wondering what the cause of it was. Ever since the flood in the Red river valley in 1950 the water table throughout Manitoba and now in eastern Saskatchewan has risen to such a point that much of the land is seriously affected, and last year there were signs that land would be going sour. I have seen good land-land which has never been known to have water on it before-flooded out and whole fields, because of the wet weather for a whole year, covered with a sort of green moss which forms on top of the soil and which is an indication of poor aeration and will lead ultimately to the souring of the land.
What was the cause of the Red river flooding I do not know. It just seemed to be that water seemed to be coming down into the Red river valley. The Red river rises in the United States. Whether there was an abnormal rainfall in that country I do not know. There may have been some diversion of water. I do not know what the facts are with regard to that matter. We do know the effect it has had upon the water tables of the two provinces. Manitoba is particularly hard hit.
The constituency of Yorkton in Saskatchewan has running through it, near Kamsack, a portion of the Assiniboine river valley. Because of the peculiar diagonal, the way in which the river runs through that part of the province, when the Assiniboine valley is flooded the floor of the valley becomes just like a lake; and because it runs in a diagonal way as much as 10,000 acres of arable land which has produced splendid crops-not only arable land but some of the best land-was river bottom. When there was not too much moisture this land produced some of the finest crops in the whole of the country. Just because of the diagonal way in which the river went through the constituency or through that township it was difficult if not utterly impossible to find a suitable block which would become eligible and which would qualify for payment under P.F.A.A.
5054	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act I can remember when the flooding occurred there in 1949. We made a request at that time that the federal government do something about flood control. I believe it is part of the ultimate plans of the Department of Agriculture under P.F.R.A. to place some dams on the upper portions of the Assiniboine valley and perhaps to do something about flood control in order to prevent that rush of water in the spring which leads to trouble in Saskatchewan and later on in Manitoba. If the minister can speed up that construction so that area can be controlled, I would urge him to do so. If the amendments will help in that matter, I am sure they will be welcomed by the people in that area.
Immediately north of Yorkton is the White-sand river. In the past two years there have been floods which have completely flooded out whole farms, some of them consisting of half a section. Some 80 per cent of the land which was previously cultivated has been completely flooded. This legislation is going to help them in a year or two. I notice in clause 1 which we are discussing at the present time the following:
(d) "cultivated land" means land that in the year of award was seeded to crop or was in summerfallow and includes . . .
(ii) land of a farmer that in three out of the five years immediately preceding the year of award had been seeded or summerfallowed, but owing to natural causes beyond his control could not be seeded or summerfallowed in the year of award;
This means that if an area became flooded for a period of say five years the land would no longer be eligible for payment under P.F.A.A. The actions of the government in building dams could easily affect the eligibility of a farmer from the point of view of whether or not his land could become eligible for award. I can see, and everyone will admit, that some restrictions are necessary. We certainly do not want to continue to pay awards for land that is going to be permanently flooded. I think something should be put in here to take care of such a situation, but the farmer certainly has no control over the flooding of his land and he is compelled to suffer very severe losses.
I find that some members are under the impression that a farmer who receives assistance under the act will be perfectly all right, but it should be understood that the maximum payments are naturally low. If a farmer has no crop at all and his land is eligible he is only covered to the extent of 200 acres. With no crop at all he would 

receive a maximum of $2.50 per acre, or a total of $500. If he has 4 bushels or less to the acre the limit is $300. Therefore I think the impression in the minds of some members of the house that this assistance really takes care of the farmer should be corrected. That might have been the case some years ago, but with the increasing costs of operation these payments do not begin to meet the farmer's costs. It merely means that he may be able to exist for another year and carry on with considerable debt in the hope that he will ultimately get a crop.
So far as the operation of the act this year is concerned, a good many farmers in eastern Saskatchewan have qualified because of rust damage to their crops. Many areas were marginal, and under the existing legislation the provision with respect to contiguous sections must have made administration quite difficult. In a general way I should like to make this suggestion to the minister if he wishes to improve the administration of the act. In the selection of inspectors I suggest that as far as possible he try not to pick somebody living too close to the particular area who may have relatives or friends in the region. I have received criticism to the effect that a brother, uncle, cousin or some relative of the inspector has appeared to receive preference and there seem to have been cases where other persons who were just as well qualified did not receive payments because they were not relatives or friends of the man in charge of the inspection staff.
It is a very difficult thing to administer properly, but I suggest to the minister that in the selection of inspectors he should make sure that kind of charge cannot be made.
I have not had a chance to investigate these cases personally and I am not making any charges, but these are some of the impressions I have received. May I say that so far as any correspondence I have had with his staff in Regina is concerned I have received prompt attention. When I have asked for reinspections the members of the staff have always said that they would consult the officials in the district. The service I have received as a member of the house has been very good, and some of the cases in which appeals have been made are still being investigated. I make this suggestion to the minister as something which will help to improve a very difficult situation and meet the pressing problems of people who are faced today with extremely high costs and

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
are not in a position to stand losses to the leave my remarks until later when the min-extent that many of them have suffered in ister will have a deputy before him. I raise the past two or three years. I am sure the this point now because I do not want people minister knows he will have the support of to think that the administration of the act this group, and to the extent that we feel was before the house and I did not have there are injustices he will receive objections, anything to say about it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to make a few
comments. Of course I do not know very much about the difficulties that the farmers of the west are having, but we are all interested because we will all have to pay whether we belong to the west or to the east. After listening to the members from the west, may I say that we realize the amendment is necessary, and I am sure there will be no objection. I do not know where people ever got the slogan, "Go west, young man, go west". Having seen the millions of dollars that have had to be paid out over a number of years under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, I am beginning to think that the people of our part of the country are pretty fortunate and that the slogan should now be changed to "Go east, young man", because we have no problems of this kind.
In all seriousness, I should like to ask the minister how many people in western Canada he estimates will be assisted and what will be the estimated cost of putting into force the provisions of the amendment. I think that is something that the people in other parts of Canada would be very anxious to know. As the previous speaker said, we realize that the maximum payment of $2.50 an acre for 200 acres is not going to make any farmer rich. It will be enough to meet a few of the necessities of life, but I think members of the house would be interested in knowing what the aggregate cost is going to be. Could the minister give us that information?


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, in a sense I rise on a point of order, and I do so now because I did not want to interrupt the previous speaker. If we are to discuss the administration of the act I should like to have something to say about it, but I am rather of the opinion that administration of the act can be discussed on the minister's estimates and that that is the proper time rather than now.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the proper time to discuss it.


Ernest George Hansell: But if everyone is going to discuss administration now I want to participate in the discussion. I am quite willing to


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the questions that have been asked, I think I should probably say a few words. In common with the hon. member for Prince Albert, I expected that there would be a discussion on second reading and prepared my remarks accordingly. Therefore I find it a little difficult to stay entirely within the rules now in answering some of the questions that have been asked and some of the statements that have been made. However, I think I should do so, particularly in view of the suggestion just made by the hon. member from Nova Scotia-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: New Brunswick.


James Garfield Gardiner: I quite understand why you would not want to be associated with the gentleman behind you, but he is probably all right. Quite a few remarks have been made this morning which I think should be explained. I do not think any amendment of the nature of the one now before us would have been suggested at all except for the fact that practically all the people who will be affected by the legislation have paid into the fund far more than they will ever get out of it. This legislation will apply largely to the province of Manitoba and the northeastern section of Saskatchewan. Other areas are not very likely to come under it in any big way because there are not so many there who have suffered from extra water.
It may be that some places up in the northwestern and northeastern parts will receive some payments j but by far the greater amount of payments will be made in Manitoba and the northeastern part of Saskatchewan adjacent to Manitoba. That area has paid in very much more than it has taken out up until very recently. Manitoba, for example, paid in less the first year the act was in effect. That was the year of the great drought, as you will all recall, and Manitoba paid in $333,000 and drew out $905,000. Then in 1940 Manitoba paid in $354,000 and drew out $615,000. But, from there on, down to this year, Manitoba has never drawn out as much as they have paid in. The amounts they have received have been $36,000 in one year, $16,000 in another, $30,000 in another and $6,000 in another.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act They have been paying all the way along from $339,000 up to $1,331,000 and $1,400,000 in a year.
. But the most important part of that record is in the last four years. In the three years prior to 1954 Manitoba paid in $1,300,000, $1,400,000 and $973,000, and in the last year $385,000.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister put that whole table on the record?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can put it on, if hon. members wish to have it.


George Hugh Castleden: We would find it helpful.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then, in these last four years, in round figures, Manitoba drew out $207,000 as against $1,300,000; $185,000 as against $1,400,000, and in the next year they drew out $619,000 as against a payment of $973,000. The first year Manitoba has drawn out considerably more than they paid in was 1954-55. They paid in $385,000 and have drawn out $4,182,630. When you add that $4 million to the other three years, the fact is that they have drawn out for the four years the sum of $5,195,000 as against paying in $4,113,000.
I recite these figures only to indicate that the picture has changed. It has changed

to a considerable extent because of the fact that much of what is in the amendment, and therefore made clear to everyone that it is covered by the act, has been applied during this past year. As I said in the house before, we got an opinion from the Department of Justice as to whether we had authority to pay under the act, and they have said that we have. We went ahead and made payments. But anyone reading the act would perhaps find it difficult to find just where it was that we have that authority to pay under the act. So we are making it clear that authority is given to pay under certain circumstances.


The Deputy Chairman:: Before the minister gets away from the table, is it the desire of the committee that the table be printed in Hansard?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is all right so far as I am concerned.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then I understand the minister has consent to place these tables on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The tables are as follows:



SUMMARY 1 PER CENT LEVY COLLECTED 1939 TO MARCH 31, 1955

[Stage Direction]
Crop Year
1939-	10
1940-	41
1941-	42
1942-	43
1943-	44
1944-	45.
1945-	46.
1946-	47.
1947-	48.
1948-	49.
1949-	50.
1950-	51.
1951-	52.
1952-	53.
1953-	54.
1954-	55.
Manitoba
333,453.13
354.813.76 339,969.87 481,974.50
779.490.76
754.366.36 575,408.69 845,631.86
764.744.37 1,120,741.27
1.355.660.07
1.442.138.08 1,331,.548.73 1,423,916.39
973,258.03
385,080.07
13,262,195.94
Saskatchewan
1.344.208.23
1.360.540.00 711,869.33
1.536.146.00 2,743,544.09
3.218.572.23 1,977,735.42 2,703,357.17 2,727,187.90 3,417,480.86 4,525,628.79 3,890,444.68 5,075,404.05 6,370,894.35 4,939,452.16 1,373,591.61
Alberta
47,916,056.87
866
710
1,191,
1,412,
873,
1,644,
1,624,
2,084,
2,515,
2,001
2,560,
3,074,
2,069,
791,
,121.61
831.79 ,642.45 632.53 300.92 417.31 082.60
706.41
237.42 088.52 568.28 322.58 006.74 384.50 163.48
276.79
Unallocated
24,569,783.93
724.40
502.32
272.05
322.51 371.01
230.71 131.69 112.20
148.51 6,185.87
197.64
153.72
116.72 5,116.75 5,158.10
152.31
Total Levy
19,896.51
2,421
2,582
1,459
2,729
4,714
5,385
3,426
5,193
5,116,
6,628,
8,397
7,334,
8,967
10,874,
7,987,
2,550,
507.37
,687.87
,753.70
075.54
706.78 586.61 358.40 807.64 318.20 496.52
054.78 059.06 076.24 311.99
031.77
100.78
85,767,933.25
iMr. Gardiner.]

[Stage Direction]
Program	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Total Payments	Total AwardsNo. of Awards	Total Payment	No. of Awards	Total Payment	No. of Awards	Total Payment	No. of Awards	Total Payment	$	$	$	$	$	1939	6,960	905,416.54	39,464	7,574,890.68	12,142	1,429,708.31	9,910,015.53	58,5661940	6,368	615,109.23	40,846	5,603,266.80	4,356	504,179.29	6,722,555.32	51,5701941	1,009	36,513.28	62,473	12,010,772.42	20,880	3,466,120.05	15,513,405.75	84,3621942	No Payments	No	Payments	No	Payments	No Payments	No Payments	Nil1943	126	16,685.25	22,000	5,037,472.87	9,232	2,425,057.59	7,479,215.71	31,3581944	1,417	163,501.97	10,576	2,980,282.68	9,145	2,833,762.91	5,977,547.56	21,1381945	428	30,148.50	43,437	12,541,768.16	18,951	4,395,734.38	16,967,651.04	62,8161946	87	6,163.50	40,286	9,204,820.72	7,130	1,620,922.17	10,831,906.39	47,5031947	3,624	490,410.75	54,892	13,368,005.75	17,277	3,375,088.60	50	4,166.25	17,237,671.35	75,8431948	488	63,638.75	46,581	11,532,255.50	14,735	2,544,571.50	14,140,465.75	61,8041949	2,072	333,089.00	49,657	15,373,732.75	33,477	6,343,796.25	22,050,618.00	85,2061950	3,116	347,239.00	26,601	5,608,926.00	26,486	4,314,371.75	1,334	214,185.75	10,484,722.50	57,5371951	1,828	207,393.00	11,073	2,247,920.25	11,949	2,171,140.50	275	29,888.75	4,656,342.50	25,1251952	1,169	185,691.75	3,969	810,803.50	4,001	532,101.75	468	42,285.75	1,570,882.75	9,6071953	5,030	619,863.25	5,740	1,143,177.50	5,548	1,007,525.25	2,770,566.00	16,3181954	23,440	4,182,630.00	87,379	21,314,665.50	32,261	5,512,951.75	531	73,812.50	31,084,059.75	143,61157,162	8,203,493.77	544,974	126,352,761.08	227,570	42,477,032.05	2,658	364,339.00	177,397,625.90	832,364
cn
o
cn
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
5058	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm. Assistance Act
What I would like to say, for the special benefit of those who come from outside western Canada, is that over the years these people have paid in far more than they have been able to get out of it. They paid in, in Manitoba, $13,262,000 whereas they will be getting out, including this year, $8,203,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does that include the cost of administration?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the cost of administration is voted in the estimates, as the hon. member knows. That would more than cover anything required for administration costs and payments.
The Saskatchewan position is such, of course, that there are far more people paying in Saskatchewan than anywhere else. As a matter of fact the farm population in that province is quite high. The exact figures, which I have before me, show a farm population in Manitoba of 52,383, and payments have been made to 23,440 or a little less than half. That is the number who have received payments this year. Then, the farm population of Saskatchewan is given as 112,000, in round figures, of whom 87,000 have received payments this year. In Alberta there are 84,000 farmers, of whom 32,000 have received payments this year.
The fact is that when one divides the $21,314,000 Saskatchewan farmers have received by the 87,000 farmers, it gives an amount of $245 per farmer.
Now, I would say this by way of comparison-and not by way of raising any criticism of anything else we may have done-that there were 2,000 apple growers in Nova Scotia who drew last year $967,000. Some of that will come back, of course, but the total amount paid out would be $483 per apple grower. That would have to be adjusted in order to take care of some amounts that were regained. But the payments made out in the first instance-*


George Hugh Castleden: Was the figure given for Saskatchewan the amount received this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, $21,314,000, and I believe that is $245 for each farmer. I think the figure will be about comparable with that in Nova Scotia by the time the whole matter of dealing with apples is settled up. We have tried to make it about the same.
And there is another point in connection with it that should be emphasized. We based our action in Nova Scotia on action that has been going on in Saskatchewan under this act from the very beginning. We pay the money to the farmer, and I think that was an important feature of the settlement made in Nova Scotia. We have not received a single


complaint, and I do not think even the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings who is perhaps more familiar with it than any other member in the house excepting the Minister of Public Works, and who has been familiar with the organization there for a long time, has had any complaints. I have had none from members.


Mr. Nowlan:: None whatsoever.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not had a complaint from anyone. The main feature that resulted in our having no complaints was that every dollar was put in the hands of the farmer, and that is true under this act. Every dollar paid out is paid to the farmer, and no one can make a claim against that man's money. It goes to the farmer, and he does what he likes with it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was not the loss of markets for the Nova Scotia crop caused by action of the government, whereas the condition in the west is an act of God.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I am speaking only
about what happened last summer as a result of the tornado which blew off 85 per cent of the apples. The government had nothing to do with the tornado.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You paid them to cut down apple trees.


James Garfield Gardiner: That does not enter into these figures. These figures are only for last year, to help out in circumstances similar to those which existed out west, as a result of the weather.
The important point is that the payment is made to the farmer, not to a provincial government or to a municipality. We pay the money to the farmer, and he pays whatever bills he thinks he should pay.


George Hugh Castleden: Are those farmers making any contributions to the fund, in the same way P.F.A.A. farmers are?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, except through the fact they pay general taxes the same as others. They have not made a contribution. That is exactly the point I am making: this particular area that is to get the benefits of this amendment has paid in more. There is no one in any other part of Canada who is paying for these particular amendments. They are being paid for by the people who live in that area, because they have been paying in all through the period much more than they have drawn out, and now they are simply getting some of it back under the conditions that exist in that area.
I wanted to say that in order to make it absolutely clear that I do not think there is any claim anywhere else as a result of what

is being done there. The money has been paid into the fund in connection with this activity by these people before any has been taken out, and therefore it does not leave us open to any suggestion that we are doing something with federal funds that we are not doing elsewhere in Canada. I might point out also it is suggested that $2 million worth of damage has been done up the eastern side of Saskatchewan. I have not the figures for Manitoba because the Manitoba government have not made their representations. Probably I am not taking into full account the representations made by the province when I say $2 million. They have said that the damage in that section amounts to about $5 million, and they have said they are prepared to pay in $2 million as their share. What we are pointing out is that under this act the government started back in 1939 to pay the farmers something that would be of assistance in carrying them through periods of drought, and we have taken on rust in the last year which resulted from there being too much moisture.
It is important to note how much the government has paid in. We have stated that our share of any assistance that is given to farmers comes through this act, and up to now it has been very considerable. But during the last year the amounts paid on the east side of Saskatchewan to the constituencies beginning with Mackenzie and Humboldt-Melfort in the north, right down to Moose Mountain in the south, totals $9,559,000 under this act as it now is. That $9 million is paid out over an area in which they say the damage done to roads and bridges and because of lack of drainage amounts to some $5 million. The provincial government is going to pay out $2 million toward taking care of that, and have suggested that the federal government ought to pay 75 per cent of the cost.


Edward George McCullough: May
I ask a question? Surely the minister is not trying to indicate to the committee that the loss to the farmers in potential wealth in loss of crop is in any way comparable with the figures that he is now giving.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I am simply saying the provincial government proposes to pay $2 million on account of roads, bridges and drainage. This government has a scheme or plan which was set up in 1939 which pays assistance to the farmers in the amount of $9,559,000 which they expend.


Edward George McCullough: I think the minister will agree that the payment made by the province is for roads and bridges and
21. 1955	5059
Prairie Farm Assistance Act to assist municipalities. It has nothing to do with the loss to the farmers on account of the loss of their crops.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is exactly what I am trying to point out. I agree with the hon. member for Acadia and with every other hon. member who has spoken that this is not an insurance act. The hon. member for Yorkton referred to the fact that this did not give farmers consideration for crop losses. The intention of this act was never any such thing. The intention was to make it possible for the farmer to pay his store bill so that he could carry on through the next year with credit at his local merchant's place of business. Anything else he was able to buy after he got the money he bought it. Therefore, what is being paid into that area is $9,559,000. That is put into the pockets of the farmers and the farmer can pay his store bill. If he has enough money left to pay his taxes he pays his taxes. When he pays his taxes he makes it possible for the municipality to do road work. The fact that he has that amount of money helps him to assist his municipality and others to carry on.
Some suggestion has been made that the man who is in town and hires the work done on his farm should be paid under this act. The reason he is not paid under this act has just been outlined by me. This act was put on the statute books to make it possible for farmers who are farming land and who have gone through a period of crop failure to be on the land next year to produce a crop, the very thing mentioned by the hon. member for Selkirk. He says that the farmers are leaving the farms and going away because water is lying on their land. The objective of this legislation is to make it possible for these people to go to town and pay the food bill that they ran credit for last year, to pay for the clothing of their children that they ran credit for last year, so that they can go back to the store and get credit again this year. That is the objective of it. The amount of money that is provided for is not intended to be greater than the amount necessary for doing that kind of thing. Therefore we are simply suggesting here that that money ought to be in the hands-I think some of us would have said the same thing that was said with regard to family allowances if we had felt free to do so at the time-of the mother, but it is in the hands of the farmer, including the mother of course. They do whatever they see fit with it. All I am suggesting is that the provincial government is putting $2 million in to give employment to the same people so they can pay store bills, and I do not want

Prairie Farm Assistance Act anyone to misunderstand. I am not criticizing them for not paying more. I venture to say it is as much as any government would have put in to do that job. But when other people come along and say that because they have put in $2 million the federal government ought to put in $6 million, I reply that we have already put $9 million in the pockets of the same farmers. That money is in -the hands of the people to do with as they see fit. This act provides for that kind of thing, and it is not intended to provide anything other than that. It is intended simply to make it possible for the farmer to stay there until the next year and produce another crop, so that section of the country can go on farming, as has been its custom.


Mr. Pommer:: The Minister of Agriculture was asked this morning to put certain figures on Hansard. Do they go back to 1939?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


William Albert Pommer: I was rather anxious to have that done because in the last five years Manitoba has taken more than she has put in; but since 1939 I believe we have put in considerably more than we have taken out. I just wanted to clarify that question because I believe Manitoba producers have still paid in some $4 million more than they have withdrawn.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


Edward George McCullough: I just want to say one word following what the minister has said. He is trying to leave the impression with the committee that the federal government is in some way coming to the rescue of the farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba who were hit with flooding conditions, and possibly at the request of the two provincial governments.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I am not trying to leave any such impression. We have acted in spite of the fact that some others have not acted. We have not waited for anybody to suggest how we should act; we have acted ourselves.


Edward George McCullough: I just wish to say that while we welcome the assistance provided under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, yet it is an act which justifiably pays the farmer for crop losses; but surely the minister is not trying to indicate-


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the act does not, as a number of members on that side of the house have said, pay and it is not the intention to pay the farmer for crop losses. It is just simply paying him enough to pay

his store bills so that he can be there next year to produce another crop.


Edward George McCullough: It becomes ridiculous when the minister tries to indicate to the committee that a payment of $200 or $300 to a farmer, even if he has a quarter section, -to say nothing of a half section or a three-quarter section, is going to keep him on his farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: All I am going to say in reply to that is that the legislation has been there since 1939 and as far as I know the provincial government has not paid out any relief in that period of time whereas we paid out $186 million in relief in that area before this act was passed. In my opinion the act has done the job it was intended to do.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, we hear statements from the government side of the house, like those by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who recently is reported to have made a statement in western Canada as to the prosperity of Canada, indicating that the C.C.F. members want to talk about a depression. I want to say that we have never predicted a depression in Canada as long as we have a policy of expenditures on defence such as we have. But among our farm population in western Canada there is a depression, and by ignoring that the minister is leaving a false impression when he tries to make out that all is well in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never stated at any time that all is well in Saskatchewan, but I am prepared to read the report by the government of Saskatchewan which goes much further in that direction than anything I have ever said.


Edward George McCullough: I hope the minister is not now speaking for the Prime Minister in replying to the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan who want assistance for flood damage.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have had nothing to say about that. I simply say that we paid in $9 million before anyone else paid in anything.


William Scottie Bryce: Will the minister be able to do anything for those people who do not come under this scheme, who bought land from the government after 1940? They have had to pay in just the same as people who get relief but they are not entitled to any relief themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: The act provides that payments cannot be made on land which was put into cultivation after January 1, 1940. These lands were put into cultivation by the

provincial government and the federal government has had no control over those lands since 1930. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act was passed in 1939. If the province puts people on land, either on a rental or on a sale basis after that date, they should first make sure that the conditions under which they were settled were such that they are not going to require assistance under the act to keep them on the land. The land should be good enough so that a farmer can make a living on it under the conditions established by the government which put him there. If they put a farmer on some other kind of land they should take care of him and not ask this government to do it. That is the principle behind the legislation my hon. friend referred to.
Land in the extreme north has been relieved from that provision just the same as land in Saskatchewan or Alberta, but land further south, down between the two lakes, is under that regulation. The fact that people do not come under this act goes right back to the point raised by the hon. member for Acadia and others. This act is not presumed to give insurance coverage; this act is intended to help carry farmers on the land over to another crop year. If someone puts farmers on land on which they cannot make a living, they should look after them. If they are on land that does not come under this regulation and this act does not do enough for them, then the other authorities who were responsible before we took this on should provide whatever further assistance is required.
That can be done by the other authority asking the privilege of paying into the fund under this act so that more can be paid out, or by setting up an organization of their own in order to make provision for them. Since 1939 no other authority has worked out a plan to do that.


William Scottie Bryce: These people have paid into this plan all these years and when a catastrophe like this hits them they cannot get back a penny with which to pay their store bills or anything like that.


James Garfield Gardiner: They paid in some $300,000 and we have paid out some $4 million by this time because the calamity hit them. That is not just a case of paying in and getting nothing back.


William Scottie Bryce: These people will not get anything unless there is an amendment to bring them under the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: The people on the farm you describe would certainly get nothing but you say they were just milking cows, swimming across the stream to bring them in.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act The hon. member gave the impression that that was just a farm to raise cows on and produce milk. That farmer has since found that there is too much water there. There is nothing in this act to provide for a payment to that man. He still has the same choice as everyone of finding a better place on which to do that kind of thing, or continuing the way he is doing it. The only way he gets under the act would be to seed his land to grass. If he just took raw prairie land and put a fence around it in order to run his cattle he may not come under the act, but if he seeds the land to grass and then his land is flooded he does come under the act.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Not if he has cultivated that land since 1940.


William Scottie Bryce: I run into this same difficulty almost every time I talk to the minister. He takes me around and the first thing I know I am in a back alley. I am trying to direct the attention of the minister to the man who purchased government land, either already cleared or which he started to clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: From what government did he buy the land?


William Scottie Bryce: Either from this government or-


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.


William Scottie Bryce: -the provincial government.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would have to be before 1940 if he got land from this government. Any land which he got after 1940 from the provincial government would be ruled out.


William Scottie Bryce: What government is he paying his taxes to, this man who brings his grain to the elevator?


James Garfield Gardiner: To the provincial and federal and municipal governments.


George Hugh Castleden: Is it not true that land purchased from the provincial government since 1940 is not eligible for payments under the P.F.A.A.?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


George Hugh Castleden: Even though the farmer is compelled under the act to pay 1 per cent on his grain into the P.F.A.A.?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the situation that applies to every farmer in western Canada who has grain, but not to the man described.


William Scottie Bryce: But this man never gets anything.


James Garfield Gardiner: Please let me finish. The man in Montreal pays into it and he has no chance of getting anything out. He has helped pay 50 per cent of all the money that has

Prairie Farm Assistance Act been paid out; that is the taxpayer has paid that, not the farmer as such. The taxpayers right from Vancouver island through to Newfoundland have been paying about half of what has been paid out. I want to say that every farmer I have talked to in western Canada has agreed that it is fair that he should pay in whether he draws anything out of it or not.


William Scottie Bryce: The man in Montreal who pays in is not paying another 1 per cent on his grain because he has no grain. But the man in western Canada who is growing grain pays his income tax and all these other taxes just the same as the man in Montreal, and then pays his 1 per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmer the hon. member described this morning would not be paying very much in the way of 1 per cent or taxes.


Mr. Knowles:: I would not boast about that if I were you.


James Garfield Gardiner: He may be helped to an extent if he pays in.


William Scottie Bryce: That is a poor argument. If he has a big family he would be paying a lot in sales tax, and then he is forced to pay this other premium but he cannot get any benefit under the act.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


The Chairman:: When the committee rose at one o'clock, we had been discussing clause 1. Shall this clause carry?


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, before the luncheon recess the right hon. Minister of Agriculture indicated that the federal government paid out on the east side of the province $9 million this year. I think that every farmer living in that area of the province will be very happy that some assistance has been given under this act, but I hope that, when the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have been hit so hard by the flood and wet conditions this year, the federal government will certainly not stop at the administration of this act as meeting the situation in those two provinces. I was in the interlake country in Manitoba, and I am aware of the situation there, as explained by the hon. member for Selkirk. As he indicates, many of the people there, owing to the fact that since 1940 some of the land has been bought up by residents of that interlake country and been brought under cultivation, as the act is presently constituted are not 

eligible for payments. Those people will get no assistance whatsoever. The minister and his colleagues should, if possible, see if something can be done by which these people will be brought under the terms of the act.
In closing, I would re-emphasize the hope that the minister will not be satisfied and the government will not think it bas done its task in alleviating some parts of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan that have been hard hit, and refer to the payments made under this act as being their share in meeting the disastrous flood conditions in those provinces. When the province of Saskatchewan is paying out, as the right hon. minister indicated, for road and bridge culverts and other repair work in that section of the province, I am sure they are assuming that the federal government will under a special fund or under some other legislation take the matter as being one of a national disaster and that they will contribute 75 per cent of the money being spent by the province and match the expenditure in a similar manner to what has been done in the Fraser Valley flood and some of the other national disasters.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, the final paragraph of this clause says:
Land of a farmer that in three out of the five years immediately preceding the year of award had been seeded or summerfallowed, but owing to natural causes beyond his control could not be seeded or summerfallowed in the year of award.
This would apply to the cases I was citing this morning. For example, the valley of the Assiniboine river in the area of Kamsack could have had a flood condition for three years out of the past five and been able to crop two, and then for 1955, if they happened to have a flood this year, they could not qualify. I do not think there is any possibility of this becoming a permanently flooded area under present conditions. Whether it will flood or not will depend largely on the government's program of flood control farther up the river. I believe that section 2 (1) (d) of the act which is being amended should read that there should be two out of the five years rather than three. Otherwise those farmers will be excluded from getting any benefits under this Prairie Farm Assistance Act as amended.
I suggest that this situation be remedied, for otherwise people will suffer a loss where they are not in line with what is included under the act. In certain areas where there are large lakes, perhaps marshlands may turn into flooded areas, and perhaps nothing could be done about drainage or flood control there.
I do not know how they are going to remedy

the situation along the edges of lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba because until there is better drainage of the Nelson river than at the present time I do not know what they will do about the floods occurring there. If all that land is going to go permanently into swamp, we should not be paying people merely to own some swamp. But in those cases where many flooded areas will be excluded if section 2 is left as it is, I would suggest that the minister change that to "two out of the five years". It is fertile soil; it is the bottom of the river valley, and is the land that produces the finest crops in the dry years, and it is possible that those years may return to the west. To do justice to those people, that should be changed from three to two years. I should like to know the minister's reaction to that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I can say I know something about that because I was in the worst part of the area last week. I recited this section of the act to every farmer I met, and I did not meet one who complained about it. The worst part of the area, as my hon. friend knows, is the Qu'Appelle valley. That area is now flooded right across and much of it will not be seeded this year. I went over the section with them, and not one raised any complaint about it. My own experience will indicate that two out of the last five years without being seeded will cover most, if not all, of those in difficulties.


William Scottie Bryce: What about land that has at some time or other been seeded to natural grass?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has always been taken care of in the description in the first part of the act:
"cultivated land" means land that in the year of award was seeded to crop or was in summerfallow and includes
(i) land that was seeded to grass in any year if the productivity thereof was maintained in the year of award.
Then it goes on, "land of a farmer", and so on. That all comes under it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2.
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on the matter of blocks of eligible and ineligible land, if this is the clause it comes under.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not until the next clause. This clause just makes operative what we have been talking about.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act On clause 3-Blocks ineligible for award.
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, we have had a good deal of experience with this over the years, and I think we are to be complimented and the government is to be complimented on having an act of this kind. However, to make an act really effective in the minds of people, we must maintain confidence. I see that there is a lack of confidence here and there, not by reason of the general principle of prairie farm assistance, but from the standpoint that we have these blocks, and it does mean a certain unfairness in respect of payments. The unfairness is not intentional by any of the officials, I am sure. It is unfair by reason that we have these blocks of eligible or ineligible sections, with the result that a farmer who has a smaller yield than his neighbour may not get the payment while his neighbour living down the road or across the road has a high yield and gets the payment. By reason of that thing happening and of the fact that the act permits it to happen there is, of course, dissatisfaction.
Of course my plea is the same plea as that which we have been putting up from this corner of the house for a good many years. My plea is that the act should be adjusted in some fashion or other in order to make these payments on a sectional or unit basis. I know the minister has answered that question before. I should like to know why he has not changed his mind on this matter and why the government has not seen fit so to revise the act and to bring in amendments as to make this thing on a sectional or a unit basis.
There is unfairness, by reason of the fact that farmers who deserve payment because of low yield find that other farmers in the same area, or right next to them almost, have larger yields and get the payment. That situation is unfair and you cannot tell the farmer any different. There is the situation. It stares him in the face. You can explain the act. You can explain the reason for the block system. You can do all the explaining you like but you cannot explain away the fact that there is unfairness there.
This act is a sort of relief measure. The minister has said that. We have known it for a good many years. We knew it when the act was first brought in many years ago. The minister has rightly said that these payments are made in order to tide the farmer over so that he can pay his bills and stay on the farm until the next year. Let us compare this act with some other legislation that we have. Let us consider, for example, ordinary relief legislation that this government may assist the provinces with. You
5064	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act do not say to any community, "We are not going to pay this relief to the unfortunate people until a certain percentage of the working force of that community is unemployed". You do not do that. You calculate the thing on the individual basis.
Unemployment insurance is a similar thing in principle. Workers pay into the fund just in the same way as the farmers have paid into this fund. You do not say, "We will not pay this unemployment insurance until a block of workmen are out of work". You do not say that. As soon as the workman is out of work, if he is eligible under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, he is paid. The principle of this act is the same as that in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not see why this act cannot be so adjusted as to bring it on the sectional or unit basis. Then the farmer would have confidence in it, knowing that when he got a low yield he would be sure of some measure of relief to tide him over.
I wish the minister would give some further explanation either as to the reason why he has not done so or as to whether he can offer any hope of any such changes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before we go on discussing the section any further, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I wish to have inserted resulting from the comments made by the hon. member for Provencher to the effect that the bill as amended did not cover the settlements that are in river lots. Some of them are in the area up around Battleford, some of them are in various parts of Alberta and some of them are down in Manitoba where the settlements were in existence before the regular survey was made. In the act there is a special definition of this. The amendment would read:
That clause 3 of Bill No. 481 be amended by inserting the words "or any block of settlement or river lots" after the word "land" on page 2 in the fifth, twelfth and twenty-second lines.
I would ask the Minister of Fisheries to move that amendment.


Mr. Sinclair:: I so move.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, I always think it is unfortunate that a bill, when it is introduced, has some good features and some bad features. I think it was generally agreed that the first two sections of Bill No. 481 are desirable and very welcome. However, as we come to section 3, subsection 1, we find that it is an extremely retrograde step indeed. As I was able to determine, the resolution to introduce the contiguous block of townships was brought in at the resolution stage on May 12 of 1950. At that time there
TMr. Hansell.l

was general approval for that measure because it followed up on the principle of assistance to farmers on a basis that would give more consideration to the individual. It was my hope-as it was of my colleagues-that in time the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would be broadened to take in farmers on an individual basis or at least on a sectional basis. They contribute to the fund and it is only right that certain factors which might affect them and which may not affect others should be given consideration and that they 'should get consideration. However, the amendment the minister is now proposing is a completely retrograde step. It is going backwards. It is taking us back to the problems that existed before the introduction of the measure with regard to contiguous sections of land. In the instances of both subsection (a) and subsection (b) injustices will be committed as a result of the act.
In his explanatory note the minister has stated that the reason for the change is administrative difficulties. To me it looks like another way of limiting the payments made under P.F.A.A. It appears to me that they will undoubtedly be reduced by this method of administration rather than on the contiguous township basis. As proof of that may I say this. The minister is perfectly aware of the land classifications we have in Saskatchewan. We will find that we will have a land class 5 running through a township in a helter-skelter pattern, certainly not on a rectangular basis; or in some portions we might find some land in class 2 following a high rise of land through a township. Under subsection (a) you may find some Sceptre heavy clay running through the township which, because of the general class of land, will invariably have a higher amount of Haverhill or Echo soil associations. Therefore because you are restricting it to a rectangular block you may necessitate the exclusion of the whole township from the benefits of the P.F.A.A. because that land is not constituted in a rectangular block. It might be adjacent to an eligible township, and if you follow the present method of administration you can jog three townships to the west, one to the north, another to the west and then another to the north to take in good land, thus bringing the average yield of the township to that stage that would allow it to qualify. There are injustices that might be committed inadvertently and perhaps of necessity by the inspector. For example, if he is making an effort to qualify a township and wants to deduct six sections from the township he may have to jog through someone's farm, and take in a section which would not have an average

yield above 10 bushels to the acre, in order to include an adjoining piece of property of a better class of land.
By the same token, under (b), where you are going to include areas that are adjacent to an eligible township, the block of townships must of necessity be of an irregular shape to conform in the first instance with the land class which has a very close relation to productivity. Second, as the minister pointed out this morning, although the benefits are not paid directly as the result of hail damage, hail can be a contributing factor so far as the yield a farmer may get are concerned. As the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin pointed out, hail storms do not conform to rectangular boundaries. They often skitter across a township in a diagonal pattern which would necessitate the principle of contiguous townships.
Another disadvantage of that system is that a rectangle usually will have two or more sections adjacent to the eligible township. The present system of contiguous sections would mean that one section would have to adjoin an eligible township in order for it to qualify or, by the same token, to be disqualified. I think the minister should give very serious consideration to the suggestion we are making that this is a regressive step, as he did in the case of the suggestion of the hon. member for Provencher. We want as many farmers as possible, and I know the minister does too, to receive the benefits of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and on a basis that will be as fair as possible.
But I submit that by going back to the rectangular shape for sections which are or are not going to come under P.F.A.A. you will create serious hardship on farmers adjacent to these areas. For example, you might have a section of Sceptre heavy clay located in a block of Haverhill clay loam. The man with the Sceptre heavy clay will invariably get a yield of 5 to 7 bushels an acre better than his neighbours, and because you have to have a block rectangular in shape to include them for payment the man with perhaps a 10 bushel yield will be getting a bonus by virtue of his neighbours. On the other hand, if you follow the present system the man really hot entitled to payment will be excluded. By the same token the reverse would be true.
Therefore I can see no other course then to oppose clause 3, subclause 1. I have received correspondence from farmers who noticed an article about the bill in the Star-Phoenix of June 10, four or five days before the measure was introduced in the house and before we had an opportunity to know what was in it. One farmer points out
Prairie Farm Assistance Act that under the proposed system he will be one of hundreds of farmers getting an average yield of about 4 bushels an acre who will be excluded, but under the present arrangement of contiguous blocks of land in an irregular pattern he has been included. I hope the minister will give the matter very careful consideration before taking this backward step.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may say a word on the suggestion, I know it is the opinion of quite a number of members who have discussed the measure with me that they would like to see the legislation left as it is. But I think that, almost without exception, those with whom I have had the privilege of discussing it personally have realized what the difficulties are. It is true that we amended the act in 1950 to make it read as it does now, but since that time we have never been able to administer it in accordance with that provision. The first thing that happened when we started to try to administer it was that we found some township with the township on three sides either in or out, and under the act you could make arrangements which would result in either taking in or leaving out three different groups of sections. When we tried to administer it on that basis it became impossible. We had to pass a regulation to support the board which after all gives the final decisions. The board is not composed of members of the civil service but is appointed to take care of the interests both of the treasury and the farmers concerned. The chairman of the board is Mr. Grant Mac-Ewan of Calgary. Mr. Holmes of Saskatoon, originally a municipal man, and Mr. Matte, who is at the head of P.F.A.A. here in Ottawa.
The board meets periodically and gives consideration to all complaints coming from individuals, municipalities or others and makes final decisions on them. It would amaze members if I had with me today copies of the proposals that have been made from different townships which just could not be carried out if we were going to follow the spirit of the act at all. We have carried on from 1950 down to the present time, and I venture to say that the great majority of complaints received by members of the house during the last year with regard to the administration have arisen because of this zigzagging around making decisions whether this fellow was going to be included and this one excluded, and so on all over these townships.
In the first place the principle of the act was that these lines were drawn straight around the townships so that no one could be accused of serving an individual when the

Prairie Farm Assistance Act line simply went down the range line, across on the township line, up the other range line and across the top township line. That is decided by the act. We made provision later on because of representations that we should permit six sections or more either being made payable or not payable according to the circumstances, but that they had to be rectangular. Again no one could be accused of running the line around the section in order, as the hon. member for Yorkton suggested before lunch, to try to get people in who were relatives in the township.
It is a common thing now to accuse an inspector of favouring a friend by running the line around a certain section of land. It is a common thing too, when someone is left out, to say he is left out because he does not belong to the same political party as the government and that when someone is taken in by just putting the line around one section he must be a friend of somebody. These accusations have become so many and so strong that I do not think the act is going to be helped by having that kind of thing go on any longer. Our experience with the change made in 1950 is that in order to avoid that kind of thing and criticisms of the act all over the place we should return to the way the act was prior to 1950, and that is the only reason for the change.
We think that it served the purpose just as well as it can be served under the principle of this act. I quite admit that if it is possible to have an insurance scheme you can go to individual cases and let the individual pay for what he gets, and deal with it on that basis. But I am inclined to think that so long as we follow the practice we are now following, we should avoid the matter of examining individual positions, and deal with the person because he is in an area where there is drought, or in an area where rust has destroyed the crop, or where grasshoppers have destroyed it, or something of that kind. And, being in that area, he is entitled to payment.
That raises the question as to why a man who does not need it may get payment. Well, he may not need it in the year in which he gets it, but he is just as likely not to be paid next year, and to need it just as badly as somebody else who got it in the preceding year. The result is that we find this year, in relation to all the complaints we got, most of them are in an area where they very seldom had payments before. And that is the area that was afflicted by rust for the first time since this act came into force. Now they are learning all over again what persons in large areas learned where they had drought year after year. And we get very few


complaints from those areas now. We are answering all the same complaints among this group who have come in because of rust. We are answering the complaints that we answered in the first three or four years in connection with drought.
One of those complaints was raised this morning by the hon. member for Selkirk or the hon. member for Yorkton, I am not sure which. I realized at lunch time that I had not answered it fully, if at all. That was the question as to why a man who goes into a town and lives there, and hires people to farm his land, does not get paid. Well, if he is doing nothing but farming he does get paid. If he has just moved into a village or town to educate his children, and has driven out to the farm which may be located five or six miles out of town, he would be paid under the act.
But if, on the other hand, he goes to a village or town to operate an elevator, and his employment is that of running an elevator, he does not need the money paid out through this act with which to meet his store bill so that he would be able to stay on the farm. He is not staying on the farm anyway, and he is not really operating the farm. He has hired somebody else to operate it, or he has rented it. And if he has rented, then his renter will get the payment. Someone will say, "I own the land; why should I not get the payment? It is taken out of my wheat as well as out of the operator's wheat". Well, the answer is obvious. The renter is on the land all the time, and he gets enough money with which to pay his store bill, so that he can stay there. If the man who owns the land thinks he should have some of that money he has to write it into his agreement with the renter. And if you cannot get the renter to do that, then any money that is paid goes to the renter and not to the owner.


Mr. Coldwell:: Would that agreement be valid?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, he might be able to enforce it as between himself and the individual; I do not know. I do not think that has been tried out. We say in the act that you cannot garnishee. That may mean that he cannot enforce it, although he has the right not to rent it to him next year if he does not pay. And that may have happened in some cases.
All I wish to say is that our experiences with this have been such that we think it should be changed and, over a period of years, although a man may feel this year he has been injured by it, by the time he has had experience for two or three years with

it he will find it will work out just about the same for him as for anybody else.


John George Diefenbaker: This morning the minister told me, when I asked him as to whether or not this act might be made retroactive, that in view of the fact that the season under P.F.A.A. ends on July 31 these amendments would in fact be applicable to the 1954 failures, and the changes that are made would be subject to the amendments now being introduced. I want to ask the minister this: If what he said is correct, what is going to be the position of those farmers who at the present time live on contiguous sections which have been taken out of townships in order to make it applicable? Now that the alteration is made whereby these sections must be in rectangular form in order to restore the law to what it was prior to 1950, will that mean that some who received payments up to date will be in the position of having to reimburse; and on the other hand will it mean that some, who have been denied payments up to the present time, in consequence of the reassessment of the situation by officials of P.F.A.A., will be found entitled?
The minister might also answer this question:	Under these amendments, and
taking it for granted, as he stated this morning, that the amendments will cover last year's crop, because of the fact that the P.F.A.A. year does not terminate until July 31, how many will benefit by this act and receive payments who, up to now, have been denied?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as the first question is concerned, there is no intention of trying to claim any money that has been paid out under the act as it now is. As a matter of fact I think nearly all, if not all, the inspections have been made, and there is nothing retroactive in the sense that, in respect of those inspections, we will go back and make a check, or deny to anyone payment that has properly been made. Of course we still have the right under the act to go back and make a check with respect to someone who was not properly paid in the first place, and try to collect the money back. We might have difficulty collecting it; nevertheless we probably have the right to. But so far as zigzagging around any township is concerned, it is not the intention to go back and do that. It is not the intention to zigzag around any township with a view to picking out a section here or there in order to get all the area that might place that township in the position of being eligible. We will not go back to deal with those at all.
With respect to the other matter, I cannot conceive of any place where even making it
Prairie Farm Assistance Act rectangular would result in damage to any particular individual. I cannot conceive of any condition under which we would start out to do that. My reference in the main this morning was to the matter of payment made on land that has been under water. The terms of the act make it possible for us to make payment in connection with that down to the end of July. We may have another look at some of those which have been turned down.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I had in mind. Does the minister intend to have another look at some of these cases?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we intend to have
another look at some of them, where they were turned down for a reason that this act now removes. I said this morning there is no great difficulty about land that was seeded or land that was summerfallowed; but there was some difficulty about determining whether or not certain land ought to be considered cultivated land.
Every member from western Canada knows that out there we have enormous sloughs, as we call them-some people call them lakes-covering very considerable areas. And during dry years the farmers kept pressing in on those sloughs, and getting closer in all the time, knowing that 10 or 20 years ago they were lakes and there was water on that land. It is not just fair to say to a fellow that he should have known about this, that if he had been there in 1882 or 1884 it would have been all flooded, that he should have known that it would be flooded, and that therefore it was not land he should have cultivated.
But, to a degree, some of those things have been said. We will go back and have another look at those cases where we turned people down because they could not prove this or prove that. And there may be some payments made; but I do not think there will be many of them. In fact I would think the number would be quite limited.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister any idea he can give the committee as to the numbers who may be affected by this reconsideration of the matter on the basis of the amendment? There must be quite a large number in this position because, as the minister said, every member from the west knows of the situation that has arisen by reason of the law being what it now is. Naturally, there will be many farmers who have been denied payment since 1950. That of course will refer only to the 1954-55 season, and those who now would be in a position to qualify. What is the general plan that the minister has in mind for reassessing those borderline

Prairie Farm Assistance Act cases to which, as he told us, some strong objection has been taken by the farmers affected?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have all the facts in connection with all of them on the record. Claims have been made for payment. Some have been paid and some have not. The number that has not been paid who will be qualified under this bill is not large. Those records will be gone over again-I presume they can be gone over-and decisions made by the board before the end of July.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has no idea how many there are?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no idea how many there would be, but I would say it would not be a great number because these cases occur in the areas where inspectors and others were likely to give the benefit of the doubt to the individual simply because he has been paying in year after year and has not been getting anything out of it.


Victor Quelch: There will be very little
enthusiasm for this amendment because it puts us back into the position where we were in 1950. It was owing to the dissatisfaction that existed then that a change was made to make contiguous blocks of particular sections rather than have rectangular blocks. It was explained then as today that crop failures do not come in rectangular blocks. Therefore it was thought better to allow irregular blocks to be formed. But, as the hon. member for Macleod has pointed out, the only way you can ever get farmers in a satisfied frame of mind would be to assess losses on an individual basis, which would lead us into a system of crop insurance. That, I believe, is the only solution of this problem.
So far as the present situation is concerned, I do not consider it satisfactory by any means. Every year I receive many complaints. The complaints I receive are all in relation to section 6, and particularly in relation to section 6 (a). In other words, the complaints are from farmers who reside in a township that has been declared eligible. They want to know why they are not getting the bonus when their neighbours are getting it. As soon as I get a letter of that kind I know that a block has been established under 6 (a). These blocks are often in very peculiar shapes. The result is that farmers have neighbours to the right, to the left and behind them, or on three sides of them, receiving the bonus, yet they do not get it. It is very hard for them to understand why they are not getting it.


There is under the act as it is today, in my opinion, altogether too much gerrymandering. I am not using the word "gerrymandering" in an obnoxious way to suggest that the government is gerrymandering, but a lot of gerrymandering is going on in various directions. It is simply for the reason, as the minister has pointed out, that it is difficult to decide where you are to push that irregular block, who is to be included and who is to be left out. I have this complaint, and I am citing it as an example. I could cite many other examples. This one is in the Rumsey district. A township had been declared eligible. It was found that four sections had an average yield of 20 bushels to the acre. They were not touching each other. It was found that by inserting two more sections and including them in with the four they could declare an ineligible block of the six sections. The average yield was still above 10 bushels to the acre. Therefore, that block could be established. This led me to write to the officials of the P.F.A.A. to suggest it was not fair to put into an ineligible block two sections of land that had a total crop failure. The reply was, All right, if you do not think these sections should be put in, you give us two other sections. I ask the minister this question. If he received a letter along that line would he name two other sections? I knew very well that if I named them they would write to these individuals and say, your member suggested that you should be denied the bonus. Therefore, I isfused to make any suggestion along that line. My suggestion was that no section having a crop failure should be inserted into an ineligible block of sections of a township that had already been declared eligible.


James Garfield Gardiner: The act would not permit you to do that. The act says if there are over 10 bushels to the acre-


Victor Quelch: Yes, the act says that the average yield of the block of sections shall be 10 bushels or more to the acre. I think it should be the average yield of the sections in that block that should be over 10 bushels to the acre. Certainly, I think that once a township has been declared eligible it is not fair to deny the bonus to any section of that township that has a crop failure; and yet, under the act as it is now, you can set up an ineligible block and put sections into that block that have had a total crop failure. Naturally those farmers are mad. Practically every complaint I have had within the past three or four years has been with respect to section 6 (a), and for that reason I would favour changing it over from the block of

contiguous sections to a rectangular block so far as section 6 (a) is concerned.
In so far as section 6 (b) is concerned, I do not advocate that we change back to the rectangular block, because it will make it harder to give the bonus to the farmer. If we change section 6 (a) over to a rectangular block it will be harder to deny the bonus to the farmers. If we left 6 (b) as a block of contiguous sections it would be easier to establish the eligible block. Personally, I would favour only one of these being changed.
The interesting point is this. Can the minister tell us how many ineligible blocks have been established under section 6 (a), and how many eligible block sections have been established under 6 (b>? If more ineligible blocks have been established under the act, then I think it might be assumed that the farmers would gain by having that section changed back to the rectangular block instead of the contiguous block. It all depends on how these sections have been operating in the past two years.


James Garfield Gardiner: The nature of the figures would be obvious even if I did not read them. Nobody has been asking to have people taken out under the act. Many are asking to be kept under it; therefore, it is obvious that there would be more dealt with in such a manner as to put more people under than would be dealt with in order to keep them out. In other words, you have the inspector who has to go around to hunt up all the areas that are to be put above 10 bushels to the acre so they cannot get payment. Nobody is going to help him. He has to do it himself. Everybody is helping him to do the other job, to get everybody in under it. The figures obviously prove that. In 1949 the number of blocks taken out was 437, and the number of blocks put in was 1,000, just about two to one. In 1950, 366 were taken out and 780 were put in. In
1951,	277 were taken out and 497 put in; in
1952,	129 were taken out and 292 put in; in 1953, 210 were taken out and 599 put in.
I am simply saying that it was not because of that that we changed it. I did not know that until yesterday. When somebody began to dispute my opinion that it would be about equal, I said that that was the intention of the act. The explanation that I gave to the government when I got them to put it in was that it was possible and altogether probable that the area taken out from payment would be just about the same as was taken in. I did not figure strongly enough on the fact that the inspector was going to have a lot of help in getting areas taken out of the township so that the rest of the 50433-320
Prairie Farm Assistance Act township would go in, but he is not going to have very much help with the other and that is borne out by these figures.
People may say that is the reason we did it, but it is not the reason. I want to emphasize that it was not based on that at all; it was based on the trouble we had satisfying people in any of these townships whether they were being taken in or taken out that the inspector had done the right thing. Almost invariably when we dealt with a township on that basis, especially in the early years of its operations, we got the criticism that we had taken this fellow in because of something or other and we got criticism from another man that he was the only one left out which resulted because he was the best farmer in the district and had more crop than the rest. That happened to be true in a lot of cases. Where it is not so true is the case of the chap who said this year that the reason he did not get in in the district was because his farm grew too much wheat and the reason he grew too much was because he manured the land. My reply to those who criticized was, "Why did you not manure yours?" The objective we had in mind was to eliminate this kind of difficulty which we were running into.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to ask a further
question in connection with the amendment. How far north does it go?


James Garfield Gardiner: In Alberta it goes up to
township 60.


William Scottie Bryce: I mean the one the hon.
member for Provencher brought in.


James Garfield Gardiner: It goes all over the area
that is covered.


William Scottie Bryce: Does it go to the mouth of the Red river?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any place where there has been a settlement of that type.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I have not had anything
to do with the administration of this act but I am worried by the change brought about by clause 3 of the bill. I have a map here of my constituency which sets out clearly the pattern the minister spoke about where you have almost a zigzag puzzle. If we go back to the rectangular I can see where at least 15 sections will be taken out of that small part of my municipality. Most of the municipality obtained benefits under the act, but the small part that did not get any benefits will be enlarged by at least 15 sections, and that is a considerable area. That will mean that probably 25 farmers will be cut out of the benefits of the act.

Dominion-Provincial Conference
I agree with the hon. member for Kinders-ley and other hon. members who have spoken that when a farmer has a crop failure he needs help and the more that are cut off from the benefits of this act the more we are going to harm our people. I think we should give careful consideration to going back to the original rectangular idea as I think this change is a mistake.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask the indulgence of the committee and suggest that you rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day so that I may inform the house that the meeting of the committee of the dominion-provincial governments to discuss unemployment has just risen and I would like to indicate what has been done.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister
leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE UNEMPLOYMENT  STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the conference of
federal and provincial governments to discuss the problem of relief for unemployed persons not covered by unemployment insurance has just risen and I propose to give to the press a statement that will be along these lines.
At the conclusion of the meeting held on June 20 and 21 it was announced that the provincial and federal representatives had discussed several suggestions for sharing the costs of providing assistance to the unemployed persons in need. These suggestions arose out of the consideration of the general proposal put forward by the federal government at the conference late in April and took into account the facts and figures assembled since that time.
The provincial representatives have decided to consider with their governments the modified proposal made to them that the federal government accept one-half of the cost of relief for the number of those in need in each province in excess of 0-45 per cent of the population of the province. This 0-45 per cent of the population proposed as the starting point for federal sharing is taken as a measure of the basic load of those in need because they are unemployable, and would make it unnecessary for the federal government to make any distinction between payments to persons who are employable and those who are not employable. Special

consideration will be given to the problem arising in any province where the load of unemployable persons receiving assistance has normally been below this level of 0-45 per cent.
Public investment and other measures that would help to maintain employment at a high level will be considered at the October conference and preparatory discussions on these subjects as well as other items on the agenda will take place at a meeting of the preparatory committee of provincial and federal officials early in July.
The modified proposal put before the conference after our discussion and which the representatives of each province will consider and about which they will give us the answer of their respective governments is as follows:
1.	The federal government proposes to share with the provinces the cost of assistance paid to those who are unemployed and in need. Because of the difficulty of distinguishing in individual cases between employable and unemployable persons, the federal government proposes that it will not share in the cost of a certain minimum amount of this assistance, but will share in the cost of relief beyond this minimum without examining whether it is paid to employable individuals or those who are not employable.
2.	It is understood that payments would be made by municipal or provincial authorities or by agencies acting for them. These authorities would determine the scale and condition of payments, including the means test.
3. Records would be kept of the number of persons receiving assistance each month, including dependents, and the amounts paid to each of them. These records would be subject to test audits by provincial and federal authorities.
4. A count will be made of the number of persons receiving assistance in each province in each month, including their dependents. This case count will be the basis for determining the point at which the federal share in expenditures commences.
5.	Those receiving assistance under mothers' allowance legislation would be excluded from the case count and the payments to them excluded from the total of assistance payments. In any province where the total number of cases receiving mothers' allowances, including dependents, as a proportion of the population of the province, is less than the proportion it was, averaged over a year for any year since March 31, 1945, by more than O'10 per cent of the population, the amount of such excess over O'10 per cent shall be subtracted from the count of assistance cases, as a proportion of the population, in calculating the federal assistance for any month in any province.
That is because it so happened that in one or perhaps more than one of the provinces many of the cases that normally throughout Canada would still be mothers' allowance cases were transferred to the general relief rolls and taken off the mothers' allowance roll.
6.	Those receiving assistance under special provincial legislation will be included in the case count and the payments to them will be included in the total of assistance payments, if and to the extent that such assistance is recognized in the

agreement with that province as being roughly equivalent to what other provinces do as part of their general assistance measures.
There is one province at least where there is a widows' allowance tor persons who in most other provinces would be taken care of under the general relief fund. This is intended to allow an adjustment to be made so there would be excluded from the count only those who would not elsewhere be put on the general relief rolls.
7.	Those in public or private institutions would as a general rule be excluded from the count of cases receiving assistance, and payments to or on behalf of them will be excluded from the total of assistance payments.
This is made as a general rule because there is at least one province with a provincial institution where there is assistance provided that would normally elsewhere be a part of the general assistance rule. It is so that account may be taken of that, and so that it may be adjusted to have it as nearly as possible on the same basis as in the provinces generally.
8.	Those receiving payments to which the federal government contributes under other legislation, and payments to them, will be excluded from the plan.
The question was raised whether that was intended to exclude those who received children's allowances. Of course it does not, because that is not something to which we contribute; it is a payment made by the federal government, and if it happens that a family that is in receipt of children's allowance is in such need that the local authorities feel it must get further assistance, the further assistance would be included but not, of course, a duplication of the children's allowance itself.
9.	Payments for medical, hospital and dental care, or for burial, will be excluded from the total of assistance payments to be shared. Payments for transportation expenses will only be included under conditions to be specified in agreements.
10.	The total of assistance payments in a province for each month, adjusted if necessary in accordance with the paragraphs above, would be divided by the number of persons receiving assistance that month in that province, including dependents, adjusted if necessary in accordance with the paragraphs above, to get the average assistance payment per person for that month.
A person may have been on the roll for only a week during that month, but he would be counted as one and the total number of persons receiving assistance would be the divisor to divide the total amount paid out to find out what is the average per person.
11.	The number of persons receiving assistance in the province for the month, adjusted if necessary in accordance with the paragraphs above, would be divided by the estimate of population of the province for the preceding June 1, to get the percentage of persons receiving assistance in that province for the month.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
The dominion bureau of statistics figures for the population of June of 1955 would be the figure that would be used for the whole of the first year during which the agreement with the province might be in force, so that the gradual increase during that year of the population would not affect the numbers with respect to whom the federal government would be sharing the cost.
12.	If the percentage of persons receiving assistance in a province in any month does not exceed 0-45 per cent of the population of that province, the federal government will not contribute toward the assistance payments in that province for that month.
13.	If the percentage of persons receiving assistance in a province in any month is in excess of 0-45 per cent of the population of that province, the federal government will pay to the province an amount equal to the number of cases in excess of that 0-45 per cent of the population of the province multiplied by one-half of the average assistance payment per person in that province for that month.
14.	The details regarding this plan for sharing in the cost of assistance to the unemployed will be embodied in agreements with each province joining in the plan. These agreements will be drawn up following the present meeting and discussed, at a subsequent meeting of ministers-
-if a subsequent meeting is necessary. But I think it is the desire of those who were at the conference to try to have agreements worked out and signed before the October meeting, as an indication that we can come to terms when we set about trying to do the right kind of job for the Canadian people.
The effective date of the commencement of the sharing arrangement in each province shall be specified in the agreement with that province. It shall not in any case be earlier than July 1, 1955. That was the date suggested by one provincial premier. Another suggested that he would prefer that his agreement be not effective until the 1st of January, 1956, so it was left that the effect of the agreement will be determined individually with each province that makes an agreement, but that it will not in any event be retroactive to a date earlier than July 1, 1955, and will for the first year be based on the dominion bureau of statistics figures of population as of June, 1955.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 481, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 3-Blocks ineligible for award.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 3 as amended carry?

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman, although the minister explained to the committee how these administrative difficulties have made it necessary to change from the contiguous block of sections to the rectangular shape of townships, I am not too well satisfied that that is sufficient reason for going back to the old system. He mentioned the board of review, of which the chairman is Professor MacEwan. I have a high regard for Professor MacEwan, since he taught me animal husbandry, and I believe he would be very capable of making decisions as to whether these farmers should be taken into those contiguous townships or whether they should be excluded. I think the argument I presented was not sufficiently disproven by the minister, that is the variation in the land class and the variation in crop conditions in that area, which means that the zoning must be done on some other basis than that of a rectangular-shaped block. However, Mr. Chairman, since in our opposition to subsection 1 we would like to express our appreciation for subsection 2, I want it to be understood that when we are opposing section 3 we are opposing only the first part of what was formerly section 6; that is subsection 1. Therefore to reinforce our argument I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Mountain:
That clause 3 of Bill No. 481 be further amended by deleting the words "is repealed and the following substituted therefor" and by substituting therefor the words "is amended by adding thereto the following subsection", and also by deleting lines 3 to 26, both inclusive, from page 2 of the said bill.
This amendment will have the effect of leaving the contiguous block of sections in the act. In other words, section 6 will read as it now reads, but by section 3 we shall have included subsection 2 which includes a highly desirable feature.


William Alfred Robinson: I am in some doubt as to the technical effect of this amendment as applied to the clause as originally drafted. I might draw the attention of hon. members of the committee to the latter part of citation 669 in Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
. . . Amendments must be made in the order of the lines of a clause. If the latter part of a clause is amended, it is not competent for a member to move to amend an earlier or antecedent part of the same clause. But if an amendment to the latter part of a clause is withdrawn, then it is competent to propose one to an earlier part.
I point out to the hon. member that the Minister of Fisheries moved an amendment to clause 3 which affected lines 5, 12 and 22. I am therefore in some difficulty, in that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kindersley would offend the citation in
[The Chairman.]
Beauchesne's third edition which I have just mentioned. For these reasons, and also for the reason that it is possible that the amendment might involve additional expenditure and would therefore be out of order, I think perhaps I should indicate that I believe the amendment proposed is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 3 as amended carry?


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to point out to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that we have supported this bill so far because under it we are taking in flood damage which has been the cause of crop failure and some hardship to the farmers in that area. However, we are opposed to the plan outlined in this bill of putting a rectangular block of sections back into the act. I do not think the minister's reasons are valid. Under that system I believe there will be more injustice than there will be under the present section where contiguous sections are being used.
After all, there is only one way of settling this matter and doing it justly. Under both the systems it is possible, and it has occurred in hundreds of cases that a farmer with production of over 12 bushels per acre may receive bonus payments under this act whereas another farmer within the same township who obtained less than 4 bushels an acre may be denied any assistance, in spite of the fact that both paid into the fund and in spite of the fact that production in one case was more than the 8 bushels required under the act and in the other case was less.
There is only one way of making sure that the farmer who deserves this payment will get it and it is this. When the inspection is made, place those farmers who have less than 8 bushels per acre in a position where they are eligible to receive payment; and as to those who obtain over the 8 bushels an acre, exclude them from the act. On that basis we will know what is fair and right, and that is the only fair basis upon which it can be done.
I do not see how we can bring about a system of justice without adopting such a procedure. I do not see where it will cost any more. It seems to me that the administrative difficulties will be lessened. After all, the whole of the area must be inspected. The inspectors most make visits to each individual farmer and ascertain what the production was. If a township is eligible; if there are in it farms which have been inspected and it is found that there are the correct number of sections to make it eligible for payment, then why not do the thing on an individual basis and say that those farmers who have

more than 8 bushels per acre will not receive assistance and those who have less than 8 bushels per acre will be eligible? That is the only fair way in which it can be done.
We intend to oppose this section 3 in so far as it amends section 6, clause 1. However, we support clause 2 of that amendment- that is under section 6-which reads as follows:
(2) Where a block of sections of land referred to in subsection 1 includes an area of cultivated land that could not be seeded or summerfallowed in a year of award owing to natural causes beyond the control of the farmers of such cultivated land, the area of cultivated land is not ineligible for award by reason of anything in this section and all the other provisions of this act respecting awards are applicable to such area.
I want to make our position abundantly clear on this matter because we are not going to pass section 3 in parts. Since our amendment has been declared to be out of order I want to make our stand clear. We believe this matter should be handled on an individual basis. We believe you are going to continue to get complaints until that is done. I do not see yet wherein the minister has proven that, inasmuch as it is necessary to make an inspection of each farm in the area, it would be any more difficult to handle the matter on an individual basis than on the basis on which it is being done now, gerrymandering in and out all over the section and having under that system the resultant injustice in that many of those not really eligible are receiving payments while those who have production of less than 8 bushels per acre are not able to obtain anything under the act as it is at present.
Clause as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


James Garfield Gardiner: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CRIMINAL CODE


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code respecting the operation
Criminal Code
of the parimutuel system of betting used upon race courses and to provide that a levy shall be made sufficient to ensure uniform and adequate supervision.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should make an explanation. Subsection 3 of section 178 of the Criminal Code provides that the federal government shall supervise race track betting, and further provides that the cost of the supervision shall in each case be borne by the racing association. This works a hardship, particularly on the smaller associations, as supervision costs have reached a point where they are frequently as much as one-third of the gross amount which the association is allowed by law to retain from the money wagered. Some of the smaller associations find it difficult to survive under these conditions, and certain improvements in supervision are being withheld because of the added burden of cost that would be entailed.
A flat levy of one-half of 1 per cent on the money wagered at all tracks would enable the Department of Agriculture to provide uniform and adequate supervision. The effect of this would be that those who are protected by the supervision, namely the betting public, would bear the cost. To illustrate, there are smaller places in this and in all provinces where the cost for supervisors would work out at about $40 per day whereas the whole amount of the earnings would be approximately $70 or $80.
There are two difficulties. Under the present situation the small concerns that have races, most of them being small fairs or other organizations throughout the country, are either put in the position where all or nearly all the money they take in is required to pay the cost of supervision, or going without supervision altogether, in which case some of them are liable to prosecution because of certain things done. It has been suggested that if one-half of 1 per cent is taken off all wagering done throughout the country and made available to those from the Department of Agriculture who administer parimutuel betting, then inspectors can be sent to all these smaller places.
The result will be that the wagering done at the larger places will assist in seeing that supervision is properly carried out at the small places all over the country, and the question will not arise of whether or not there should be prosecutions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the light of the fact that a joint committee of parliament is now studying the whole question of the gambling laws

Criminal Code
of the country, I think the only comment one might make here is that it would he desirable for the minister to give us the assurance that no change in principle is involved here but simply a change in administrative procedure. At the very time a parliamentary committee is considering the general question I consider it would probably be felt undesirable that any change in principle with respect to parimutuel or other types of betting should be made by parliament. If it is merely a change in the administration of betting with relation to supervision or something of that sort, and does not carry into effect any change in principle, I see no reason why it should not have our support.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I understand it, each racing association throughout Canada will now pay one-half of 1 per cent of all moneys bet, and this is being done in order to help the small associations which do not make enough money. It will aid the small associations and perhaps take a little more from the bigger ones which are in a position to bear the cost. Is that true?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the substance of it. The legislation does not actually take anything from the associations. It takes the money from those who are wagering at the larger tracks and makes provision for it to be paid to us so we can use it to take care of the smaller ones.


John Alpheus Charlton: There will be no charge for the administration of parimutuel betting other than the one-half of 1 per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right. In answer to the hon. member for Kamloops, there is no change in principle so far as betting or wagering is concerned. That continues under the same kind of control as it does now. The legislation just makes it that much more certain that the supervision will be there.
There is one other point about the legislation that I did not mention. It is provided now that no more than eight races or dashes or two dashes and four heat races of two heats each shall take place. The amendment will provide for two dashes and four heat races of two heats each. There can be ten races. Under one of the other provisions there can be twelve, so this change does not bring the number up to the maximum that can be run.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 504, to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings).

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read a second time?


James Garfield Gardiner: Now, with leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, next sitting.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Judges Act to increase the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada and the superior and county courts of the provinces; to increase the number of judges for the British Columbia court of appeal and the supreme court each by one; to provide for a judge for the territorial court of the Northwest Territories; and to provide certain adjustments as to pensions of judges and widows of judges.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, this resolution, when supplemented by one or two items of information which I now propose to give the committee, will, I think, be completely self-explanatory. I spoke to those members of the opposition who I thought might chiefly be interested in this matter and suggested that instead of the practice we followed on the last occasion on which a bill to increase judges' salaries was before the house, at which time we had quite a long debate at the resolution stage, we might discuss the present legislation with greater profit on second reading of the bill.
As the resolution indicates, the proposal here is that judges' salaries shall be increased; and I think there is no impropriety in my saying that the proposal that will be embodied in the bill is that there shall be an increase of $2,500 per year to every judge, in both the federal and provincial courts in Canada.
The second purpose of the bill is to increase by one in British Columbia the number of supreme court judges and the number of judges in the court of appeal; and also to provide for the appointment of a supreme court judge for the territorial court of the Northwest Territories.

As in the case of the increase in judicial salaries in Great Britain last year, there will be no increase in pensions paid to Canadian judges consequent upon the increase in their salaries as provided in this bill.
In addition there will be an adjustment in respect of the present pensions which the judges get upon retirement, in those cases in which they have elected to have one-third of their pensions assigned to their wives, and payable to such wives during their lifetime.
However, I think we can discuss this pension adjustment much more intelligently when we have the text of the bill before us. I would ask that the resolution be passed and that we consider this pension adjustment when we have the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the official opposition I may say that we have no quarrel with the general principle of the resolution, particularly that part of it which provides for an increase in the salaries of judges of both dominion and provincial courts.
We recognize that the judiciary should be independent, that independence includes financial independence, and that judges should have proper recompense for their work. I do not wish what I have to say now to be taken as modifying the statement I have made to the effect that we are not going to oppose the resolution, but I do wish to voice briefly on behalf of the official opposition certain thoughts we have as to weaknesses in connection with the appointment of judges generally.
We object to the present method under which judges are appointed in this country; perhaps not so much to the method of appointment as to the principles which seem to be followed by the government in making those appointments when, generally speaking, political qualifications appear to come first. I am not saying that is so in every appointment, but I think it is the fact in far too many of them. We believe that is one of the reasons the minister is experiencing difficulty in getting lawyers to accept positions as judges, because he looks only to one political group in this country to provide the main source of judicial appointments.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to attribute to me remarks I have not made. I am not aware that I have ever stated I had any difficulty in getting candidates for the bench, because I can assure him that such has not been the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I recall definitely one occasion when the minister indicated that he had the greatest difficulty in getting what he regarded
Judges Act
as satisfactory candidates. That was with reference particularly to the trial court in Ontario. I am not saying the minister has said the appointments he has made are not suitable, because I would not expect him to say that. I do not have Hansard before me, and if it can be shown that what I am saying is not correct I shall be glad to be shown. However, I do recall that on the occasion of the last salary increase remarks were made to the effect that at the previous salary levels the minister was finding it difficult to obtain suitable candidates for appointment to judicial positions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do think that when my hon. friend is attempting to impute to me remarks such as those he has just made, he should quote Hansard; and that I am sure he is not able to do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I would be able to do so, and I shall certainly look back over Hansard of the past. But at least the minister will agree with me when I say that in the past it has been stated as a general proposition by himself that one of the difficulties in connection with filling judicial appointments has been that lawyers were reluctant to take the positions at the salaries then prevailing. But I believe one of the reasons for that difficulty, if there is any such difficulty, which the minister has experienced in the past is, in part, because the judiciary is not held in as high regard as it should be in this country, and as it is in other countries. I believe one of the reasons for that situation is the opinion held by and large throughout the country -and it is not confined to members of the official opposition-as to the principles the minister follows in making those appointments.
However, having said that, I repeat that we see in the principle of the resolution, and the bill which will be based upon it, mainly the question of increasing the salaries of judges. Whatever objection we may have as to the principles followed by the minister in the past in the making of appointments, I think perhaps the two propositions can be kept separate. Criticism of the government as to the method of making appointments should be kept separate from the question of whether or not there is justification for an increase in salaries for judicial positions.
But we feel strongly that after the bill based upon this resolution is passed, as I assume it will be, the minister must bear in mind the suggestions and the criticisms we have offered, and which I am now reflecting, when we say that he must not regard the field of suitable candidates for judicial positions as confined primarily to those who are sympathetic to the Liberal party.

Judges Act
I wish to say also that in my view it is a privilege, amounting almost to a duty, oa the part of the bar as a whole to accept judicial appointments. I am certain I am correct when I say that in the past we have had it suggested to us that it is a tremendous sacrifice for a successful practicing lawyer to accept a judicial appointment, particularly at the salaries which have been prevailing. That argument has been used to justify increases in judges' salaries which from time to time have been placed before parliament for approval.
We cannot sit here and pontificate, saying that lawyers must be content with the honour which flows from judicial position and pay no regard to the financial implications following the acceptance of such judicial position. Nevertheless, while I believe one reason some lawyers have been reluctant to accept appointments as judges lies in the fact that the principles being followed in the appointment of judges are not what they should be and therefore the regard for the judiciary is not what it should be, I do feel that to a certain extent the bar as a whole has been perhaps somewhat lacking in appreciation of what amoWfts to the duty of accepting such appointments which are the highest it is within the competence of this country to bestow.
If I am correctly informed, I understand that in Great Britain it is almost an unwritten law that barristers offered appointment to the higher courts should accept such appointments, even although they involve considerable financial sacrifice. If, then, the increased salaries now being proposed will minimize the financial sacrifice which would follow from the acceptance of judicial office, then I think it is proper for us to suggest that the bar here would do well to adopt an attitude somewhat similar to that prevailing in the United Kingdom.
However, subject to these few comments, we are going to defer any further criticism or attacks upon the government on the method they follow in making appointments and the restrictions they impose upon the qualifications of candidates, at least until second reading of the bill, and probably until the minister's estimates are reached.
I realize it might be politically attractive to offer criticism at this time of the increase in judicial salaries. There are a number of obvious remarks that come to mind that might be made, because there are many in the country who also desire increases in the remuneration or the payments they receive from the government. It would be easy to say, well, why do you single out judges? Mr. Chairman, we rest our approach to this resolution on the basis I previously stated. The 
principle of this legislation is that there should be an increase in the salaries of judges. It may be that there should be increases in other payments as well, but it seems to me that is a separate question. We are therefore going to resist what might be, as I say, an attractive political temptation and confine our discussion of this resolution exclusively to that principle.
We believe there is justification for an increase in the level of salaries; we believe it is sound political philosophy as well as in accordance with good Conservative philosophy to agree that those who assume high office should be paid what the position demands, and then that we should demand the government appoint only the best to that office.
There is only one other comment I should like to make. It is to some extent a side issue. We are given to understand from time to time that in considering the problem of increasing judges' salaries there confronts the department the additional difficulty that judges in different parts of the country holding comparable appointments are called upon to do greatly differing quantities of work. I am not going to single out any one province as against another, but anyone who has any acquaintance with our system of justice and the administration of justice in this country will know what I mean. It is an accident of population if you like, but there are some judges who, by the very nature of the locale of their appointments, are called upon to do a great deal more work than judges in other localities although all judges in comparable positions, so far as this parliament is concerned, are in receipt of the same remuneration.
I understand that in some provinces some of the county court judges particularly are in receipt of additional remuneration paid by the provinces for what is called surrogate work-in my province it would be called probate work-although in British Columbia that system does not prevail. That again increases the inequality between the amount of work done on the one hand by judges holding the same appointment and the remuneration they receive on the other.
Then again in some provinces, indeed I would say in most provinces, it is becoming a practice, which we on this side of the house regard as disturbing, to appoint judges to commissions, boards of inquiry and other similar posts, which all too often are concerned with matters which have political implications.
We regard it as the duty of a judge to be
on the bench. That is what he is appointed

for. Many provinces are now coming before parliament with requests for increases in the number of judges in their courts. I suggest it is not consistent or logical that on the one hand there should be those quite numerous requests for increases in the number of judges in the courts within the provinces while at the same time there is an increasing tendency to appoint judges to royal commissions, boards of inquiry or labour arbitration. We regard that tendency as particularly objectionable and open to question when it involves the appointment of a judge to head a commission or board where the subject matter of the inquiry itself has a political or semipolitical implication.
Those problems, the disparity in the amount of work being done by judges in different localities and the question of the appointment of judges to these boards of inquiry, commissions, labour arbitrations or quasi-labour courts are, I realize, in large measure matters of provincial responsibility, although it has been the practice here, and I think to a disturbing extent, for the dominion government also to appoint judges as royal commissioners even on commissions dealing with matters having political implications
Therefore this government is not free from criticism in that regard. But by and large, this is a matter where provincial administrations are concerned. Nevertheless, these problems confront us, and most certainly confront the department, in dealing with the over-all question of increasing the salaries of judges.
It seems to me therefore appropriate at this time to suggest that the Minister of Justice might consider calling the attorneys general of the provinces into conference with him to discuss ways and means whereby the burdens of judges of equivalent status, let us say the judges of the supreme courts and the judges of the county courts of the various provinces, might be equalized. This government cannot do it alone because of the features I have mentioned; but it would be desirable to have the whole matter investigated and made the subject of discussion among the minister and the provincial attorneys general.
Subject to these comments, we of the official opposition, viewing this resolution as involving mainly the principle of an increase in judges' salaries, and feeling as we do that justification for that increase exists and that the administrative details which will follow from the other part of the resolution are such as we can support, intend to support the resolution.
Judges Act


James Sinclair: Will the hon. member permit a question? It is a strange field for me to intervene in. In view of his remarks about the political affiliation of lawyers who are made judges, does he recall as a British Columbian that the last British Columbia lawyer to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada was not only a Tory but treasurer of the Tory party in British Columbia?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is quite wrong in at least part of the remark he has just made. I do not think it is desirable to single out individuals in discussions of this nature in the house. I content myself with simply saying to the minister that he is wrong in one part of the remark he has just made; but I would also remind him that in my remarks I admitted that not all appointments made recently have been from members of the Liberal party. That does not change the fact that the vast majority still are, and that in general the attitude of this government is that one of the primary qualifications for judicial appointment shall be political.


Mr. Croll:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? In view of the hon. member's inability to answer completely the question of the minister, does he know that out of the last three appointments to the supreme court of Ontario, two were card-carrying Conservatives?


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
James Sinclair: The hon. member has questioned my accuracy. I am rather inclined to agree that he may have a point, because when the hon. gentleman was appointed there was a Tory party in British Columbia but since that time it has been absorbed by the Social Credit party. To that extent perhaps I am wrong.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the minister was just wrong. As usual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, despite the controversy which has developed during the last few minutes I think it is correct to say

Judges Act
that all of us in this house feel that it is important to democracy that the judges of our courts be held in the highest possible regard. We feel likewise that because of the importance of their position they should enjoy a reasonable measure of independence and security. However, I must say that we in this group dislike the way in which a price tag is put on high regard.
Others have indicated already that the judges of our courts enjoy advantages other than their salaries, and I shall have something to say in a moment about those salaries. They also have at least one other financial advantage, but I would point out that there is something real and worth while to an individual in the prestige of being a judge of any of the courts of this country. I do not hobnob with judges every day, but I do know a few of them personally. It is my experience that they are most happy individuals. They are men who are in the fortunate position, as for that matter are most members of parliament, of having their vocation and avocation one and the same thing. Most judges really enjoy their work. It is what they have been trained for and it coincides with their interests. If I may go a bit further, I know of some who have gone from this house to the bench, and who have admitted to me that they enjoy the life immensely. I suggest that these things should be taken into consideration, but I am ready to admit that I would not suggest that because of the prestige and the honour and the pleasure our judges enjoy they should be asked to work for nothing. Everyone knows that no such request is being made.
Although the Minister of Justice indicated the amount of the increase to be proposed in the bill; although the hon. member for Kamloops in the first part of his first speech, before he got provoked, indicated that he would support the increase, neither of these hon. gentlemen bothered to put on the record the salaries which judges are now receiving. I know they will both tell me that it is unnecessary to do that as it is a matter of record, that all anyone needs to do is turn up the book of estimates and find out what are those salaries, but before we agree to a proposal that these salaries be increased by $2,500 a year should we not ask what salaries these gentlemen are now receiving?
According to the estimates, and of course this is based on the statutes, the salaries paid to justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are $25,000 a year for the chief justice and $20,000 a year for each of the puisne justices. There is an obvious pun that could be made on the word "puisne" but I will let it

go at that. In the case of the Exchequer Court of Canada the salary of the president of the court is $16,000 a year, while the salaries of the puisne or associate justices are $14,400 a year.
When you come to the superior courts of the provinces, the courts of queen's bench, the trial division, courts of appeal and so on, the same salaries obtain as apply in the case of the Exchequer Court of Canada, namely $16,000 a year for each of the chief justices and $14,400 a year for each of the associate or puisne justices.
I say quite clearly on behalf of this group, and despite the way the hon. member for Kamloops tried to brush aside any opposition to these increases as yielding to a certain kind of temptation, that we feel in the light of conditions and salary levels generally, in the light of wage levels, not to mention what this government has not yet done for some deserving groups of our community, that the present salaries are high enough and this further increase is not needed at this time. The lawyers of the house-and their attendance is quite good just now-


An hon. Member:: It always is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -of course have a particular interest in this question. They will remind me that 1 have not given the salaries of all judges, and that is quite right. There is one other group of judges whose salaries are paid out of the federal treasury, namely judges of the county courts. In their case the salary is $8,000 a year. I deliberately drew the line, making a break between the two groups, because we are prepared to admit that for judges of the county courts, and I understand that many of them are heavily loaded with work, there may well be a case for an increase. In fact it has been represented to me on previous occasions when there have been increases on a percentage basis that it was most unfair to give the same percentage across the board, which resulted in quite a substantial increase for judges in the upper salary brackets but a very small increase for the county court judges.
However that is no excuse for the government going the other way, which it seems to me is now being done. It would seem that the government looked at the position of the county court judges and decided they needed an increase in the amount suggested by the minister, and then decided to give that same amount of increase to all the rest of them whether they needed it or not.
I repeat that we feel that people who are now enjoying annual salaries of $14,400, $16,000, $20,000 or $25,000 do not need an

increase, not even in the name of independence for the judiciary, not even in the name of high regard for the judges of our courts.
I said earlier there was one other financial advantage that our judges have which I feel should be mentioned at this time, and I refer to their pension arrangements. Everyone in this house knows how strongly we support the idea of pensions so that people in all walks of life may have security in their old age. We do not wish to see judges or their widows excluded from that general principle; indeed we believe they should be included, but I would point out that whereas most pensions that people earn in this country are on a contributory basis, these pensions are completely non-contributory. In addition, the privilege of election which is accorded to a judge so that he can apply his pension part for himself and part for his wife, is likewise on a non-contributory, non-actuarial, arbitrary basis. I am not asking on the one hand that there be no increase in salaries and on the other hand that anything be done to minimize these pension privileges. Rather what I am asking is that the monetary value -and it is quite substantial-of these pension advantages be taken into consideration in the total picture as to the remuneration of our judges.
On that basis, so far as this whole salary question is concerned, we think-and I say it quite openly-there is a case for an adjustment in the salary of the county court judges. Equally we feel there is no case for an increase in the salaries of those who commence at $14,400 and go on up to $25,000 a year. That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, I said "on division" when the motion was put for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on this resolution.
We feel that more study should be given to this matter. Indeed, study should be given to the whole question of the position of the judges of this country. I am not going to get into the quarrel that my hon. friend from Kamloops got into with our friends across the way about this matter of political appointments, but I suggest it is a subject that should be investigated. In fact I feel the whole question of the appointment of judges in Canada should be investigated. Inquiries should be made into their tenure of office. There are differences, as the lawyers know, as to the length of term, as to the age of retirement and so on.
I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that there should be an inquiry into the extracurricular activities of the judges. I am not at the moment saying whether they should or 50433-3214
Judges Act
should not take on royal commissions, conciliation boards and the other jobs they do.
I must say it is my view that many of these bodies have been well served by the ability these judges have brought to those boards; but the fact that this matter has been questioned so often seems to me to warrant thorough study of the whole question.
Three ways of inquiring into this matter occurred to me. One I suggest with some hesitation, because it may be thrown back at us that we have opposed royal commissions on occasions. Let it be said that every suggestion for a royal commission has to be considered on its merits. Sometimes a royal commission is a way of getting rid of a question; sometimes it is a way of having the type of examination that is required.
My hon. friend wants to know if a judge should be put at the head of such a royal commission. I think I might name prospective judges instead, in other words a few lawyers who have hopes. But there are other kinds of people who might well serve on such a commission. If that seems too unwieldy a way of dealing with the matter, it could be dealt with by reference to a parliamentary committee. A third suggestion is the one the hon. member for Kamloops made a while ago, namely that there might be a conference convened by the Minister of Justice to which he would invite the attorneys general of all the provinces.
If such a conference were called, obviously in this country as it is now constituted politically it would be a non-political gathering, or a gathering of all shades of political opinion and then some. I would suggest that if such a conference were held it should go not only into the question raised by the member for Kamloops, but into all these questions. But it is our view that such inquiries should be made before the house is asked to vote on these salary increases.
I would not stress that point quite so strongly if the bill was just one to adjust the salaries of the judges of the county courts, but this gives an across the board increase right up to the man who is drawing $25,000 a year plus a non-contributory pension for life, with provision for a widow's pension to continue if he dies first. It is really asking parliament to do something it ought not to do without further study.
I have tried to measure my words carefully because I do not want to detract in any way from the remarks with which I started, when I said that we feel our judges should be held in the highest possible regard. I think if there were a royal commission or a parliamentary committee or a conference of the Minister of Justice with the attorneys

Judges Act
general of the provinces to go into these matters; if we could work out ways of appointing judges that would be less subject to criticism than is now the case; if we could solve the question as to extracurricular work on the part of the judges; if we could assess the varying amounts of work the judges have to do, these things would contribute to the very thing we all want, namely the highest possible regard for the judges of this land.
I was interested in the comment of the Minister of Justice today, when he said quite clearly that he had no trouble in getting candidates for the bench. The hon. member for Kamloops is not sure that is what he said before. The record is there and it may be searched, and we can find out what was said before. I have no doubt it will be found and put on the record. But the minister certainly admitted today he was having no trouble in getting candidates for the bench. I am informed that the word "suitable" should be put in there. The minister said he was having no trouble in getting suitable candidates for the bench.
Suitable or otherwise, the fact is that he has no trouble in getting candidates for the bench. I confess I was surprised at the minister's statement today, because I had understood that in the past one of the reasons advocated for increasing judges' salaries, not only advocated here in this house but advocated in the press, was that this was necessary to get the calibre of people we want to have serving us on the bench. We have the statement from the minister today, if I may paraphrase what he said, that there is no dearth of candidates for these important positions.
In view of the fact that the salaries that are under review, except those of the county court judges, range from $14,400 a year to $25,000 a year, plus a non-contributory pension with some real advantages, we do not think further increases are necessary at this time. I do not labour the point, but I make it, that it is six years since the $40 figure was set for the old age pension. We have pleaded for that allowance to our senior citizens to be increased, because of our regard for what Canadians deserve. That appeal has been turned down, and so long as that situation continues we do not think salaries of this kind need to be increased.
I close by insisting again that no one interpret my remarks as indicating anything but the highest regard for the judges of this land. I have had occasion to follow closely the work of some of them, and I know some of them personally for whom I have the highest regard, but I think we should not
	1
put a price tag on that sort of thing. I believe we can increase the regard in which they are held if the government will agree to our suggestion that there be an inquiry in one of the three ways I mentioned into the whole business of the way judges are appointed, their tenure of office, the work they do, their extracurricular activities, their salaries and so on. If we do these things I think we can increase the regard held for our judges in this country and, in my view, this should be done before any motion is made that their salaries be increased.


Mr. McLeod:: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we in this group have no political axe to grind, and I am not going to become involved in any of the side issues in connection with appointments and the various ramifications of that issue. However, as we see it, this is a resolution preceding a bill which will deal with two distinct and separate matters; first, increasing the salaries and second, increasing the number of judges in British Columbia by one additional judge for the court of appeal and one for the supreme court, and also one for the territorial court of the Northwest Territories.
So far as British Columbia is concerned I believe these judges are badly needed. Increasing population and great acceleration in industrial development are naturally reasons for more cases being referred to the courts for clarification and decision. At present I understand there is often considerable delay in having matters settled owing to the shortage of judges. We therefore support that part of the recommendation wholeheartedly. I am sure the same arguments will apply equally to the Northwest Territories.
At the same time we are told that in order to have these appointments, we are going to have to agree to an increase in salaries. It is just another of these package deals this government is throwing at us in increasing numbers, wherein you must take the whole thing or nothing. At this point-and that is my reason for speaking at this point-I would suggest, having regard to the gist of this resolution, that when the legislation is brought before the house it should come forward possibly in two bills, one dealing with the appointments and one with the salaries.
So far as the present salary range is concerned, going as it does from $8,000 to $25,000, I do not think there is any great quarrel. I believe the salaries compare favourably with the salaries paid to other people who have just as good qualifications and who are giving of their time and their skill in the public service of Canada. I think ample proof of that statement is to be found in the remark made by the minister a few moments ago,

to the effect that he never had any trouble in finding candidates to fill these positions.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, we just want to place ourselves on record as being opposed to an increase in the salaries of judges at the present time, but we are much in favour of the extra appointments being made.


Mr. Thatcher:: I shall detain the committee for only a moment or two, Mr. Chairman. I wish to comment on this resolution which proposes to raise judges' salaries. Frankly I cannot agree with the opposition of either the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I know there are many people in the House of Commons and throughout the country who feel that judges' salaries today are adequate, and that they compare favourably with the amount of money that is earned by men in the industrial and business fields throughout Canada.
However, I cannot subscribe to such a theory. It seems to me that the basic problem parliament must face in examining this legislation is the manner in which the nation can obtain the best possible judges. The minister says he has no dearth of candidates. That may be true, but I believe he is not always able to get the best man for each particular appointment. I recall a case in Ontario not very long ago. I refer to the case of Mr. John J. Robinette, Q.C. If my memory serves me, he was appointed to the Ontario supreme court.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The court of appeal.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: He accepted the appointment initially, but after further careful consideration was obliged to cancel his acceptance. When he realized how much money he would lose by accepting the position he felt that in justice to his family and to himself he could not fill the vacancy. I think other cases could be mentioned similar to that of Mr. Robinette. These gentlemen may want to serve as judges. They may feel it is their duty to serve as judges. But if they are going to suffer severe financial loss by accepting a judgeship, they simply must decline the honour.
I think parliament should remember that once a man is appointed a judge he cannot have any business sideline as can men in other fields of endeavour. He cannot have other occupations. I would remind the committee, moreover, that the life of a judge is not entirely a pleasant one. If he is a county judge he is obliged to travel around a good deal, living in hotels. Sometimes, because of his status, he is deprived of the friendship and fellowship of people who
Judges Act
otherwise might be more intimate with him. Judges who enter the field of labour relations often make bad friends and endure severe criticism in doing that necessary work.
It has been said in the House of Commons that judges' salaries compare favourably with salaries in other fields of endeavour. I do not think that is true. I am convinced that most lawyers today can make considerably more in private practice than they can make by becoming a judge, particularly an $8,000 a year county judge. I am also convinced that men in commerce, industry or business, if they are worth their salt, can make far more than $8,0PC a year. Surely justice is just as important as life insurance. Surely justice is just as important as a small business. If that is the case, I do not see why judges should not be paid accordingly.
In my opinion, if this parliament refuses to bring the salaries of judges up to a reasonable level they simply are not going to get the kind of men they need. It is possible that the situation may arise in the future where the lawyers coming before the judges will know more than the judges themselves. I repeat that today the remuneration being paid to our judges is not adequate for the work they have to do. Despite the fact that our population has grown rapidly, we have not many more judges than we had 20 years ago.
Today I heard the statement made that sometimes judges are appointed for political reasons. Certainly there is a danger in such appointments. Yet I have seen several judges who were political appointees and who have become exceptionally good judges. We have one in our own city of Moose Jaw. A former member of parliament for Yorkton, when he retired, became a judge in Moose Jaw. I along with many others was dubious about the appointment. Yet Judge George McPhee, after having spent 10 years in our city, is probably one of the most popular citizens in the area. Ex-members of parliament seem to have a tolerance and an understanding of human nature, which is a valuable factor in judging people. I know that if I were obliged to go before a judge I would rather appear before an ex-member of parliament than anyone else. I therefore say that all is not wrong with our present system of appointing judges.
I want to say again, Mr. Chairman, that I support the principle of this bill. If we are to have the kind of judges we want, we are going to have to pay them better salaries. We shall have to pay them salaries which are more comparable with those being paid in the fields of business and industry.

Canada Elections Act


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to say a few words just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I think it is generally recognized that the administration of justice is the cornerstone of the democratic system. Because of that fact it is most important that those in charge of the administration of justice be independent. In the second place, they should have the respect of the rank and file of the people in the community as a whole. It is important also that they be financially independent so there will be no possibility of financial considerations entering into any decision made by a judge.
Another point mentioned is that judges should be politically independent. I join with those who have said that the judges with whom they have come in contact are in most cases men who are doing a good job of administering justice and who have the respect of the community. If there are occasions when people suspect that other considerations enter into the decision of a judge, then it is a sign of weakness in the judiciary and the condition should be wiped out.
The idea of appointing to the bench legal lights who have been active in political life is perhaps not a good one. I think the government would do well to avoid making such appointments, rather than err by making them. Sometimes we find that lawyers are active in politics. In the course of my life I have run across a number of them, and have been in conflict with them in the political field. I have had rather severe conflicts with members of the bar in that field. If I ever have to appear before them as members of the bench I hope their prejudices will have changed somewhat.
I believe that in a general way we can support the policy of the government. The proposed legislation provides for increases in salaries all along the line. I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. With the high cost of living, for which the government must take the blame, it is no doubt difficult for judges to maintain their independence on a salary of $8,000 a year in view of the work they must do, the expenses they must meet and the life they must live. But I agree also with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that judges now receiving $25,000 a year do not require any more money in order to be financially independent.
We are thoroughly in support of the increase for those on the $8,000 level. The people I have the honour to represent are largely engaged in agriculture. Last year their net income declined approximately 70 per cent, and they will not be earning even $8,000. Speaking for them, I say that if

appointments as judges to administer justice are to be handed out to certain people as plums on the basis of political activity, it will not be for the good of the bench. The attitude of people is important. The quality of justice has to be such that the people believe those appointed to the bench are fair. In that regard I believe that unnecessary expenditure in the higher brackets will be criticized, though I doubt if there will be much criticism of an increase for county court judges.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 505, to amend the Judges Act, and the judicature provisions of the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Next sitting of the house.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 415, to amend the Canada Elections Act-Mr. Pinard-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1

"Heures du jour."
George Clyde Nowlan: Is the minister going to make any statement in committee of the whole?


Mr. Pinard:: I have no express statement to make at this point. I am ready to answer questions on the clauses as they are called.
I might refer to what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings mentioned the other day with respect to nomination day. This matter was discussed before the standing committee on privileges and elections. It was raised the other day by the Leader of the Opposition at the resolution stage, and by the leader of the Social Credit party. The Prime Minister expressed his view on the question of increasing from 14 to 21 days the period between nomination and election days, and suggested that it should be left to a free vote of the house whether the increase should be accepted.
There are no important changes in the act with the exception of the one to which

I have just referred. There is of course provision for an increase in the salary of the chief electoral officer. At the moment he receives $12,000, and the bill provides for an increase to $13,500, the minimum salary paid to a deputy minister. In my opinion all other changes are of a non-controversial nature, and I do not believe there is any useful statement I could make at this time on the legislation.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sorry, but I did not quite understand what the minister said about the question of the 21 days. It was not his fault. There was some disturbance in the house. Did the minister say he would be prepared to move an amendment?


Roch Pinard: I said that as the Prime Minister had expressed his view at the resolution stage I could see no objection to leaving the matter to a free vote of the house if it is desired. If it is the wish of the house not to disturb that section of the act and leave the 14-day provision, that is quite all right. I am entirely in the hands of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Revision of boundaries of polling divisions.
Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: On clause 3, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Order. Before the next order is called, perhaps I might be permitted to make a short statement. On June 14, during the debate on Bill No. 22, while I was in the chair a question of privilege was raised based on the assumption that an hon. member had discussed proceedings of a committee, meeting in camera. The question of privilege was to the effect that an hon. member, by discussing or divulging such proceedings, was committing a breach of the privileges of the house.
I said at the time that I did not feel competent to rule on the point at that time. Since then I have had an opportunity to consult authorities, living and written. I think the clearest explanation of the rights of members in this connection is to be found in May's fifteenth edition at page 610
"In Camera" Committee Proceedings where, after referring to the practice in the upper house, it is said:
Members of the House of Commons are likewise entitled to be present at the sittings of committees of their house, as well during the deliberations of the committee as while witnesses are being examined; and though, if requested to retire, they rarely make any objection, and ought, on the grounds of established usage and courtesy to the committee, immediately to retire when the committee is about to deliberate, the committee, in case of their refusal, has no power to order them to withdraw. As members cannot be excluded from a committee room by the authority of the committee, the committee, if it desires that other members should not be present at its proceedings, and such members refuse to withdraw, should adjourn and, if they persist in attending at subsequent meetings, the committee should apply to the house for power to effect their exclusion.
Later on the same work says:
When, in the opinion of either house, secrecy ought to be maintained, secret committees, or, as they are termed in the commons, committees of secrecy are appointed, whose proceedings and inquiries are conducted throughout with closed doors; and it is the invariable practice for all members, not being of the committee, to be excluded from the committee room throughout the whole of its proceedings.
Similar pronouncements are to be found in Beauchesne's third edition, citations 552 and 551, and Bourinot at pages 468 and 469, also in May's thirteenth edition at pages 476 and 477.
From these it is obvious that there is a distinct difference between committees sitting in camera for the purposes of deliberation, and secret committees. These remarks apply only to committees meeting in camera.
It is established by the authorities that all members of the Commons have a legal right to attend such meetings, but not to participate in their deliberations. The proceedings of the meetings then are, if I may put it this way, the property of the House of Commons, of course only after the committee has reported. So no true question of privilege arises if a member divulges to the house the proceedings of such meetings.
However, it should also be stated immediately that the purpose behind in camera meetings is that the members may feel free to negotiate, to discuss, to deliberate and sometimes perhaps to compromise without the glare of publicity which might add to the difficulties of agreeing to reports, etc.; and it would seem to be desirable that these proceedings should be treated as in confidence. But the final decision rests with the members themselves. Technically the privileges of the house are not involved.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Franga Beryl
Harker Stinson.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Enid Gertrude Brooks Bray.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Shirley Pollack Nadler.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Isidore Hoffman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Ethel Dworkin Abrams.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Michael Moses Scullion.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Clifford Joseph Linehan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Irene Furlong Walters.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Joyce Davies Javallas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 362 for the relief of Freida Schecter Lupovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 363 for the relief of Gertie Tryansky Katz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 364 for the relief of Olive Gertrude Meredith Bateman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 365 for the relief of David Sandler. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 366 for the relief of Marcel Des-lauriers.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 367 for the relief of Delmar Ross Andreis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 368 for the relief of Elizabeth Blanche Nelson Mallozzi.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 369 for the relief of Glennice Maude Hunter Garayt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 370 for the relief of Irene Jessie Hillson Towes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 371 for the relief of Vivian Ruth Law Alarie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 372 for the relief of Joseph Antonio Campeol.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 382 for the relief of Mary Matilda Getto Paquin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 383 for the relief of Ruth Nourse Tomlinson Wilson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 384 for the relief of Joseph Henri Marcel Giguere.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 385 for the relief of Edith Isabella Bond Brown.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 386 for the relief of Yolande Joos Thompson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 387 for the relief of Norva Florence Lemon Farley.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 388 for the relief of Freda Marie Johnston Storey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 389 for the relief of Jack Beattie Thompson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 390 for the relief of Florence Mary Ann Meakin O'Ranski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 391 for the relief of Theophile Kulczycki.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 392 for the relief of William Michael Grayburn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 393 for the relief of Katharine Leitner Bouchard Frankenburg.-Mr. Hunter.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite).]
Bill No. 394 for the relief of Clara Gaetan Milot Fullerton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 395 for the relief of Lily Shenker Silverton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 396 for the relief of Alsye May Lissemore Masterson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 397 for the relief of Sylvia Knel-man Wiseman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 398 for the relief of Sara Beiss Stein.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 399 for the relief of Veronica Vera Bordenuik Reidt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 400 for the relief of George Gerald Melville Scally.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 401 for the relief of Joseph William James Tanney.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 402 for the relief of Aline Mailloux Simoneau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 403 for the relief of Margaret Violet Oswald Nicol Maclver.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 404, for the relief of Irving Uman-sky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 405, for the relief of Veronica Forrester Rose Kennedy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 419, for the relief of Marie Therese Jeannette Mainville Froment.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 420, for the relief of Goldie Moscovitch Katz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 421, for the relief of Yvette Cayer Lefebvre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 422, for the relief of Regina Wiener Strelezky Distelman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 423, for the relief of Marie-Louise Ashby Tremblay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 424, for the relief of Lorna Greenberg Buium.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 425, for the relief of Myrtle Ada Lewin Derbridge.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 426, for the relief of Georges Etienne Barry.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 428, for the relief of Eileen Bayliss Roberts.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 429, for the relief of Ernest Augustus Lepage.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 430, for the relief of Rosaire Jacques Rene Tetrault.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 431, for the relief of Phyllis Lucy Stiles Beal.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 432, for the relief of Margaret Durning Mullins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 433, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Lorraine Callard Ramsay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 434, for the relief of Ann Mary Allward Spighi.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 435, for the relief of Anne Rynski Vincent.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 436, for the relief of Dora Helen Simmons Glancy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 437, for the relief of Joseph Louis Armand Carrier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 438, for the relief of Marie Merilda
Longval Roy.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 439, for the relief of Charles Edouard Thibodeau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 440, for the relief of Rose Bowman Fox.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 441, for the relief of Marguerite Gladys Letitia Mathers Grimsdale.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 442, for the relief of Jennie Switz-man Rashcovsky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 443, for the relief of Charles Ryer-son Stewart.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 444, for the relief of Hilda Emmalin Christensen Taylor.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 445, for the relief of Glendon Joseph Lynes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 446, for the relief of Kenneth Rae Story.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 447, for the relief of Joseph Marcel Plourde.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 448, for the relief of Mayo Arthur Perrin Harrigan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 407, to incorporate the Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 416, to incorporate Consolidated Pipe Lines Company.-Mr. Cavers.
Bill No. 453, to incorporate Baudette and Rainy River Municipal Bridge Company.- Mr. Benidickson.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 427 (Letter L-14 of the Senate), intituled: "An act for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme".-Mr. Hunter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper, although they do not follow in consecutive numbers. Is it desired to take this bill separately?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it desired that this bill shall stand until later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Stands, until later this day. Bill No. 454 and Bill No. 483 and divorce bills Nos. 455 to 480 and 484 to 503 are all on the order paper for second readings. Is there any objection to their being taken as one?


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: object to Bill No. 484 respecting Real Perras being included with the lot. In view of the fact that the other one was allowed to stand, I should like to ask that this one be allowed to stand.
Private Bills


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Then is it agreed that Bills Nos. 454 and 483, and divorce bills Nos. 455 to 480 and
485 to 503 be considered for second reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 454, to incorporate Canadian Premier Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Mc-Ilraith.
Bill No. 455, for the relief of Marian Douglas Jodrey Wallace.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 456, for the relief of Elie Chabotar. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 457, for the relief of Evelyn Robert Hurst Watson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 458, for the relief of Sidney Robert Allen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 459, for the relief of Cecil Brooks. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 460, for the relief of Jeanne Jacqueline Content Brown.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 461, for the relief of Eugene Theodore Mantha.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 462, for the relief of Marilyn Irene Darner Brophey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 463, for the relief of Dorothea Josephine Forbes Chaffey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 464, for the relief of Violet Ruby Baxter Williamson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 465, for the relief of Nicole Emile Dardano.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 466, for the relief of Ruth Steirman Levine.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 467, for the relief of Pearl Raicek Rutwind.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 468, for the relief of Lorraine Bennet Favreau Williams.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 469, for the relief of Robert Irvin Morrow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 470, for the relief of Phyllis Lilian Buck Beatty.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 471, for the relief of Barbara Louise Barlett Broadbent.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 472, for the relief of Ronald Elikum Bessey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 473, for the relief of Margaret Francis Kennedy Bailie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 474, for the relief of Anna Cibula Reynolds.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 475, for the relief of Mary McKinnon McEachran Coolon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 476, for the relief of Joseph Armand Jacques Phaneuf.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 477, for the relief of Julia Hut Lutterman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 478, for the relief of Evelina Dixon Taylor.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 479, for the relief of Frances Marguerite Beaudin Karibian.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 480, for the relief of Claude Ferron.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 483, to incorporate the Provident Assurance Company.-Mr. Eudes.
Bill No. 485, for the relief of Izrael Szer.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	486,	for	the	relief	of	Mary
Madeleine Collings Bell-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	487,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Flavien Denis Rheo Baillargeon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 488, for the relief of Susan Wald-man Ruttenberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	489,	for	the	relief	of	Andre
Labreche.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	490,	for	the	relief	of	Alfred
Sevigny.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 491, for the relief of Beatrice Macdonald Stewart Pasmore.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 492, for the relief of Georges-Etienne Cartier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 493, for the relief of Kathleen Dallas White Barnes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 494, for the relief of John Tilga.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 495, for the relief of Edwin Albert Verge.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 496, for the relief of Aline Sauve Page.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 497, for the relief of Helen Margaret Robb Woods.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 498, for the relief of Jean Louis Larose.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 499, for the relief of Molly Wine-berg Fishman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 500, for the relief of James McMartin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 501, for the relief of Charles John Urban.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 502, for the relief of Joseph Adalbert Beaudoin, otherwise known as Georges Beaudoin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 503, for the relief of Donald John McGillivray.-Mr. Hunter.

Mr. F. T. Fairey (for Mr. Hunter) moved: the
second reading of Bill No. 427, for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme.


Erhart Regier: On a point of order, I was not able to hear. Would you tell us which bill is now before the house?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: BiU No. 427, letter L-14 of the Senate, an act for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme.


Erhart Regier: In that case I think I ought to read the bill that is actually before us. I know it is not customary to supply members of parliament with copies of the bills, except
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite).]
that a copy of the bill appears as one of the first few pages of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee of the other place. This bill reads as follows:
An act for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme.
Whereas Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme, domiciled in Canada and residing at the town of Pointe-aux-Trembles, in the province of Quebec, car salesman, has by his petition alleged that on the thirteenth day of August, A.D. 1931, at the said town, he and Antoinette Seguin, who was then of the said town, a spinster, were married; and whereas by his petition he has prayed that, because of her adultery since then, their marriage be dissolved; and whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proved by evidence adduced and it is expedient that the prayer of his petition be granted:	Therefore Her Majesty,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows;
1.	The said marriage between Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme and Antoinette Seguin, his wife, is hereby dissolved, and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
2.	The said Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme may at any time hereafter marry any woman whom he might lawfully marry if the said marriage with the said Antoinette Seguin had not been solemnized.
This is a draft bill approved by the committee on divorce of the Senate in May, 1955. The bill is signed by A. W. Roebuck, chairman of the committee on divorce.
I put this on the record so the country will know exactly what has happened. In discussing the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, a little consideration should be given to exactly who is this man, Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme, the petitioner in this case, who appears before both houses of parliament of Canada and asks that he be given relief from his marriage vows. A year ago he was listed as a taxi driver. This year he is listed as a car salesman.
I should like to indicate to the house the type of people who impose these burdens on the parliament of Canada, and especially so in this case. I cannot be more effective than by reading my poor translation of an article that appeared in Id, Montreal, of June 5 of last year. On page 7 it says:
William Delorme appeared, the 21st of April last, on a charge of the attempted rape of one Mary Staiguill; he must attend a preliminary hearing and will remain meanwhile at liberty on bail of $950 which his father has furnished, giving as security for the presence of the accused, his property, valued at $10,000.
The reason I read that into the record, Mr. Speaker, was to give an indication to the country at large of the type of individual who is by this method permitted to occupy the time of the two houses of Canada's parliament.


An hon. Member:: Was he convicted?


Erhart Regier: In fairness to Mr. Delorme I must say that the charge against him was later reduced to one of assault. I do not know what happened. However, the very fact that the man was arrested on a charge of that sort is an illustration to prove the validity of the remark I made that very many of these people are completely unworthy of the time of both houses of Canada's parliament.
Let us look for a minute at the argument that this hero makes in asking us for relief from his marriage vows. He uses the argument in the evidence that on numerous occasions since the year 1938 he has personally witnessed his wife committing acts of adultery. In order to further show the type of individuals who have the audacity to impose on Canada's houses of parliament I should read a little bit of the record just to indicate the type of individual we are dealing with here. He says that in 1938 he first became aware of the adulterous nature of his wife. He admits that on page 16 of the evidence, and then the following questions and answers appear:
Q. And what happened when you came into the house?
A. I saw them in bed.
Q. And then what?
A. I went away.
Q. Where did you go in the house?
A. I went in the door, went in the room and saw the two of them together, and 1 went away crying.
Q. What?
A. I went away crying.
Q. Did you wake them up?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You did not even wake them up?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And on the second time or occasion you say it was in the afternoon. Where were they that afternoon?
A. In the same place.
Q. Where, in the house?
A. This was in my mother's bedroom, that is another room.
Q. What were they doing?
A. Sleeping, and they were in bed and he was on top.
Q. Did you wake them up or were they asleep?
A. I just went home again crying.
I am going to skip a little bit. He speaks of another occasion.


Francis Thrower Fairey: On a point of order, I suggest that this evidence has been given before special committees, and this is not the proper place for details of these cases to be read. It is usual to refer bills of this kind to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and that is why I moved second reading. I expected that it would go there and the details could then be discussed in the miscellaneous private bills committee and the bill be reported once again to this house.
Private Bills-Divorce


Erhart Regier: If I may speak on the point
of order which has been raised, I do not believe it is unheard of in this house to use evidence which has been produced before a committee of either of the houses of parliament in order to illustrate a certain basic principle. I was attempting to show the type of individual this Mr. Delorme is. There were two cases in 1938 where he found his wife in the act of committing adultery, and in neither case did he even take the trouble nor was he man enough to as much as attempt to deal with the other man. He quietly sneaked away. According to his testimony, on the third occasion he found this act being committed in his own home and once again, according to his evidence, he got his hockey pass and simply went to the hockey game, crying again. Then he was asked if it was not rather odd that he should have acted like that, and his reply was that he loved his family so much that he did nothing about it.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you rule on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that at five o'clock a ruling was given by the deputy chairman of committees, who was occupying Your Honour's place in the house at the time, with regard to revealing what went on in a committee that had met in camera. I listened with considerable interest to the ruling, which was to the effect that there is no violation of privilege through using such information. The hon. gentleman who was then occupying the chair said it would be up to each individual member to decide what he should do. In view of that ruling the point of order raised by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Fairey) is hardly valid.


Mr. Speaker:: I am perfectly aware of the ruling which was given at five o'clock with respect to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on the bill relating to box cars, in connection with which an amendment had been moved by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Matters which had occurred in a standing committee while studying its report were discussed and a distinction was drawn between a committee meeting in secrecy and one which was meeting in camera.
At the moment we are not dealing with a committee which was meeting in camera. The Senate committee on divorce meets, the evidence is printed and distributed to members of both houses. The hon. member could not quote from the evidence if it had not been reported and printed. The hon. member is doing what has been done quite often in this house, quoting from the evidence in

Private Bills-Divorce
discussing the second reading of a bill. I agree with the hon. member tor Victoria, B.C. to a certain extent, that when we discuss the second reading of a private bill we are not deciding by our vote the principle of that bill, we are merely passing the bill conditionally upon proper evidence being presented in the standing committee to support it. That is why the rules refer all private bills to standing committees.
This is a point which has interested me considerably over the years. Why should hon. members of the House of Commons, when discussing the second reading of a private bill which has come from the Senate where it has been studied by a committee, review the evidence which has been presented before that committee? If an hon. member wants to make representations, why not let the bill pass conditionally to the standing committee, at which time witnesses could be called for cross-examination? There is no remedy in what an hon. member may say here on the second reading of a bill.
I make these remarks, not for the purpose of ruling out what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is doing at the moment, but simply to remind hon. members that although they have a right to refer to evidence presented before the committee on divorce of the Senate, I would think a more effective course to adopt would be to have such evidence reviewed by the standing committee to which the bill would be referred.
I offer this opinion merely by way of suggesting that this course should be followed in order to expedite business in the house. But the hon. member is perfectly in order in reading the evidence in the way he has been doing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would Your Honour permit a comment on what you have just said? I want to say that I agree thoroughly with your contention that there is a difference between the second reading of a public bill and the second reading of a private bill. No doubt Four Honour's opinion is based upon citation 769 of Beauchesne's third edition. However, 1 feel that there are one or two sentences of that citation which should be placed on the record. The citation says in part:
A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.

That is exactly what Your Honour said in your own perhaps better chosen words, but let me go on and quote the citation further:
Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the house will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee. This is the first occasion on which the bill is before the house otherwise than pro forma or in connection with the standing orders; and if the bill be opposed, upon its principle, it is the proper time for attempting its defeat.
I understand that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam believes that the principle of this bill is objectionable, and he is attempting its defeat on second reading. He does not think it should even go to the committee for examination. I suggest that while what Your Honour said in general regarding private bills is perfectly correct, there is the qualification that if a bill is felt to be particularly objectionable an hon. member would be within the four corners of citation 769 in attempting its defeat at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has drawn our attention to citation 769 which states:
Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable-
In stating his opinion that the principle is objectionable the hon. member would be discussing facts which have been submitted to the committee of the other place. I submit that the best way for the hon. member to dispute those facts or to comment upon them would be to have witnesses called before our committee for cross-examination.
That does not detract from the position I have taken. As I say, if the hon. member wishes to carry on, it has been the practice in the past that evidence has been reviewed on the second reading of these bills; but as far as my personal opinion is concerned- and perhaps I should not volunteer it at this stage-that is not as effective a method of opposing the principle of a bill. It may be that, unless I was prepared to make a ruling based on these views, this would be better left unsaid, but I am interested in expediting the business of the house and that is the only reason I mention them.


Francis Thrower Fairey: I wonder if I may be granted the privilege of explaining why I raised the point of order. If the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would allow me, I would like to say that this particular case is an objectionable one and I share the hon. member's concern over it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member perhaps
should have taken advantage of the fact that
he moved the second reading to explain his

position at that time. Now on a point of order he cannot explain why he moved it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If he has unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent to present his views at this moment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is understood that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has the floor again afterward.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria, B.C., asked the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam if he would give way. At the moment I stopped the hon. member from proceeding, I heard a member say that by unanimous consent he could proceed. If the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is still willing to give way, and the rest of the house gives unanimous consent, he may proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Thrower Fairey: This case was before the Senate committee in 1954, and it was recommended to this house and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. It was brought back into this house and discussion arose and, as hon. members will remember, it died on the order paper. The petitioner then applied once again for divorce to the Senate committee. The case was reheard.


An hon. Member:: No.


Francis Thrower Fairey: Excuse me. I have the evidence here. The case was reheard in this manner, that at the first meeting of the Senate committee on divorce a discussion arose as to whether the evidence presented to last year's committee was admissible, and it was agreed that it would be. Subsequently the petitioner, the lady, through her lawyer, wrote to say she had decided not to continue the case on second hearing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: She was the respondent.


Francis Thrower Fairey: I beg your pardon. I shall correct that. The respondent, through her solicitor, wrote to say she would not defend the case.


Mr. Ellis:: She did not have the money.


Francis Thrower Fairey: Let us not examine the reasons. I am stating the fact that the solicitor wrote to say that she would not defend the case. I am not stating the reasons for it, as I do not wish to take the time of the house to do so. At a subsequent meeting on May 6 of this year, the case was resumed before the
Private Bills-Divorce
Senate committee, and the respondent appeared with three additional witnesses. Those witnesses were heard. The case was reviewed and reported to the main committee of the Senate, and they still recommended the divorce. That is the bill before us now.
I may say something that I omitted, Mr. Speaker. Last year when the bill was first referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills of this house, we ourselves actually heard the evidence once again, with witnesses and legal representatives present. At that time our own committee on miscellaneous private bills recommended the bill on division, and it was talked out in the house and died on the order paper.
What we have, then, is a divorce bill which is, I admit, an objectionable one and, as I said before, I also have concern about it. It was recommended last year, it was tried before the Senate committee, it was tried before our own committee, it was still recommended to this house, it has been tried again by the Senate committee, and now comes before us again.
The reason I raised the point of order and why I am speaking now is that I think the proper procedure is that this house should be spared the gruesome details, and that we should pass this bill on second reading and refer it to the committee on miscellaneous private bills for whatever action that committee cares to take on it. I do not think this house needs to know all the nasty details, with which this evidence is replete.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, may I assure both yourself and the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., that it certainly is far from my intention to put on record the gruesome details of this case. What I did put on the record was not put there in order to convict either the petitioner or the respondent. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that I found it necessary to put certain things on the record in order to show to the people of Canada the type of individual to which this parliament and the other house of parliament is willing to devote so much time.
I am quite prepared to leave the individual's record as I gave it, except that I must add that I read from the record that the man had known of this adultery since 1938, and he admits having lived with the woman until some time in 1952. It was only after the wife sued him for a separation order in the province of Quebec and was awarded $20 a week, plus a division of the community property, that the man's shoe really started to hurt. He then decided he had better rid himself of his wife by the misuse of the

Private Bills-Divorce
houses of parliament of Canada and thus relieve himself of these two financial obligations which were rightfully imposed upon him by a court in the province of Quebec.
He appeared to put forth his plea, and what did he use to substantiate it? This raises a basic principle as well. Exactly what are acceptable witnesses in these cases? I found it very hard, after listening all day a year ago, to decide who was being honest and who was being dishonest in the case, and I think most members of the committee had very much the same feeling. However, what is an acceptable witness? One of the main witnesses in the case is a man by the name of Nadeau. I have a letter here from a young air force man written to my colleague the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), dated June 15, in which he has this to say-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member at this point merely to ask him if he thinks that, in discussing the principle of a divorce bill, he is entitled to question the responsibility or morality or other qualifications of a witness who appeared before a committee in the other place. I would ask him to ponder this question very seriously.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, on that point, the very basis on which we are asked to agree is that evidence is supposed to have been presented in these cases that adultery has been
committed,	and this evidence has been accepted by a committee of the other house. In most cases a special committee of three examines it and later reports to a larger
committee.	I raised this point a year ago, on this point of order, and asked the Minister of Justice what follow-through there might possibly be. He finally came forward with an answer, and as a result of my asking the question I think two men were found guilty of having committed perjury. They won their appeal on a technicality.
But, Mr. Speaker, when we are asked to pass on the principle of a case, on second reading, and when we find what happened in some cases, as in the case of one particular hero investigator last year, who handled no less than 88 cases before the other house, I feel that we are perfectly within our rights in calling before this parliament and the bar of public opinion the authenticity of what is happening in these cases.
The other case which yesterday you saw fit to rule out of order-and I am not going to argue that-was that of a man who testified in 75 other cases, and there were three separate instances where he had a double win on the one evening. That's an almost impossible situation, and one which is made the more unbelievable when you realize that within

five days of one divorce the man got married to the woman who won her divorce.
Again, I did not intend to introduce the bill referred to yesterday and I shall attempt not to refer to it again. I intended to introduce a bill on another case that I think would have made this Delorme case look rather ridiculous. Unfortunately the woman, who was willing to testify before a committee of parliament that she herself had committed perjury in order to obtain her divorce, passed away only a few months ago.
This racket must be cleaned up in one way or the other, and the only way we have of doing it is by using this floor of parliament to call the attention of the general public of Canada to the racket that is going on and the needless misery being inflicted upon thousands of women who are unable to defend themselves in the proper manner, and who allow themselves finally to be intimidated and in most cases appeal to this parliament and profess to sue their husbands for divorce.
What happened in this particular case? Last year we see that this case was heard by hon. Senators Bradley, Golding and Kinley. This year, as the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., says, they met again on May 6 and the case was reheard by hon. Senators Roebuck, Golding and Barbour. It will be noted that two of the three were not the same as those who acted a year ago. Then there was a consideration of the proceedings on May 9 by hon. Senators Bradley, Golding and Kinley. It was then referred and recommended by them to the committee of the whole, and eventually it passed the other place.
Speaking on the principle of this thing, on January 12 or 13 in the throne speech debate I appealed to the Prime Minister to find a way by which parliament might be relieved of this onerous responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a general case with respect to the procedure which should be followed in matters of divorce. All we are dealing with now is a bill allowing two persons to be divorced. That is all that is before us at the moment. When the hon. member begins to generalize as to the quality of witnesses and the method of proceeding with divorce bills, I think he is getting away from the principle of this bill. I do not recall whether or not the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced his bill this session to make the exchequer court a court where divorce cases could be heard, but 1 know he did so in past sessions. The bill he introduced is precisely the type of bill on which could be raised these questions

which the hon. member now wants to raise, but they cannot be raised on a specific divorce bill.


Erhart Regier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In coming back to this specific bill that is before us may I say that we are asked to endorse the principle on second reading and to refer this bill to the committee of this house. My contention is that no such thing should happen. This bill is unworthy of consideration by the committee of this house.
We make a decision in this house. That decision will either keep Mr. and Mrs. Delorme married to one another or it will grant the relief for which Mr. Delorme is petitioning. I have often heard it said that we ought to take the attitude that this Delorme marriage is broken up anyway, and therefore we might as well let the bill slide through. To me that is no argument, Mr. Speaker. I have never met nor heard of a judge in any law court who rendered a decision without giving careful consideration to the effect of his decision. I think that is a basic truth in British justice. I think it also applies here.
If we divorce these people-just as when we agree to the divorce of any other two people-we are saying in effect that we have found one or the other guilty of having committed adultery. In some parts of Canada that finding may perhaps be lived down, but there are other sections of Canada where this finding brands these people for the rest of their lives, and it brands their offspring as well. One of their parents has been found by the parliament of Canada to have committed adultery. That is the effect of what we do when we pass one of these acts. It is hardly good enough for us to say, "Oh, it is up to the provincial law; we have nothing to do with that". We must give consideration to the effect of our legislation here, whether the legislation has to do with a pipe-line company or whether it deals with the dissolution of the Delorme marriage contract.
What happened last year? The case was dealt with by a vote of this house. I should like to thank hon. members from the province of Quebec for helping us in getting this bill referred to the committee of this house on third reading. I think they were loyal to their convictions, and they showed it by getting up in their places and voting as they did. Also by their actions in the committee they remained loyal to their convictions.
The hon. member for Victoria, B.C., was permitted to say that, on division, our committee found that this divorce should be recommended. He did not put on the record what the vote was. The committee has some
Private Bills-Divorce
40 members. Out of those 40 members of the committee, 11 voted to recommend this bill and 6 voted against it, and a number of members did not vote because, as I indicated previously, after sitting and listening all day, being trained in the art of making laws and not in the art of adjudication, they decided they did not know who was lying and who ought to have the sympathy of the committee.
I think what happened last year should have been enough to show the utter unworthiness of this bill to ever get anywhere near second reading. The hon. member for Victoria, B.C., was also permitted to put on the record that Mrs. Delorme's lawyer had written to the committee stating that she did not intend to contest her case. If he was permitted to do that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I should also be permitted to put on the record exactly what the lady did say.
I, Mrs. Antoinette Seguin Delorme, solemnly declare:
(a)	That I am the respondent in the proceedings for divorce taken by my said husband;
(b)	That owing to my state of health, being about to enter the hospital and because of my lack of money to properly conduct my defence, I am obliged to abandon my defence.
(c)	Consequently I shall not appear before the committee at the hearing and inquiry.
Then there is the following:
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, knowing that it is of the same force as if it was made under oath, and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
I should like to pay tribute here to those members of the upper house who were not satisfied with the affidavit, postponed the hearing and arranged for an amount of $75. to be sent to the woman so she could at least make some effort to defend herself.
While I am on that point, I submit that she did not get a fair chance at all because in these days $75 is peanuts so far as conducting a defence is concerned. The respondent has not had a fair deal at all. Where in the world is a woman who has to live on $20 a week supposed to get the money in order to conduct her defence? If we insist on carrying on this procedure, the least we can do is make adequate financial arrangements so that people who are aggrieved will have a proper opportunity to prepare their cases and bring their witnesses to Ottawa.
When I mentioned the heavy fees involved last year the present Minister of Finance took me to task and said that he used to act in such cases in the province of Ontario, and that the fees certainly must have gone up since then. Since that time I have seen the bill sent by the attorney of a woman who defended herself. Incidentally, there are not nearly enough women who have the energy to defend themselves. In this case the woman

Private Bills-Divorce
defended herself and won her case. In addition to the $75 allotted the lawyer had the nerve to send her a bill for $850.
I should like the Minister of Finance to realize that times and the value of money have certainly changed since the original arrangements were made, and it is time that they were brought up to date. I do not think nearly as many husbands would be able to intimidate their wives and finally arrange for their wives to sue them for divorce.
So far as the Delorme case is concerned, I maintain that Mr. Delorme is utterly unworthy of the consideration of the house, and that his witnesses are utterly unworthy of consideration. I say that such a finding should have been made. The case should not go to the committee at all. Mr. Delorme says that for all the years since 1938 he condoned his wife's adultery because of his family. The other committee would not allow one of the sons to testify, but our committee permitted both adult sons, who are now married, to testify. They testified against their father. They testified as to the good reputation and character of their mother. In fact the whole household appeared and testified as to the good reputation of the lady in question.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, last session the committee had an opportunity to rehear the evidence presented to the Senate committee on divorce and, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has pointed out, by a vote of 11 to 6 approval of the divorce was recommended. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam pointed out that a number of members of the committee did not attend its meetings or, if they did attend, did not vote on this particular measure.
In this case we are dealing with a man and woman who were married in 1931. The petitioner claimed that within two years of the marriage he had evidence of misconduct on the part of his wife. When giving evidence before the committee he made a great many wild and unsubstantiated comments regarding his wife's behaviour. None of these allegations were corroborated in any way, and he could not even name the dates upon which these offences were said to have been [DOT]committed. As a matter of fact, he was so vague and general that he made no specific reference to the earlier instances of misconduct on the part of his wife, commencing within two years after their marriage, but did refer to a number of instances which he alleges occurred between 1937 and 1943. In *other words, the charges against his wife were of such a general nature that the
(Mr. Regier.3	i
only evidence as to time was this rather long period from 1937 to 1943.
If he believed or had reason to believe that his wife was guilty of misconduct as charged, he condoned the misconduct and indeed, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has pointed out, it was not until his wife took action for a legal separation in the province of Quebec that he decided to proceed with the divorce. At page 14 of the evidence presented to the committee he referred to the question of taking divorce action, and when asked by counsel why he decided to do something at that time he said:
Well, so many friends told me and I was getting sensitive about it. My stepfather and my father told me. I talked a while with him and I came to that decision that that is what I should do.
Here is the case of a man who alleges that he had ample evidence of his wife's misconduct from 1933 onward, with a great many specific allegations over a period of some six years, and finally a couple of years ago he says he was getting sensitive about it. It seems to me that the witnesses who appeared before the committee did not give a very satisfactory account of themselves.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is six o'clock, the house will revert to the consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock. Since this was in committee of the whole, would hon. members agree to let me leave the chair at this moment so the committee may resume consideration of the business at eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 415, to amend the Canada Elections Act-Mr. Pinard-Mr. Schneider in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: The committee was considering clause 3.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I note this clause says:
The polling divisions shall be those established for the last general election, unless the returning officer considers that a revision of the boundaries thereof is necessary and, in such case, he shall give due consideration to the polling divisions established by municipal and provincial authorities.

And so on. I think this is a good provision, and that it is wise to follow the subdivisions as laid out by a municipal council. I have in mind the constituency of Peterborough, where the federal lay-out is exactly opposite that used in municipal affairs. This causes a great deal of inconvenience. I have talked to the returning officer in Peterborough, and he feels that at the next election the municipal basis should be used, because it would cause less confusion. I believe this would apply also to other constituencies.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 was passed rather quickly this afternoon, with the result that I did not have a chance to say what I had intended to say. Perhaps I might make my observations on clause 3, because in it there is reference to the chief electoral officer. As the hon. member for Peterborough has just pointed out, the clause gives wide discretion. I believe that is as it should be.
Clause 2, which was discussed before five o'clock, fixes the position, salary and term of office of the chief electoral officer. I think it fitting at this time, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the house, that I express our appreciation of the work the chief electoral officer has been doing during the years he has held that position. I know of no officer who works harder, and in all my associations with him I have found that one could not find a fairer or more efficient officer, or one who extends more courteous treatment.
I am glad to see that his status is being fixed in this measure. While the provision may be a good one, I am sorry to see that he is subject to compulsory retirement at the age of 65 years. When one looks at his youthful figure he must come to the conclusion that the age of 65 is a long way off. However, we might keep in mind that the terms of many officers are extended from year to year after they reach the age of 65 years. I trust that at the time the chief electoral officer attains the dignity of grey hairs, and that slight enlargement of the constitution which comes with age, perhaps the government of that day will see fit to extend his term from year to year. In any event I did not wish this opportunity to pass without making a brief comment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Printing of preliminary lists for urban and rural polling divisions.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I note that clause 7 says:
The returning officer shall wherever possible cause the preliminary lists for both urban and
Canada Elections Act
rural polling divisions to be printed at a printing establishment situated in or near his electoral district.
I discussed this subject in committee. I do not think it is proper for a candidate to have the printing of voters' lists, preliminary lists or ballots. There should be some stipulation in the measure whereby a candidate would be prevented from having anything to do with such printing. Perhaps any amendment I might offer would carry very little weight, but I would like to hear what the minister has to say about it.


Roch Pinard: I think this matter could have
been discussed in committee, at which time the hon. member could have made his representations. There does not seem to be any real objection to a candidate recommending who the printer shall be. I do not believe any real harm can be done if lists are prepared according to the act, and the choice of the printer is left to the returning officer.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: My objection is that at the last election the Liberal candidate had the printing of the preliminary lists, the voters' lists and the ballots. I do not say there was any harm in it, but when a picture was shown of his plant in process of printing the ballots I did not think it looked well, and I know it caused a great deal of comment. This party did not mention the fact on any platform, because I warned them not to. I did not want to offend the candidate in any way or cast any slur upon him. However, I think some instructions should be issued to the returning officer pointing out that the printing must not be done by a candidate.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: This is news to me. I never had anything to do with the printing of voters' lists. It was always the returning officer who looked after that. Perhaps next time 1 will have more to do with it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Perhaps the
hon. member does not understand the circumstances. The candidate happened to be a printer by trade, and he was given the contract to print the first list, the voters' list and the ballots.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Who gave it to him?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The returning officer; and I say he should be given instructions that the printing should not be done by a candidate.


Roch Pinard: The hon. member is not suggesting that the work was not well done. Perhaps he is suggesting that it was too well

Canada Elections Act
done. However, I shall bring the matter to the attention of the chief electoral officer.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Nomination day.
Mr. Boisvert:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to move an amendment to this clause. Before doing so, however, I should like to say a few words in connection with the subject matter. I have examined the minutes of proceedings of the standing committee on privileges and elections that studied this bill, and I find there was no prolonged debate in that committee.
This change was made on the recommendation of the chief electoral officer. However, he did not express very strong views in the matter. After having set forth the possible consequences of errors in the lists of candidates sent to the armed forces outside of Canada, when the delay was one of 14 days, the chief electoral officer said this did not happen at the last election. At that time we had troops in Korea, but it is not likely that we will have them there at the time of the next election. Let me add that a law should not be passed to cover exceptions; it should be of general application.
The chief electoral officer expressed the administrative point of view. However, there are other points of view, such as that of the public interest. As expressed in Mr. Castonguay's evidence, the chief objection raised in the past to the extension of the period between nomination day and polling day is that it would reduce the time for political groups in the country to choose their candidates. I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is definitely in the public interest that plenty of time be given for the choice of candidates so the high standard of representation which exists in this house may be maintained in the future. It is quite clear that quite a number of hon. members feel that this period of 14 days should not be increased, and it will be admitted that each member of the house should be elected under conditions acceptable to all.
If the status quo is maintained I believe it will not prejudice anyone in the house. In making these remarks I do not in any manner blame the chief electoral officer for the suggestion he has made. As indicated, he presented the administrative point of view, but he did not press the point. Therefore I move:
That clause 9 of the bill be deleted and that the following clauses be renumbered.


Roch Pinard: As I said this afternoon, I do not hold any very strong views on having

the clause maintained as it is, in other words whether the delay should be extended from 14 to 21 days. As the Prime Minister said at the resolution stage of this legislation, if it is the wish of the house that the delay remain as it was in the act, I have no objection. I am ready to leave it to the free decision of the committee.


Mr. Drew:: I am very pleased that the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska has introduced this amendment, and the minister has indicated that he does not disapprove of or oppose it. I would point out that this has stood for many years, and that there have been good reasons for the 14-day period. All hon. members here realize that there is an advantage in ample preliminary time being available to consider the question of candidates and other details of that kind. I would point out that we have a rather long election period here. We read with interest recently that in the United Kingdom, where their elections are considered very important, the whole election campaign took less than a month.
I do not think it is an advantage to unduly increase the period of the campaign, and the procedure adopted in this case would have that effect. The only reason that was actually given for the increase was the problem that might be raised in connection with the vote of any armed forces overseas. Every hon. member here would be prepared to agree that anything that was desirable from the point of view of making it possible for members of the armed forces to exercise their democratic right should be considered favourably. After all, if there are any people who have the right to a democratic process in a satisfactory way it is those who themselves are taking the first responsibility for democracy.
My own submission is that it is not a real problem at all. If there has been any confusion in the lists it is not because of the difference between the 14-day period and the 21-day period. We must remember that the moment an election is announced and in fact well before that-because the government usually does not decide at the last moment- appropriate steps are taken to ensure that returning officers will be in position in adequate time.
In so far as the printing of the lists is concerned, that is something that can easily be done within the 14-day period. After all, with cables to any main centres, with wireless to any military centres, it is possible actually within minutes of the close of nominations to flash to any part of the world the complete list of the nominated candidates. All military units have printing devices available to

them by which the appropriate lists can be prepared. Therefore, with the advantages of cable and wireless and the available printing services, so long as the details are arranged the 14-day period is ample. It has stood there for a long time and for adequate reasons.
I have mentioned the situation in regard to the armed forces because, as some hon. members know, I have had occasion to assume some responsibility in regard to that matter myself on earlier occasions. I know it can be done satisfactorily within the 14-day period so long as the preliminary details are arranged. I would hope, therefore, that the amendment proposed will be supported by everyone on both sides of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On clause 10-Notice and proclamation of new nomination and polling days.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: This clause will have to be amended.


Maurice Boisvert: I have another amendment to move as follows:
That clause 10 of the bill be amended by replacing the words "twenty-first" in the 38th line by the word "fourteenth" that is in the act at present.


Roch Pinard: This amendment is in consequence of the previous one. There is also another place in clause 37 where the words "twenty-first" will have to be replaced by "fourteenth".


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There are two places in this clause. The first place is in line 31 and the other in line 38. It is one amendment but it changes two lines.


Roch Pinard: The only change in the clause is the change from twenty-first to fourteenth. The rest of the amendment does not concern the same matter.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 11-Central polling place.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Paragraph 7 of this clause reads:
Whenever the returning officer is unable to secure suitable premises to be used as a polling station within a polling division, he may, with the prior permission of the chief electoral officer, establish such polling station in an adjacent polling division-
And so on. In this case the returning officer should confer with the candidates and try to get their agreement before any change is made. I know that was done in the Peterborough riding and everybody was happy about it. If it had been done without their consideration I am afraid there might have
Canada Elections Act
been ructions, but it was all worked out very nicely. In this case the candidates should be consulted.


Roch Pinard: I will refer this to the chief
electoral officer and get his suggestions.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Flags, ribbons or favours not to be furnished or worn.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would this include book matches which have been given out and which might be carried by a voter, an agent or someone else during an election?


Roch Pinard: The section reads:
No person shall furnish or supply any flag, ribbon, label or like favour to or for any person-
Book matches might fall within the definition of "favour", but I think it is anybody's guess as to whether they would.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is a $64 question which I know has been considered by legal minds without a decision being reached.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would hope the minister would confer with the chief electoral officer. Although he is independent, I am sure he would like to have the opinion of the house, and I think the minister can tell him there is no one in this house who would want to see anyone prosecuted simply because he happened to have a book of matches in his pocket which had been given to him a week before for election purposes. I am quite sure the voters are not going to empty their pockets 48 hours before an election to see if they have any such matches. I imagine there would be considerable legal doubt about whether a person who happened to light a cigarette from a book of matches with somebody's name on it had violated the act.


Roch Pinard: It is quite difficult to say whether they would fall within the restrictions mentioned in the clause. I could suggest that the matter be referred to the Department of Justice for an opinion, but I think it could be left to the interpretation of any candidate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Applications to a judge for recount.
William Scottie Bryce: Previously there was a clause in the act which could be interpreted in two ways, and I want the assurance of the minister that this sort of thing cannot happen again. It puts a man in a most unfortunate position when two learned gentlemen are

Canada Elections Act able to place different interpretations on a section of the act. Is the minister satisfied that no two lawyers could read this section without quarrelling about it? Maybe the Minister of Justice can give me some assurance that this clause cannot be read in different ways.


Roch Pinard: The section of the act reads: -the said judge shall appoint a time within four days after receipt of the said affidavit to recount the said votes.
As the hon. member has said, that section was found to be susceptible of another interpretation. A judge might fix a date within four days, but then the date fixed for the recount might be two or three months after the four days have elapsed. The clause of the bill reads:
-such judge shall appoint a time to recount the said votes, which time shall, subject to subsection (3), be within four days after the receipt of the said affidavit.
I would not think that is susceptible to the other interpretation. I believe the clause as it now reads makes it mandatory that the date be fixed and the recount take place within that time.
Mr.1 Casileden: The hon. member for Selkirk was the one involved. The hon. member applied for a recount because the vote was fairly close. The judge set September 28 as the date. When September 28 came along nothing had happened, and my hon. friend who had applied for the recount wondered what was being done. On inquiry he was told that the judge was not feeling very well, that he had had a heart attack or something and was no longer on the bench. Another judge was appointed to take his place, which I presume would be done by the Department of Justice. This other judge then took it upon himself to declare that the decision of the first judge with regard to the recount was wrong. I do not know whether the second judge had the right to do that, but the order he issued read as follows:
Secondly, the order of Judge Keith did not comply with the requirements of subsection 1 of section 54 of the Canada Elections Act, 1952, maintaining that all our statutes must be construed strictly.
After consulting with counsel the judge ruled that the case would be dismissed, there would be no recount, and the $100 which my hon. friend had deposited in good faith was forfeited. The second judge decided that as the previous judge had made an error he could not order a recount and the money was turned in to the court. My hon. friend felt rather badly about it, but the judge dismissed the application for a recount.


An hon. Member:: Who got the $100?


George Hugh Castleden: I believe the lawyer for the opposition got it, a Mr. Shinbane. But there was no recount. It was not my hon. friend's fault that the first judge made a mistake, and he should not have been penalized. The application was made in good faith, the money was paid in good faith, but the second judge decided that the first judge was in error and there was no recount. That kind of thing does not go over very well, particularly when the second judge before his appointment had been a most active member of the party in power.
The minister considers this amendment to be foolproof. This clause reads:
-such judge shall appoint a time to recount the said votes, which time shall, subject to subsection (3), be within four days after the receipt of the said affidavit.
If the recount must be within four days I suggest to the minister that there are some constituencies in Canada where it would be most difficult to get the representatives of the various candidates and parties together from widely separated parts of the constituency. It would be impossible for * them to get their material together and have a recount within four days. I suggest to the minister that it is utterly impossible and impractical if it means that the recount must take place within four days of the declaration. If that is so the clause will be inoperative. How could candidates and their representatives, who might be three or four hundred miles apart, all be served within the time limit? Then after they had received notices the judge would have to be approached for an appointment to hear the application for a recount. I am sure we would have a great deal of difficulty in squaring the application with the words in this revised form, that the "time shall, subject to subsection 3, be within four days after the receipt of the said affidavit".
If the clause were to read that the recount shall be begun or action with regard to the recount shall be begun within four days, I can see some sense to that. But if the recount is to be held within four days, it is quite possible that a recount could not take place within that time. Some of these recounts take a considerable time. I believe that once in the case of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture it took several weeks. I suggest to the minister that in this case the clause should be phrased in such a way as to make it practical and operative.


Roch Pinard: Mr. Chairman, in answer to what my hon. friend has just said, we are not concerned with the contestation of an election. It is simply a recount. A statement

from each of the polls is sent to the returning officer and he has them on hand. The tabulation of the votes given in each of the statements is all that is needed, and also of course the candidates must be informed.


George Hugh Castleden: In a recount, you count the ballots.


Roch Pinard: It is just the tabulation, if I understand correctly. I have always been given to understand it is a tabulation of the statements of the ballots.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is confusing the recount with the official count. Would it not be correct to say the official count is made on the basis of the statements of the deputy returning officers, but a recount requires an inspection of the ballots?


Roch Pinard: Even if that were the case, ballot boxes are only handled by the returning officer, but of course notice is sent to the candidates. The ballot boxes are there. It is not as complicated as my hon. friend suggests to commence the recount in the four-day period.


George Hugh Castleden: But that is not in there. It says that the time for the recount shall be within four days. It does not say the time for the arrangement or the time for the commencement should be within four days.


Roch Pinard: I think it was expressed previously that it had to be commenced within four days.


George Hugh Castleden: If the minister would put that in, it would clarify the matter and prevent further difficulty. I foresee trouble with it as it is.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, in line 23 it says:
The sum of one hundred dollars in legal tender or in the bills of any chartered bank doing business in Canada.
A person would find it hard to get bills of a chartered bank. Should it not read:
The sum of one hundred dollars in legal tender or in the bills of the Bank of Canada or any chartered bank doing business in Canada.
Should not the Bank of Canada be included?


Roch Pinard: I do not think there would be any great inconvenience caused by that requirement. The provision is clear enough that it has to be legal tender, whether or not a chartered bank necessarily means the Bank of Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: "Chartered
bank" does not mean the Bank of Canada. Chartered banks used to have their own bank notes, but they are all extinct at the
Canada Elections Act
present time unless they are in collectors' vaults. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue has some of them.


Roch Pinard: The Bank of Canada is surely a chartered bank.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, it is not a
chartered bank. It is the one that allows the other banks to operate. The Bank of Canada is a separate unit entirely.


Mr. McCann:: But their currency is legal tender.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But the Bank
of Canada is not a chartered bank.


Ernest George Hansell: The answer given to that in the committee was that there may still be some chartered bank bills floating around somewhere, in old family socks, that might be dug out, and those bills would still be legal tender.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, in view of the questions that were asked of the minister, I wonder if we have this quite clear now. My understanding is that within four days of the official count an affidavit must be made and on receipt of such an affidavit the judge must set a date for the recount within four days.


Roch Pinard: Upon receipt of the affidavit, in my interpretation, they will have four days within which the recount must begin.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The affidavit must be received within four days following the official count, is that correct?


Roch Pinard: No, it does not say that.


Ernest George Hansell: Four days after the returning officer has declared the name of the candidate as being elected.


Roch Pinard: Yes, after he has been declared elected.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 35-Heures du jour.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of those who are getting worried because the wheels are spinning too rapidly, we are simply passing a number of forms authorized in the act. Clause 35 deals with the voting of service personnel. I should like to draw the attention of the minister particularly to this definition of the outer envelope in which the service personnel vote is deposited after the voter has marked his ballot. I know it is a matter of administration, and I do not know whether it is possible to deal with it in the

Canada Elections Act act, but I want to impress it upon the minister. I know he, in consultation with the electoral officer, will try to deal with the situation.
I myself am satisfied that the machinery which is provided by this act for the voting of service personnel, if properly carried out, retains absolute secrecy of the ballot of the particular service personnel voter. Nevertheless the machinery is such that they write out the vote in their own handwriting and put it in a small white envelope, and this in turn they put in a so-called outer envelope, which we are dealing with now. On the outside of the outer envelope they have to write their name and declare that they are John Brown, who is entitled to vote.
I am sure that 75 per cent of them believe that in that way their ballot can be identified. In other words they do not believe that electoral officers can be so scrupulously correct that they can open the outer envelope, as I believe they do, and draw out the white envelope and drop it in the box without looking at it. I have talked to scores of service personnel, and every one of them says, "Of course, they see my name on the envelope and they know how I vote". It has quite an effect.
I hope when this machinery is carried into effect the chief electoral officer and the officers of the armed forces will give all possible publicity to this, and give guarantees of the fact that when the outer envelope is opened, the inner envelope is taken out and put into the box. Once it goes in the box it loses the connecting link with the outer envelope, and there can be no identification. I believe that is the subject of a great deal of comment among service personnel, and I think in some way that doubt should be cleared up in their minds.


Roch Pinard: There is a good deal in what the hon. member has said. There may be the thought in the mind of the member of the service that the putting of his name on the envelope will identify him as the one who voted for a given candidate, although the ballot itself is contained in another envelope. I do not see any other way than to draw this to their attention and inform all members of the services that the purpose of the inner envelope is precisely to avoid that situation. I do not see very much in the way of another solution to the problem, but I shall draw this matter to the attention of the electoral officer.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the only way it could be done is this. The minister might take this suggestion into consideration, because we may be revising this act again before


the next election. Instead of putting the little envelope into the big brown envelope- the only purpose of the big brown envelope is that it is addressed to the returning officer and has a declaration endorsed on it-you can still have a declaration taken in some form and then sent to the returning officer, and the ballot could be forwarded independently of the envelope. I think some machinery could be worked out. We developed one method, that of putting it in the big brown envelope, and we are getting this result.


Roch Pinard: My doubt would be as to
how many of these ballots would be sent outside of the brown envelope.


George Clyde Nowlan: Put them in the boxes.


Roch Pinard: I shall discuss the matter with the electoral officer.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
On clause 37-List of names and surnames, etc., of candidates.
Maurice Boisvert: To cope with the amendment I moved earlier in this debate in connection with clauses 9 and 10 of the bill, I move that clause 37 of the present bill be deleted and that the following clauses be renumbered.


Roch Pinard: It is a consequential amendment in view of the previous amendments to sections 9 and 10. I accept the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreeable to the committee that I continue to call the remaining clauses as they are numbered in the bill as printed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 38 agreed to.
On clause 39-Wives of members of Canadian forces outside Canada deemed Canadian forces electors.


George Clyde Nowlan: Before clause 39 carries may I say that I think the attention of the committee should be drawn to the fact that this is a completely new section, and is a substantial extension of the principle of the service vote. What we are doing here is to provide the franchise for the wives of service personnel who are serving abroad. As I read these regulations, the wife will be compelled to vote for the candidate in the polling area or polling district for which her husband originally registered, although I think there is a good chance that she may never have lived in that area herself.

On the whole, the committee considered that it was better to give the vote to the wives even though some possible difficulties in administration were created, rather than deprive them of the vote. It is an experiment. The chief electoral officer prepared regulations which I think can be made to work. It is a most interesting experiment and one which I think the whole house and the country generally will be interested in following.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 60 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time? Now?


Ernest George Hansell: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of this house.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

Walter Edward Harris: I wonder if I might suggest the procedure. I think it would probably be desirable if the committee considered first the resolutions to which I referred in the budget speech, and then came back to those to which I referred on June 2.


Mr. Macdonnell:: That seems to be a convenient arrangement.
I want to make one or two preliminary remarks which also partly refer to procedure. But before I even do that, I want to refer to two items of interest. They are of interest particularly in connection with tariff matters, and they appeared in the morning press. One is an editorial in the Globe and Mail which refers to legislation in the United States which is of great interest to us. I shall read briefly from it:
Both houses of congress at Washington have now passed the bill which the Eisenhower administration considers the most important item on its 1955 agenda, the three-year extension of the reciprocal trade agreements act. Under this measure, he-
That is, the President.
-will be able to reduce tariffs by 15 per cent during the next three years and to cut any tariff levy above 50 per cent down to that level. The concessions permitted by this twenty-one-year-old law may be made by the President in return for similar concessions agreed to by any other nation, without reference to either congress or the tariff commission.
Customs Tariff
The second item I wish to read from briefly refers to the annoying but sometimes serious techniques of the administration of tariff laws. I read from a Canadian Press dispatch appearing in the Globe and Mail of today as follows:
Every year Canadian and United States businessmen pay out thousands of dollars to fight long, drawn-out disputes arising from an invisible curtain of tariffs.
These are the so-called "peek-a-boo" tariffs, the procedural red tape, the niceties of tariff language that are not immediately apparent to the shipper until he moves goods into a market and suddenly finds he has to pay extra tariff charges.
That whole item is worth reading, but I do not propose to take up the time of the committee in order to read it all. I think it is of interest to mention it because it refers to matters which are of such great importance in connection with our tariff relations, and we know how important they are.
I wish to make a couple of suggestions with regard to procedure. In his speech on April 5 the minister spoke in general about the tariff changes. Reading from page 2738 of Hansard of April 5, the minister said:
Many of them are essentially formal, but they serve to bring the wording of individual tariff items into line with changing trade practices and changing technology. Others make permanent certain temporary reductions in our tariffs on materials imported for use in Canadian manufacturing, reductions that were originally introduced by order in council in past years on a trial basis. Still others provide for new tariff reductions.
I suggest that the minister should make a brief comment on that. I should like to know a little about the order in council practice, the power for reductions made by order in council and just how they are followed through, partly in timing and partly in other ways, in the house. The minister then went on to say that the change in revenues will not be significant. He speaks about Canadians returning from abroad, and what he says there seems to be satisfactory. Then he goes on to speak about certain tariff changes in detail, and I suggest-indeed, I hope-the minister will go through the items explaining generally the reason for their being there.
For instance, there are two pages of items at the outset dealing with sugar, and so far as my observation goes there is no change in tariff. The minister will presumably explain that. Then there is the same thing with respect to aeroplane parts, and in many cases I observe there are no changes in tariffs. I suggest that the minister should go down the list and make general comments with regard to those where there is no change in tariff rates, but should comment specifically on those where there are changes in

Customs Tariff
tariff rates. That is going to take a little time, but it seems to me that is the common-sense way to deal with it.
Then there are one or two comments I want to make. Some of the changes result from reports of the tariff board, and the minister will no doubt refer to them. Then at page 2739 the minister goes on to say that he is going to refer two other sections to the tariff board, one having to do with the chemical industry and another having to do with the primary iron and steel schedule. Speaking on the latter, he says that it was worked out many years ago and badly needs overhauling. I should like the minister to comment on that, because on its face it seems as if we are a little late on the job. I wish the minister would comment on that at whatever length is necessary to make the situation clear. I suggest that is a reasonable way to proceed with the matter. It involves a certain amount of detail, but on the other hand it seems to me we cannot do less than ask to have the actual tariff changes explained.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I shall answer part of what my hon. friend has asked. My parliamentary assistant is going to deal with the items that are under discussion. However, there are two general questions to which the hon. member referred. The first has to do with the reduction of tariffs by order in council. This is provided for in section 273 of the Customs Act, subsection (j) and (1), I think it is, which gives the governor in council the power to reduce tariffs upon recommendation of the Minister of Finance. I have discovered that there are a considerable number of these requiring signature from time to time. The principles, of course, are many and varied. The main purpose is to see that materials are admitted to Canada as cheaply as possible when they will be of use in Canadian manufacturing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did the minister say section 273 of the Customs Act?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. With respect to the other question as to the reference to the tariff board of the primary iron and steel schedule, I am afraid I cannot amplify very much what I said on the night of the budget address. My recollection is that these items have not been changed to any appreciable extent since 1937, and in the meantime our industry has grown by leaps and bounds. Some of the items do not bear any relation to present production methods, any more than the chemical items have reference to what is now being produced. For example, so far as the chemical items are concerned I am told

that there are far more items not being produced now that are covered by tariff than items now being produced that are covered.
In other words, customs and trade practices change, and you have new products almost yearly, if not monthly. For that reason tariff items which at one time covered something in general use no longer cover items in general use, and in the meantime other items have come into general use. The question is whether they ought to be covered by new items in the customs tariff. I submit that my words were properly used when I said the items were worked out many years ago and badly need overhauling. There has not been a general study of these particular items since before the second world war, and it seems to me wise that the tariff board should be entrusted with that duty at the present time.
You will also notice, Mr. Chairman, that we have referred other items to the tariff board, and others will be referred from time to time, but in keeping with the practice since the tariff board was first established we will not undertake any major changes in tariff items without a thorough study by the board before we recommend it to parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My question really did not involve surprise that it was desirable to overhaul the tariff items. The minister's words have now underlined the fact that it is 18 years since the primary iron and steel schedule was covered, and I suggest we may probably have more to say about that when the bill is before us. We need not pursue it at the moment, but I suggest the minister might look into that with a view to discussing the matter further, because 18 years does seem a long time.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let us see what we are doing. As I understand the situation, the minister has suggested that we are to deal with the four resolutions he has introduced. Are we dealing with No. 1?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say something about this resolution?


Mr. Benidickson:: Perhaps we should direct our attention to resolution No. 1 of the budget ways and means resolutions of April 5, and then go to the various items in the schedule. The hon. member for Greenwood made some mention of the effect of the schedule. I would draw his attention to the fact that generally speaking the changes by reason of the budget are indicated by italics in the schedule. They indicate that something has been added or something changed. I would

then say that tariff item 9c would be the first one before the committee.
Customs tariff-9c. Horse meat, tripe and other animal offal, ground or unground, unfit for human consumption; whale meat; feeds consisting wholly or in part of cereals but not including baked biscuits; all of the foregoing when for use exclusively in the feeding of fur-bearing animals or in the manufacture of feeds for such purposes: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I am still a little puzzled. I thought we were dealing with resolution No. 1 introduced by the minister on the 2nd of June.


William Moore Benidickson: No. There are two main changes in the customs tariff, the one which was a part of the ways and means resolutions presented on April 5, and the other which was announced by the minister on June 2.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I misunderstood.


William Moore Benidickson: My understanding is we will proceed with the April 5th resolutions first.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then we have first this large group dealing with sugar in respect of which there is, as far as I can see, no change of rate. I understand the change that has been introduced has to do with the exclusion of molasses. Will the parliamentary assistant explain the nature of that?


William Moore Benidickson: I assume we have passed on from item 9c, which is a very minor item relating to whale meat imported for the feeding of fur-bearing animals. And do I understand we have also dealt with item 82, which permits the free entry of sweet potato plants, and we are now going on to item 134?


William Alfred Robinson: Would it be the wish of the committee that I call each tariff item for the purpose of discussion. I understand the discussion on item 9c is terminated?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.


William Alfred Robinson: And that the discussion on item 82 is terminated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I have asked that we be given an explanation wherever there is a change, and I note that there are changes in item 9c and also in item 82.


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to item 9c, I have mentioned that the changes are indicated by italics. The addition to this tariff item is the words "whale meat".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are there any changes in the rates?


William Moore Benidickson: There is a change in the rates with respect to whale meat; it will now take the rate that applied to all other items in that item.
Customs Tariff


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As it reads here we have present rates of free, free and free. Then turning to the rates in effect prior to this budget we find rates of 2 cents, 2\ cents and 5 cents.


William Moore Benidickson: Whale meat is being added to horse meat, tripe and other animal offal for free entry for the purpose of feeding fur-bearing animals.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it would be of assistance to the committee if we could have at the outset an indication by the parliamentary assistant of those items which have been before the tariff board in some way, or have emanated from the tariff board, as well as those that have no relation to any proceeding before that board.


William Moore Benidickson: I shall endeavour to keep that in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Then I understand there is no discussion on item 82. We will proceed to item 134.
Customs tariff-134. All sugar above No. 16 Dutch standard in colour, and all refined sugars of whatever kinds, grades or standards, not covered by tariff item No. 135, when not exceeding eighty-eight degrees of polarization, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 83 cents; most favoured nation tariff, $1.50; general tariff $1.50;
When exceeding eighty-eight degrees but not exceeding eighty-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 85 cents; most favoured nation tariff, $1.53; general tariff, $1.53;
When exceeding eighty-nine degrees but not exceeding ninety degrees, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 87 cents; most favoured nation tariff, $1.55; general tariff, $1.55;
When exceeding ninety degrees but not exceeding ninety one degrees, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 89 cents; most favoured nation tariff, $1.58; general tariff, $1.58;
When exceeding ninety one degrees but not exceeding ninety two degrees, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 91 cents; most favoured nation tariff, $1.62; general tariff, $1.62;
When exceeding ninety two degrees but not exceeding ninety three degrees, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 93 cents; most favoured nation tariff, $1.65; general tariff, $1.65;
When exceeding ninety three degrees but not exceeding ninety four degrees, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 95 cents; most favoured nation tariff, $1.68; general tariff, $1.68;
When exceeding ninety four degrees but not exceeding ninety five degrees, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 97 cents; most favoured nation tariff, $1.70; general tariff, $1.70;
When exceeding ninety five degrees but not exceeding ninety six degrees, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 99 cents; most favoured nation tariff, $1.74; general tariff, $1.74;
When exceeding ninety six degrees but not exceeding ninety seven degrees, per one hundred pounds:	British preferential tariff, $1.01; most
favoured nation tariff, $1.77; general tariff, $1.77;
When exceeding ninety seven degrees but not exceeding ninety eight degrees, per one hundred pounds:	British preferential tariff, $1.03; most
favoured nation tariff, $1.80; general tariff, $1.80;

Customs Tariff
When exceeding ninety eight degrees, but not exceeding ninety nine degrees, per one hundred pounds:	British preferential tariff, $1.09; most
favoured nation tariff, $1.89; general tariff, $1.89;
When exceeding ninety nine degrees, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, $1.09; most favoured nation tariff, $1.89; general tariff, $1.89;
Refined sugar shall be entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the minister that such refined sugar has been manufactured wholly from raw sugar produced in the British colonies and possessions, and not otherwise.
Sugar imported under this item shall not be subject to special duty in excess of three-fourths of one cent per pound.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member for Greenwood mentioned that this was one of the important revisions in the present tariff. It does not involve a change in rates of duty, but it does involve a change in wording. We are putting our administrative practices in line with those of the United States and Great Britain in so far as differentiation is concerned between molasses and high-grade sugar liquids. I refer to items 134 to 140, with the exception that as a result of this rewriting I shall require a new item to be numbered 137, which will be proposed as an amendment to be moved by the Minister of National Revenue.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is to cover what?


William Moore Benidickson: The new item will be No. 137, and it will refer to molasses produced by the evaporation and partial inversion of the juice of the sugar cane, in which the percentage of sulphated ash is not more than 9 per cent by weight, to be used for human consumption only.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the parliamentary assistant enlarge on the change being effected in item 136, before we deal with the amendment which is to become 137? It is indicated that item 136 is being completely rewritten. It refers to syrups, the product of the sugar cane.


William Moore Benidickson: Item No. 136 is a new one, as a result of this rewritting and the new distinction being drawn between molasses and sugar liquids that have, in the solidified state, a content of more than 71 per cent sugar. Item 136 will replace the various items which previously referred to molasses. We have found in the past that, administratively, certain imports have been called molasses, but they have such a high sugar content that in accordance with world-wide practice today in most lands and particularly in accordance with tariff practice in the United States and Great Britain, this would not be qualified for the low rate of import duty as molasses. It is difficult, without this new change, for the
[The Chairman.]
customs officials to decide just which product is molasses and which is a high sugar content liquid.
Item 134 agreed to.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we pass on to item 140?


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to item 137, I mentioned that there was an amendment. It is simply part and parcel of the molasses changes I have described.


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That resolution No. 1 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended to provide for the further amendment to schedule A by striking out tariff item 137, the enumeration of goods and the rate of duty of customs set opposite the said item and by inserting the following item, enumeration and rates of duties in the said schedule A:
137. Molasses, produced by the evaporation and partial inversion of the juice of the sugar cane, in which the percentage of sulphated ash is not more than 9 per cent by weight, for human consumption only, per gallon: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 1 cent; general tariff, 11 cents;


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Blackmore:: What effect would this
have on sugar prices in Canada? Will there be any change in the competitive position of cane sugar entering Canada, as related to beet sugar?


William Moore Benidickson: My understanding is that there is no real change in duty. It is a revision from the point of view of description which will permit the customs people to deal a little more accurately with the type of product that comes in with certain grades of sugar content.


John Horne Blackmore: It will not give the cane sugar people any advantage beyond those they now possess in competition with beet sugar?


William Moore Benidickson: No.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister is quite
positive about that?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Then I understand we have now reached item 140.
Customs tariff-140. Syrups, the product of the sugar cane or beet, and all imitations thereof or substitutes therefor, n.o.p. per gallon:	British
preferential tariff, 5 cents; most favoured nation tariff, 6j| cents; general tariff, 7 cents;


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the parliamentary
assistant comment on the change which has been made there, because it seems to be very substantial.


William Moore Benidickson: It is simply a matter of changing the method of calculation for duty. It provides for a gallonage basis instead of a poundage basis.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the result be either up or down?


William Moore Benidickson: It will be the same.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-157a. Amyl alcohol:	British
preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free;
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why is it on the
free list?


William Moore Benidickson: This product, amyl alcohol, was previously imported free of duty if it was to be used in the manufacture of varnishes and lacquers. Now it will be free of import duty for all purposes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are its other purposes?


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think I have the answer to that, except that my notes indicate that the total value of the dutiable imports last year was only $1,000. Therefore it was considered that the restrictive description was not justified.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was wondering what gave rise to the suggestion for the change. It is not used except for the one use for which it was permitted free entry before.


William Moore Benidickson: Generally it is a product that goes into the paint manufacturing industry, and it was restricted so noticeably to metal varnishes and lacquers that it did not seem to be a justifiable restriction, particularly when the dutiable imports in a year amounted to only $1,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who asked for the change?


John Horne Blackmore: Does the commodity come into competition with any commodity of Canadian origin?


William Moore Benidickson: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 181b agreed to.
Customs tariff-219h. Chemicals, except antibiotics, of a kind not produced in Canada, without admixture or mixed only with any necessary carrier or diluent, when for use in the manufacture of animal or poultry feeds: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a substantial change here. May we have an explanation of it?


William Moore Benidickson: Generally speaking there is an endeavour to reduce tariff imposts on products that serve the agricultural industry.
50433-322J
Customs Tariff
My friend will note that this is a product that goes into the manufacture of animal and poultry feeds, and consequently an effort is being made to reduce the ultimate cost to-the producer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The word "various" does: not seem to be very descriptive. Can we have an idea of the range?


William Moore Benidickson: You mean the type of product?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. The rates in effect
previously are described as "various". Can the parliamentary assistant say whether or not the change is practically negligible?


William Moore Benidickson: These chemicals were dutiable at 15 per cent under the British preferential tariff, and 20 per cent under the most favoured nation tariff. I understand, that the most important product of this, nature that has been imported in the past is urea. The annual consumption has been, about $200,000 worth.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I see from the tariff that this is a new item. It is a replacement of an existing item; this is writing a new subitem, into the tariff.


William Moore Benidickson: That is right. These products previously, regardless of their end purpose, would have been treated in accordance with the description that applied to each individual item. I have drawn my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the item describes the article as a kind not produced, in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-231a. Deuterium oxide or heavy water; uranium in the form of pigs, ingots, billets or bars: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent. On and after July 1, 1958, British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why are we legislating now for July 1, 1958? I observe that part of this comes into effect on and after July 1. 1958.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, our crown company, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited* will use heavy water in the reactor now being built at Chalk River, and not enough of this is being produced in Canada. The whole situation will be reviewed again before July 1, 1958.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The item contemplates an increase in the tariff for most favoured nations on and after July 1, 1958?


William Moore Benidickson: No, it simply says that unless otherwise enacted, on and after July 1*

Customs Tariff
1958, the rates that have been applicable heretofore would then again become applicable.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would not the item indicate that it is free on the first list and 15 per cent instead of free on the most favoured nation tariff?


William Moore Benidickson: No. If the hon. member will look at the righthand side of the schedule he will see the rates in effect prior to the rates proposed in the 1955 budget. He will find that those are the same rates that will be applicable on and after July 1, 1958, if this matter is not otherwise attended to.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are not
changing it until then?


William Moore Benidickson: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What it means is for this three-year period you are reducing only the one rate, namely the most favoured nation rate?


William Moore Benidickson: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And on July 1, 1958, the rate will revert to the rate heretofore in effect?


William Moore Benidickson: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 238, 254, 255, 255a, 255b, 262, 326c agreed to.
Customs tariff-364. Diamond dust or bort and black diamonds, for borers: diamond dust mixed with a carrier, in cartridges or in tubes, the component material or chief value being diamond dust; British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a substantial change here. There are a considerable number of changes. Is there any way in which they can be dealt with generally? Must each item be dealt with on its merits?


William Moore Benidickson: The only change is that trade practices are now such that this product enters in tubes, rather than as formerly described in the tariff, as contained in cartridges.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is an interesting description, but it does not seem to indicate what we really want to know about this, namely the substantial change in the tariff.


William Moore Benidickson: There is really no change at all. It simply means that the product is now coming in a different package, and the new package is being described so the product will come in as heretofore.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The British preferential tariff, the most favoured nation tariff and the

general tariff are all free. Previously they were 12 per cent, 17-| per cent and 27 J per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: Diamond dust, and so on,
if it came in cartridges heretofore has been free on entry; but if in tubes heretofore it had been subject, on the most favoured nation rate, say from the United States, to 17J per cent. The only change is that the product from now on, if imported in tubes, will have the same duty free entry, as if it was brought in in cartridges.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What the parliamentary assistant is saying in point of fact is that business practice is different, and it is going to result in material coming in packaged in this way, and coming in free?


William Moore Benidickson: That is right. The type of packaging has changed, but the product is the same and therefore should be entitled to the historic rate of duty or absence of duty.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It distinctly says "in cartridges or tubes."


William Moore Benidickson: The change is "or in tubes". Those are the italicized words, which are new and are the addition in the present budget.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 407 agreed to.
Customs tariff-409e. (1) Spraying and dusting machines and attachments therefor, including hand sprayers; apparatus for the destruction of predatory animals by the discharge of poisonous cartridges and poisonous cartridges for such apparatus; automatic explosive bird-scaring devices; starter cartridges for diesel engines; apparatus specially designed for sterilizing bulbs; pressure testing apparatus for determining maturity of fruit; pruning hooks; pruning shears; dehorning instruments; parts of the foregoing; British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand the parliamentary assistant is going to inform us with regard to any of these items that are the outcome of any hearing before the tariff board or any recommendation emanating from the board.


William Moore Benidickson: I am trying to keep that in mind. We are going fairly speedily. According to my recollection, I can assure the hon. member for Greenwood that in his budget speech the Minister of Finance referred to all items which were being changed as the result of tariff board recommendations. I am continuing to keep his suggestion in mind, but as yet we have not met one of those items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 409e (2) agreed to.

Customs tariff-409f. Automatic watering bowls; barn hay forks, carriage, pulleys and track; barn litter carriers and track; grain crushers; grain or hay dryers; grain or hay grinders; hitches and couplings; hydraulic hoists for unloading vehicles; machines and tools for use on tractors, including blades, loaders, rippers, rakes and related operating and controlling gear; milk coolers; plough bolts; sodium metabisulphite; sprinkler irrigation systems; steel stanchions for confining livestock either in pens or individually, and complete equipment for milking parlors; all the foregoing for use on the farm for farm purposes only; brooders for rearing young farm animals; ensilage cutters; fodder or feed cutters; grain loaders or elevators with a capacity not exceeding forty bushels per minute; hay loaders; hay tedders; post hole diggers; potato diggers; potato planters; snaths; stumping machines; all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery n.o.p.; parts of all the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are not these items made in Canada? Why are they being put on the free list when there was a tariff on them before?


William Moore Benidickson: I think my hon. friend's question covers the same point as his previous question. He will note in connection with this item the words:
Machines and tools for use on tractors, including blades, loaders, rippers, rakes and related operating and controlling gear.
Those words are italicized which means that this type of product has been added to the item and gets on the free list. I recall in previous debates my hon. friend urging that this be done, and I assure him that this addition bears out his recommendation.


Mr. Palletf:: I notice that most of the items are machinery items but there is one item, sodium metabisulphite, which would appear to be a chemical.


William Moore Benidickson: That is for the treatment of ensilage. This is of general interest to farmers as are other products named in 409f.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 409m, 409s, 410k, 410p and 410t agreed to.
Customs tariff-418. Machinery and apparatus and parts thereof, for use exclusively in the manufacture of fish meal, liquid fish and fish solubles, stock and poultry food and fertilizers from fish and waste thereof: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I notice that there are no words italicized in this item, so do I take it that we are dealing with a straight change in rate?


William Moore Benidickson: That is right. This item involves a change in rate from 15 per cent to
Customs Tariff
10 per cent, as will be disclosed by a comparison of the rates on the righthand side of the schedule with those on the lefthand side.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that all these items are the result of representations received from some quarters to meet a particular situation which has faced the customs authorities in classifying some of the articles under the existing tariff,


William Moore Benidickson: That is correct. These items are of interest to the fish by-products industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 422a agreed to.
Customs tariff-423. Dental chairs; dental units; electric dental engines; parts of the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I note that the words are italicized in this item.


William Moore Benidickson: Previously certain of this equipment imported by dentists was dutiable at 22J per cent. It was imported chiefly from the United States, and the rate is now being made free.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are any of these dental chairs made in Canada, or are they all imported?


William Moore Benidickson: Very few of the type of chair which my hon. friend and I would note in a dentist's office are made in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The kind we seek to avoid. I notice that at the present time the tariff item deals simply with "electrical dental engines," which is a most formidable and forbidding expression. It almost calls to mind the sound of the drill working on one's molars. Here we seem to be going into a somewhat different item covering dental chairs and dental units as well as the electric dental engines. Could we have some further explanation of this item and know how it is likely to affect Canadian producers?


William Moore Benidickson: Generally speaking this type of product is not produced in Canada, and that is the motive for making entry free for those who use this kind of equipment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume that dental chairs have been imported for quite a long time, as well as dental units, which would likely cover quite a number of dental machines, or engines for that matter, according to this forbidding tariff expression. If this type of importation has been going on for a long time, and if this sort of thing is not made in Canada, what is the purpose of amending the item?

Customs Tariff


William Moore Benidickson: There is a constant review and consideration of items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I appreciate that, but I take it that something specific has been called to your attention.


William Moore Benidickson: Representations are received over the years by people interested in products that are subject to duty. In respect to these products it has been considered that the representations were worthy of consideration. My hon. friend will note that they have been subject to quite a variety of rates of duty, and they are all being included under one new tariff item and will be free of duty on entry from now on.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the parliamentary
assistant tell us whether or not, in respect to any one or more of these items, with a measure of protection they could be manufactured in Canada? I am told that there are a good many parts which enter into the manufacture of trucks, refrigerators and a considerable variety of other things which we are not producing in Canada. They are now imported from the United States, probably in an unfinished form and finished here in Canada. However, it would appear that our own machinery manufacturing concerns are seriously interfered with by such procedure. Are any of these items such that they could be considered with profit in that respect?


William Moore Benidickson: I would point out that heretofore they have been subject to a duty of a rather important rate. With respect to most favoured nation imports the rate has been 22' per cent, with the general tariff rate 35 per cent. I might point out that the actual requirements in Canada for these items are not large. I think they would be in the nature of about $250,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-427b.	(1) Ball and roller bearings
for the repair of agricultural implements and agricultural machinery specified in tariff items 409, 409a,	409b,	409c,	409d.	409e,	409f,	409h,	409j,
409k, 4091, 409n, 409o, 409q and the tractors provided for in tariff item 409m:	parts thereof:
British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(2)	Ball and roller bearings of a class or kind not made in Canada, n.o.p.; parts thereof: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 35 per cent.
(3)	Ball and roller bearings, n.o.p.; parts thereof: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 171 Per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: 
William Moore Benidickson: The general tariff is not of real consequence today. We have trade treaties with most of the countries with which we do active business, and consequently the general tariff is not important until we are in position to make a trade treaty with a country with which we have not one already.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-427m. Machine and tools, including blades, loaders, rippers, rakes, and related operating and controlling gears; all the foregoing for use on internal combustion tractors, other than highway truck-tractors; parts of the foregoing :	...
(1)	of a class or kind made m Canada; British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 22] per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
(2)	of a class or kind not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 7] per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the parliamentary assistant indicate what relationship there is between this item and item 409f, which contains similar terms?


William Moore Benidickson: I think the main difference is the description of item 409f, where it says:
All the foregoing for use on the farm for farm purposes only.
With respect to 427m, again there is an amendment which I would ask the colleague of the Minister of Finance to move. It is suggested that the item appearing before hon. members be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:
427m. Machines and tools, including blades, loaders, ripper, rakes and related operating and controlling gear; all the foregoing for use on internal combustion tractors, other than highway truck-tractors:
(1)	of a class or kind made in Canada; parts thereof: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 22] per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
(2)	of a class or kind not made in Canada; parts
thereof:	British preferential tariff, free; most
favoured nation tariff, 7] per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
The rates are the same. The change in wording here is to provide that parts of these machines and tools shall be classified as far as their made in Canada status is concerned along with machines and tools. This was an omission in drafting at the time of the budget.


Edward George McCullough: I think it is rather unfortunate that the minister has not seen fit to reduce the tariff on these items, because today with the high cost of farming and with many of these parts being used on hydraulically-equipped farm tractors, I think he will recognize that it would be

in the interests of agriculture if some reduction were made in this respect.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I draw my hon. friend's attention to item 409f, which is in the same schedule. There he will find that special treatment is given when these products are for use on the farm for farm purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Customs tariff-432f. Closures or caps, bearing the tax seal of a foreign government, to be used for capping receptacles holding liquid to be exported:	British preferential tariff, free; most
favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Donald Methuen Fleming: What kind of liquid is
referred to there?


William Moore Benidickson: Probably a spirituous liquor. We have had a drawback item of 99 per cent with respect to this type of article, and we are eliminating an administrative difficulty in dealing with that drawback by making it free.


John Horne Blackmore: Are we to conclude from the wording of this item that we are unable to manufacture such closures or caps in Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: No, this is a cap bearing a tax seal of a foreign government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-438b. Bearings, ball or roller; bearings, clutch release, with or without collar attached; bearings, graphite; bearings, steel or bronze backed, with non-ferrous metal lining, parts and materials therefor; bearings, steering knuckle thrust; bushings or sleeve bearings of bronze or powdered metal; bushings, graphited or oil impregnated; ceramic insulator spark plug cores not further manufactured than burned and glazed, printed or decorated or not, without fittings; collars, crankshaft thrust; compressors and parts thereof, air; commutator copper segments; commutator insulating end rings; tapered discs of hot rolled steel, with or without centre hole, for disc wheels; diaphrams for fuel and vacuum pumps; distributor rotors and cam assemblies; door bumper shoes; electric wiring terminals, sockets, fittings and connectors and parts and combinations thereof, including brackets and fittings permanently attached thereto, but not including battery terminals; gaskets of any material except cork or felt, composite or not, parts and materials therefor; ignition contact points; keys for shafting; auxiliary driving control kits, designed for attachment to motor vehicles to facilitate their operation by physically disabled persons, and parts thereof; lenses of glass for motor vehicle lamps and for light reflectors; lock washers; magnetic plugs; piston ring castings in the rough, with or without gates and fins removed; propellor shaft tubes of steel bonded by rubber; rails of lock seam section, corners, locks and catches, unplated ventilators and parts thereof, the foregoing being of metal other than aluminum, for the manufacture of window sashes for bus bodies; steel bolts, studs, plugs, rivets or nuts, capped with stainless steel, and parts thereof;
Customs Tariff
Switches, relays, circuit breakers and solenoids and combinations and parts thereof, including starter switch assemblies; shift control, electric, for two speed rear axles; vacuum, hydraulic or air control assemblies and parts thereof; vulcanized fibre in sheets, rods, strips and tubings;
Parts of all the foregoing; all of the foregoing for use in the manufacture or repair of goods enumerated in tariff items 424 and 438a, or for use in the manufacture of parts therefor:
1.	When of a class or kind not made in Canada:
British	preferential	tariff,	free;	most	favoured
nation tariff, free; general tariff, 30 per cent.
2.	When of a class or kind made in Canada:
British	preferential	tariff,	free;	most	favoured
nation tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: With regard to the second item, "bearings, clutch release, with or without collar attached", was there a different tariff on that before?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. They were previously classified under this item if they were imported without collars.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If the collar was attached it came under another item entirely?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a whole range of items in 438. I take it they have a good deal to do with the motor car industry?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. Items 438b, 438c and 438i simply provide two articles to be added to the list of goods which may be imported free by the automobile industry when they are not made in Canada. Then there are two minor changes with respect to 438c. There is provision for unplated external ornaments and for grilles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-438c. Ammeters; arm rests and wheel housing lining of indurated fibre, pressed to shape; axle housings, one piece welded, machined or not, including parts welded thereto; carburetors; chassis frames and steel shapes for the manufacture thereof; cigar and cigarette lighters, whether in combination with a cigarette holder or not, including base; control ventilator gear box; cylinder lock barrels, with or without sleeves and keys thereof; dash heat indicators; engine speed governor units; external ornaments unplated, including name plates, letter and numerals, but not including finish or decorative mouldings; fluid couplings with or without drive plate assemblies; gauges, gasoline, oil or air;
Grilles not plated, polished or not before assembly, and parts thereof not plated or polished after final forming, casting or piercing, not including added finish or decorative mouldings; hinges, finished or not, for bodies; horns; instrument bezel assemblies; instrument board lamps; instrument panel, glove compartment, luggage compartment, hood compartment and door step lamps and wire assemblies; locks, electric ignition, steering gear, transmission, or combinations of such locks; mouldings of metal, with nails set in position, lead filled or not; oil filter parts, namely: perforated filter refill oil board bodies, refill end discs, and roll-seam perforated tubes; ornaments and identification plates of metal, unplated, not including finished or decorative mouldings;
[Stage Direction]
Customs Tariff
Pipe lines of tubing, rigid, covered or not, with or without fittings, and tubing therefor; purifiers for gasoline, including brackets and fittings therefor; radiator shutter assemblies, automatic; radiator water gauges; radiator shells not plated nor metal finished in any degree; shackles, bearing spring; speedometers; spring covers of metal and closing strips or shapes therefor; steering wheels, rims and spiders therefor; sun visor blanks of gypsum weatherboard; tachometers, with or without tachographs, both electric and gear driven; thermostatic controls; throttle, spark, choke, and hood lock release assemblies, including buttons therefor; torque convertors; auxiliary transmission overdrive units and controls therefor; universal joint ball assemblies; windshield and window wipers; parts of all the foregoing, including brackets, fittings and connections therefor;
Stampings, body, cowl, fender, front end, hood, instrument board, shields and baffles, of metal in the rough, trimmed or not, whether or not welded in any manner before final forming or piercing, but not metal finished in any degree;
All of the foregoing when for use in the manufacture or repair of the goods enumerated in the tariff items 410a (iii), 424 and 438a, or for use in the manufacture of parts therefor: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 171 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
(1)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of passenger automobiles (having a seating capacity for not more than ten persons each) enumerated in tariff item 438a whose total factory output during the year in which importation is sought, does not exceed ten thousand such complete passenger automobiles, and if not less than forty per cent of the factory cost of production of such automobiles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be; British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(2)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of passenger automobiles (having a seating capacity for not more than ten persons each) enumerated in tariff item 438a, whose total factory output, during the year in which importation is sought, exceeds ten thousand, but does not exceed twenty thousand such complete passenger automobiles, and if not less than fifty per cent of the factory cost of production of such automobiles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be:
British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(3)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of passenger automobiles (having a seating capacity for not more than ten persons each) enumerated in tariff item 438a, whose total factory output, during the year in which importation is sought, exceeds twenty thousand such complete passenger automobiles, and if not less than sixty per cent of the factory cost of production of such automobiles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be, British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(4)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of motor trucks, motor buses, electric trackless trolley buses, fire fighting vehicles, motor ambulances, and hearses, or chassis for same, as enumerated in tariff items 410a(iii), 438a and 424, whose total factory output of such

vehicles during the year in which importation is sought, does not exceed ten thousand such vehicles, and if not less than forty per cent of the factory cost of production of such vehicles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be, British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(5)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of motor trucks, motor buses, electric trackless trolley buses, fire fighting vehicles, motor ambulances and hearses, or chassis for same, as enumerated in tariff items 410a(iii), 438a and 424, whose total factory output of such vehicles during the year in which importation is sought, exceeds ten thousand units, and if not less than fifty per cent of the factory cost of production of such vehicles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be, British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(6)	If the above articles are of a class or kind not made in Canada and are for use in the repair of the goods enumerated in tariff items 410a(iii), 424 and 438a, or are for use in the manufacture of repair parts therefor, the rates of duty under this item shall be, British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(7)	The governor in council may make such regulations, if any, as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this item.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: In 438c it does not say anything about the kind made or not made in Canada. I notice here "external ornaments unplated, including name plates, letters and numerals". Are they not of a kind made in Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: This is a very long item, and my hon. friend will find there is a proviso, Paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the provisos stipulate, "is not made in Canada".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-439g. Ships and other vessels, for use in the commercial fishing industry, over one hundred feet registered length; British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 439g takes us into something a little bigger. This is a new item, and the effect of it is to reduce from 25 per cent to free the most favoured nation tariff on ships and other vessels for use in the commercial fishing industry of over 100 feet registered length. What is the situation with regard to the production of such ships in Canada? What are the circumstances that call for this very substantial reduction in the most favoured nation rate?


William Moore Benidickson: This reference to the 100-feet length was made on the understanding that there is practically no Canadian production of a ship as large as 100 feet in length for fishing purposes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has there been any communication from the Canadian shipbuilders in connection with this? Has there been any comment from the industry?


William Moore Benidickson: No. Of course my hon. friend will realize that some weeks have elapsed since the budget resolutions were announced.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have any representations on this subject been received by the minister since the budget resolutions were tabled in this house some two months ago? Having regard to the condition of the shipbuilding industry, one would think this was an item of some importance.


William Moore Benidickson: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-440m. Aircraft, not including engines, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe: 1. When of types or sizes not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 271 per cent. On and after July 1, 1958: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 271 per cent. 2. When of types and sizes made in Canada:	British preferential
tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 271 per cent.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In 440m, n, p and q, we are discussing items that affect the aircraft industry; we are dealing with aircraft engines and parts of aircraft. I take it this is a matter of some importance. Could we have the parliamentary assistant's explanation of these proposed reductions?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Tariff items 440m to 440r do involve a general revision of the aircraft and aircraft parts items. There are no increases in rates of duty, and there are some reductions. The free entry for aircraft and engines of types not made in Canada, which would have expired on July 1 next, is continued to July 1, 1958. With respect to 440p and 440q, these items consolidate the previous items for parts of aircraft and parts of aircraft engines. There will be reductions of duty on certain unfinished parts of aircraft, of types and sizes not made in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here we have another of
those situations of the kind we had under discussion a few minutes ago, where there is a reduction to take effect now and then presumably we are to revert three years hence to a different rate. What is the position under GATT with regard to establishing reductions now and attaching a provision that there is to be a change, which in some of these cases may be an increase and in other cases may be a reduction, as of 1958?
Customs Tariff


William Moore Benidickson: I am informed there is no conflict with our agreement under GATT in a procedure of this kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no problem raised here as to binding at all?


William Moore Benidickson: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does that apply to all of the items in this bill that are dealt with in this manner; that is to say, a present reduction for a three-year period?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes; that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 440n, 440p, 440q, 440r agreed to.
Customs tariff-443c. Automatic pilots, thermostatic controls, thermostatically-operated controls, hydrostatically-operated controls and parts of the foregoing, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use in the manufacture of gas water heaters: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Here we have a whole series. Can we take it that where these reductions are made they are confined to cases where the articles are not made in Canada, or that in the alternative there has been no representation or objection raised by the industry?


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to the latter point, I cannot speak; but certainly item 443c is clear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes; that is clear.


William Moore Benidickson: It applies only to articles of a class or kind not made in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall we pass on to item 443f?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am asking the same question with regard to this whole list.


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend is asking for a rather large answer. He will note that generally speaking these items indicate which rates apply to articles produced in Canada and which apply to articles which are not produced in Canada and therefore do not conflict with any Canadian industry.
Item 443f agreed to.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Item 447b.


William Moore Benidickson: Before we go on to item 447b, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue to move an amendment which would provide a new item, namely item 446k; tools, wholly or in part of iron or steel, not otherwise provided, for use in machines.

Customs Tariff


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That resolution No. 1 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended to provide for the further amendment of schedule A by striking out tariff item 446k, the enumeration of goods and the several rates of duties of customs set opposite the said item and by inserting the following item, enumeration and rates of duty in said schedule A:
446k. Tools, wholly or in part of iron or steel, n.o.p., for use in machines
(1)	of a class or kind not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 7j per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
(2)	of a class or kind made in Canada: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 22\ per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item 447b agreed to.
Customs tariff-476. Surgical and dental instruments of any material; surgical needles; clinical thermometers and cases therefor; X-ray apparatus and X-ray film; microscopes valued at not less than fifty dollars each, retail; complete parts of all the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
William Moore Benidickson: Here again there is to be an amendment to item 476 which will have the effect of adding the words "electric light lamps designed for use with the foregoing" X-ray apparatus as described in the schedule.


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That resolution No. 1 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended by deleting therefrom item 476 and by substituting therefor the following:
476. Surgical and dental instruments of any material; surgical needles; clinical thermometers and cases therefor; X-ray apparatus and X-ray film; microscopes valued at not less than fifty dollars each, retail; complete parts of the foregoing; electric light lamps designed for use with the foregoing:	British preferential tariff, free; most
favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the amendment carry?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the electric lamps be of a kind not made in Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. They are not made in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-476d. Gloves, mittens and other wearing apparel; all of the foregoing when lead-impregnated or lead-lined, for the use of X-ray operators: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Donald Methuen Fleming: It strikes me that a problem of interpretation is raised here. The item reads or will read, as changed:
Gloves, mittens and other wearing apparel-
Then there is a semicolon.
-all of the foregoing when lead-impregnated or lead-lined, for the use of X-ray operators.

Do the words following the semicolon stand by themselves, and are we then to understand that the gloves, mittens and other wearing apparel are now to enjoy free entry, whereas previously they were subject to substantial customs duty, or are the gloves, mittens and other wearing apparel to be interpreted here as being only those that are lead-impregnated or lead-lined, for the use of X-ray operators?


William Moore Benidickson: They are those that are lead-impregnated or lead-lined.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Only those?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It strikes me, then, that we must revise this item, because that semicolon certainly does not suggest that the description which follows the semicolon limits the words that precede the semicolon. If I understood correctly what the parliamentary assistant has said, he means that this item is to provide that gloves, mittens and other wearing apparel, if lead-impregnated or lead-lined, for the use of X-ray operators, are to be admitted duty free, but there is nothing here that is to touch the tariff on gloves, mittens and other wearing apparel in general?


William Moore Benidickson: If my hon. friend will look at the other items in the schedule I think he will find that this is the regular procedure, and that the descriptive phraseology following the introduction to the item is all tied in and is administered in that way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am looking at the existing item 476, and I see that it is confined to surgical and dental instruments and appliances. But then you have this subitem 476d, which seems to suggest that you are dealing separately with gloves, mittens and other wearing apparel. Then you have what could be interpreted as a separate provision, in view of the fact that it follows the semicolon, describing, it is true, all of the foregoing when lead-impregnated or lead-lined, for the use of X-ray operators. It seems to me a problem is raised by the punctuation here. If your intention is to confine the gloves, mittens and other wearing apparel which are to enjoy free entry to those and those only which are lead-impregnated or lead-lined and are for the use of X-ray operators, there ought to be a change in the punctuation here.


William Moore Benidickson: The Minister of Finance suggests, Mr. Chairman, that this matter could be looked at between now and the time the actual bill is before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-481a. Individual pairs of boots or shoes for defective or abnormal feet, when purchased on the written order of a registered medical practitioner.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I had one question to ask on this item dealing with this matter of shoes. Presumably this provides for orthopaedic cases. What is the provision with regard to excise tax on shoes of this nature?


William Moore Benidickson: I shall have to look up that matter. I must say that this item has been advanced through the representations of the hon. member for Winnipeg South and the hon. member for Lincoln since the last budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can see much merit in an effort to provide these orthopaedic shoes for those who require them at as low a price as possible. I recall the matter being discussed in the house at the last session. But I am wondering why we do not take a look at the tax impositions on such shoes at the same time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 523f, 532e, 541, 550d, 557b, 557c, 561d, 604c, 663i, 671 and 681c agreed to.
Customs tariff-695a. Paintings, drawings and pastels by artists, all of the foregoing when valued at not less than twenty dollars each; paintings and sculptures by artists domiciled in Canada but residing temporarily abroad for purposes of study, under regulations by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to inquire about this item, paintings, drawings and pastels by artists, all of the foregoing when valued at not less than $20 each; paintings and sculptures by artists domiciled in Canada but residing temporarily abroad for purposes of study, under regulations by the minister. Can we be informed as to the kind of regulations they would be?


William Moore Benidickson: The only change with respect to item 695a is, of course, the addition of the word "drawings". Paintings and pastels have been imported free previously under this item in the tariff schedule, and the same words have governed their import, namely "under regulations by the minister". That is something about which I will have to inform myself.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who does the valuing?


William Moore Benidickson: The customs officers at the port of entry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The art connoisseurs in the department.


William Moore Benidickson: I think my hon. friends have put their finger on the key to this whole matter. The provision for it being
50433-323J
Customs Tariff
done under regulations by the minister provides a recheck on a matter of judgment as to value.


James Joseph McCann: The value is on the invoice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Minister of National
Revenue suggests that these would be commercial transactions and that there would be an invoice. Would that be the ordinary practice? In other words no real question would arise.


James Joseph McCann: That is part of it, and the
rest of it is if they are drawings made by a person temporarily resident abroad who brings them home with him. Then we put a value on them. It refers here to paintings and sculptures by artists domiciled in Canada but residing temporarily abroad for purposes of study.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what made me think perhaps it was not an ordinary commercial transaction. Apparently these things come through and are valued by the man on the spot. I thought that might be very difficult. I do not want to be raising imaginary difficulties. If in fact these things are going through in the ordinary course, let us leave it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 696a, 696d, 696e agreed to.
Customs tariff-703(c). Goods (not including alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes or manufactured tobacco) imported
(1)	by members of the Canadian armed forces or by employees of the Canadian government after an absence from Canada of not less than one year, or
(2)	by former residents of Canada returning to Canada to resume residence therein after having been residents of another country for a period of not less than one year, and acquired by them for personal or household use and actually owned abroad by them for at least six months before their return to Canada, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free: general tariff, free.
Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect to subclause 2, I think the hon. member for Peterborough is to be congratulated inasmuch as this is a matter he has been raising effectively in the house from time to time.


Walter Edward Harris: I would not object at any time to any hon. member having credit given to him for what he raises in the house, but I should like to assure the committee I received many representations long before the hon. member for Peterborough raised the matter in the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 711, 901, 902 and 905 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Customs Tariff
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is item 901 consequent upon the tariff board report?


William Moore Benidickson: Item No. 921.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Item 901?	,


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. From item 901 on we are dealing with the plastic items that were referred to by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, and he is carrying out the recommendations of the tariff board. With respect to item 921, I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to move an amendment which would simply add item 925 to the items already outlined as entitled to consideration under item 921. Item No. 925 will be dealt with later.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is it not item No. 901?


William Moore Benidickson: Item No. 921.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Did the hon. member for Greenwood wish to discuss item No. 901?
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, you slipped past item 711 rather quickly, and I have one question I should like to ask. I see that it reads:
All goods not enumerated in this schedule as subject to any other rate of duty, and not otherwise declared free of duty, and not being goods the importation whereof is by law prohibited.
What is the procedure where a particular product imported may fall under two classifications, one of which may be duty free when the product is for one use and where it has another use it would come under this item? I refer by way of illustration to a compound that may be used for a disinfectant, which would enter free of duty under item 217a, but which could also be used for cleaning and would not come in free of duty, possibly, under this item. So far as a product of that kind is concerned, how is the classification for duty purposes determined?


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member is referring to item 711 which I actually thought had been passed. However, this is what we call a basket or residual item. If something is not particularly described elsewhere in the tariff schedule in a detailed way, then this item applies, but every other outlined phraseology is taken advantage of before recourse is had to item 711.
Mr. Pallet!: I take it that, although a product may have several uses, if it can be defined as having one use under a particular item you would use the item most beneficial to the particular product from the tax point of view rather than this residual item, and would apply the lower of the two tariffs?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, the specific item
always takes precedence.


James Joseph McCann: With respect to item 921 I move:
That resolution No. 1 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended to provide for the further amendment of schedule A by striking out tariff item 921, the enumeration of goods and the several rates of duties of customs set opposite the said item and by inserting the following item, enumeration and rates of duty in said schedule A:
921. Materials of a kind not produced in Canada for use only in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 916, 917, 918(a), 918(b), 919 and 925, but not including goods themselves enumerated in tariff items 901 to 920, inclusive: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 10 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
925. Phenol-aldehyde resins in the form of aqueous emulsions, aqueous dispersions or aqueous solutions, without admixture, for use in the manufacture of plywood: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 171 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: The Minister of National Revenue will move another amendment here. It simply provides that this product, phenol-aldehyde resins, whether in liquid form or in dry form, will be subject to the rates of duty specified. As previously drafted, I believe it provided only for the liquid form.


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That resolution No. 1 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended by deleting therefrom item 925 and by substituting therefor the following:
925. Phenol-aldehyde resins without admixture or in the form of aqueous emulsions, aqueous dispersions or aqueous solutions, without admixture, for use in the manufacture of plywood: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 171 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Inasmuch as this is one of the few cases where an increase in the tariff is proposed, in this case the general tariff, I ask, has this matter been before the tariff board?


William Moore Benidickson: This is one of the specific items I have described, 901 to 925, which were the subject of the recent tariff board recommendations. I have already indicated there is not much consequence in the change in the general tariff rate.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is tariff resolution No. 1 as amended agreed to? I am referring to the whole of the resolution discussed this evening.
Resolution No. 1 as amended agreed to.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then, we will proceed with resolution No. 2.


William Moore Benidickson: Another amendment is required here. Hon. members have been informed that tariff item No. 1019 is to be restored. The Minister of National Revenue will move that what was to be the new item 1019 will now be numbered 1018a.


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That resolution No. 2 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended by deleting therefrom item 1019 and by substituting therefor the following:
1018a. Electric-welded pipe of iron or steel, more than 16 inches in diameter, iron or steel couplings therefor and complete parts of such couplings:
When subject to drawback: When used in the transmission of natural gas under high pressure to points of distribution;
Portion of duty (not including special duty or dumping duty) payable as drawback, 50 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Then we come to items 1044, 1052, 1053 and 1071, constituting the whole of resolution No. 2. Is resolution No. 2 as amended agreed to?
Resolution No. 2 as amended agreed to.


William Alfred Robinson: Then we come to resolution No. 3.


William Moore Benidickson: It is proposed that this item, 1209, be dropped, by way of amendment, and the Minister of National Revenue will so move.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are the reasons?


William Moore Benidickson: This involves a matter of trade-marks. We have had some recent legislation, both with respect to trade-marks and the Criminal Code, that has relation to this item. It is thought that more consideration should be given to it before a change is made.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand the parliamentary assistant to say that resolution No. 3 is to be dropped?


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That resolution No. 3 be dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: We now come to resolution No. 4.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of the lateness of the hour, perhaps I could reserve my questions until later when the bill is before the house.


William Moore Benidickson: Could we not carry on?


William Alfred Robinson: Is resolution No. 4 agreed to?
Resolution No. 4 agreed to.


William Alfred Robinson: And it is understood that resolution No. 4 will be renumbered as resolution No. 3. Then we turn to supplementary resolution No. 1, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Customs Tariff


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This has to do with the imposition of duties to offset a subsidy. Supposing you have the case such as I understand does exist, of a tax on goods being exported; does that offset the subsidy, or affect the position?


Walter Edward Harris: I had some difficulty in following what the hon. member was saying.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This resolution provides that where there is a subsidy in a country of export, a tariff may be put on to equal that amount. Supposing, as I understand does exist-and it seems odd from our point of view-that there is a country where there is a local tax on goods being exported, what happens then?


Walter Edward Harris: It depends upon what we consider the purpose of the tax to be. If there is a domestic reason for the tax, not obviously connected with subsidizing rather than stimulating exports, then we would not consider it as something about which action should be taken under this proposed legislation. This is generally confined to those cases where there has been a state subsidy, which results in a price for export which under the circumstances is not considered fair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then you concern yourself wholly with the price at which the exporter is able to export; is that correct? If he has a subsidy which enables him to bring his price down, then that enures to his benefit, but you retain the right to impose a tariff to offset that. I am not clear as to what happens if there is an export tax.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure my hon. friend has read the resolution and my explanation on June 2. I think we would have to look at the tax to see its effect on our trade. I cannot imagine an export tax as such which would lower the price with respect to importation, although there may be one. However, if my hon. friend has any point in mind I would like to discuss it with him.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall leave it until we come to the bill.


Mr. Michener:: May I ask whether any particular cases were in mind which gave rise to this proposal? Are there any examples the minister could cite of subsidized goods which would be affected by this?


Walter Edward Harris: I have read of an incident which may or may not have given rise to this. There was one particular government in the world that purchased large quantities of goods, having in mind a domestic situation. When that situation had passed they sought to export those goods at prices much below what they had paid for them.

Customs Tariff


Daniel Roland Michener: As it is ten o'clock, perhaps I should reserve my further questions.


Walter Edward Harris: This is the last resolution. Could we not finish it?


Daniel Roland Michener: Would Indian textiles
come under a resolution of this kind? I would like to inquire whether that is one of the instances with which this is designed to deal. Native cotton, as I understand it, is subject to an embargo which prevents its export, and therefore creates an artificial raw cotton price below the world price. Then the textiles, when exported, are based on a price of that kind. Would the minister care to comment on that?


Walter Edward Harris: This is a circumstance which I know exists and may possibly come within the study we will make of these matters if the legislation is passed. It is not, however, of quite as great moment as the matter I mentioned a moment ago.


Daniel Roland Michener: This is only enabling legislation, and I take it there are no orders in council ready to be passed at the moment under this resolution.


Walter Edward Harris: No.
."Mr. Michener: Decisions will be made later.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Mr. Zapliiny:: This resolution deals with goods subsidized in other countries, of a class or kind made or produced in Canada. I would like to hear from the minister in greater detail examples of the kind of goods he has in mind. This opens quite a large field and provides the government with a considerable amount of power in deciding the amount of tariff that shall be placed on these goods. So far we have had very little explanation of the type of goods he has in mind. Perhaps he can give us a few examples.


Walter Edward Harris: I just gave one to the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Daniel Roland Michener: The minister was not very specific about it; in fact it was a rather mysterious answer. I do not see any reason why he should not be a little more specific about what the government has in mind.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not know what the fault is, but I have not been able to hear hon. members opposite. I do not know whether our amplifying system is working. I understand the question was whether I had any particular items in mind. The difficulty in stating any given item at the moment is obvious. There will be tariff changes made by order in council passed pursuant to this
[Mr. Harris.!
legislation. As is customary, one does not give notice of that before the event.


Daniel Roland Michener: I take it we can rely on the fact that no specific order in council is drawn and ready to be put into force. I think the minister should give that undertaking now. If any action is taken under this section, it will be taken after an interval so there will be opportunity to make representations before the order in council is dealt with?


Walter Edward Harris: On these orders, and for the reason I have already given, no immediate action is expected; but it does provide in our legislation for the kind of action which apparently may have to be taken, and provides legislation which I am told is in effect in many other countries and which we have not had so far in Canada.


Daniel Roland Michener: That is all right so far as it goes. The minister will see my point. What I am concerned about is that if this power is given and orders in council are passed under this section, then presumably it could be done without those concerned knowing about it and no opportunity may be given for protest. A good deal will depend upon the practice which is followed in using this power, so those who might be affected by it can be heard and their cases considered before the orders in council are put into effect.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The resolution refers to subsidies direct or indirect. So far as goods directly subsidized by a government outside of Canada are concerned, we shall probably find that out without too much difficulty. When we come to an interpretation of indirectly subsidized goods we are taking in an awful lot of territory.
Let me give an example. In the United States or some other country that exports to Canada they are producing something on irrigated land, on which irrigation works are built and supported by the government. There would be an indirect subsidy, to the extent that the government spends money to irrigate this land or provides the equipment, or makes a grant toward that work to grow this produce. In an instance of that kind, would the minister say that was an indirectly subsidized product?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I would -not expect that would be considered an indirect subsidy for the purpose of this legislation. Direct and indirect in this connection means a subsidy affecting export. In my opinion it would not be an article which somewhere along the way in the normal course of domestic policy might have some form of subsidy.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It does not say so in the resolution. The resolution reads:
Where in the opinion of the governor in council subsidized goods of a class or kind made or produced in Canada are or may be directly or indirectly imported into Canada he may declare such goods to be subject to an additional duty on their importation equal to the amount of the subsidy on those goods as determined by him.
There is nothing in the resolution to say that this refers to goods which are for export only. It refers to goods which are directly or indirectly subsidized which may or may not be exported. Of course, that takes in every article that is made, because everything is potentially exportable, and no one can say that a particular type of goods is exportable and another is not. I think that takes in the whole field, particularly when you get down to 2 (a) (i), which states:
A subsidy has been paid directly or indirectly by a government outside Canada, or any agency thereof.
That takes in a very wide field. I should like to have explained to us the purpose of this resolution. Second, what is considered to be an indirect subsidy as distinct from a direct subsidy, and wherein does it restrict the powers with respect to goods which are for export only? At the present time it takes in the whole field; it makes it possible for the government, by order in council, to declare an extra duty on any article they may desire. There is no restriction; there is no specification; it is a blanket policy, so far as I can see.


Walter Edward Harris: I gave one concrete example of what was intended to be covered by this resolution, where a particular country, having acquired a lot of goods by purchase, sought to export them to Canada at a lower price than it paid. It may have been an unconscious subsidy in the sense that when they purchased the goods in the first instance they may not have intended to export them. In fact I do not think they did. Nevertheless, having those goods on hand they felt they should dispose of them in this manner, and there was a direct or indirect subsidy, if you like, to the extent of the difference between their cost and the intended sale price.
That was the one example I felt I could give and should give; but there are, as my hon. friend knows quite well, a number of countries in the world that are now seeking to export goods using every device they can think of to make the price attractive, which is in the form of a subsidy. This legislation is for the purpose of protecting commodities that are produced in this country against that type of subsidized importation into Canada.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to ask this question. Is this proposed legislation being
Customs Tariff
offered as the result of representations made to the government by Canadian industries that produce a certain type of product, or is it as the result of a policy designed to prevent goods being brought in unfairly to flood the Canadian market for perhaps other than ordinary trade reasons? I am trying to find out whether this is a matter of protection, or whether it is a matter of external policy, shall we say.


Walter Edward Harris: This is a matter that arose particularly having regard to the agricultural industry, and I am quite satisfied is desired by that industry and is now desired by the government because it is an additional power which appears to be needed, having in mind some of the transactions that are apparently going on at the present time in the world.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
2. Resolved, that schedule A to the customs tariff be further amended by striking out tariff items 95a, 106 and 208h, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite each of the said items, and by inserting the following items, enumerations and rates of duty in said schedule A:
95a. Melons, n.o.p., British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 3 cents (each).
106. Fruits, prepared in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty: (a) peaches, per pound, British preferential tariff, 1J cents; most favoured nation tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 5 cents; (b) apricots and pears, per pound, British preferential tariff, 2 cents; most favoured nation tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 5 cents; (c) pineapples, per pound, British preferential tariff, 1 cent; most favoured nation tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 5 cents; (d) mixture containing peaches, pears or apricots, per pound, British preferential tariff, 2 cents; most favoured nation tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 5 cents; (e) n.o.p., per pound, British preferential tariff, 1 cent; most favoured nation tariff, 1 cent; general tariff, 5 cents.
207b. Ethylene glycol, for use in the manufacture of explosives, British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
207c. Ethylene glycol, and mixtures of ethylene glycol and other glycols in which ethylene glycol predominates, for use in the manufacture of antifreezing compounds, British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
207d. Anti-freezing compounds, ethylene glycol based, British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Mr. Cavers:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the fruit growers in the Niagara area would want me to express their thanks to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Minister of National Revenue for including in the resolution the particular item relating to mixed fruit in cans. Fruit cocktails, as they are understood at the present time, were not known when the original tariff regulations were set up. Later they became used as a supplement, and they are now in

Customs Tariff
general use. The inclusion of this item in the resolution will give great benefit to the agriculturists of our area, and I am sure it will create a better climate in which agriculture can work in that district.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the committee will be glad to see-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think I saw and called the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On behalf of the consumers of my riding, and on behalf of those who regard the Liberals as a low tariff party, I object to the increase in the tariff on mixed fruits. Not only do I object to the increase, I object to the behaviour of the government in connection with this matter over the past several years. It is a long story, which is pretty well known to the minister and those opposite, and I shall not go into the details. I think the way in which a departmental ruling was made, which was overruled by the tariff board and which was pursued in one way or another until the government finally got its way, was something that should be called, not behaviour but misbehaviour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I just want to make sure that some hon. members of this house-and I refer not only to socialist members but also to some Liberal members who have been ready to spring to arms and utter loud cries every time anything is said in this house about protecting the Canadian farmer or the Canadian workman against unfair competition -will take due note of the fact that here the government is taking a very proper and necessary step to protect the Canadian fruit grower against what has become an unfair form of competition.
It may be, as the hon. member for Lincoln has said, that the situation has arisen through a lack of foresight at the time this item was written and in not foreseeing that the time would come when there would be certain mixtures of fruit imported into this country. I do hope that due note will be taken by some hon. members whom I do not see in the house at the moment but who have been most vocal on this subject-I see the hon. member for Rosthern is present-of the fact that this government is now taking the step of proposing an increase in the tariff, doubling the tariff on this particular fruit mixture, for the purpose of protecting the Canadian fruit farmer against what is otherwise an unfair form of competition.

Having said that, may I ask a question about the extent of the proposed change. The mixture we are speaking about has been described by the hon. member for Lincoln as a fruit cocktail, and this is described in 106(d) as a "mixture containing peaches, pears or apricots". Why is pineapple not included in the mixture? We dealt with pineapple in a previous item which remains unchanged, but here the mixture is of peaches, pears or apricots. According to my understanding of the mixture pineapple is commonly one of the ingredients in it.


An hon. Member:: And cherries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There may be other fruits as well.


Walter Edward Harris: If the fruit cocktail has in fact in it peaches, pears or apricots, any one of them, it comes under the item referred to. It probably would have pineapple as well, but the fact that it does contain pineapple would not exclude it from the benefits of the item.
I have noted the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I must say I do not feel that his remarks about the actions of the government in the past are warranted. I know he feels that the government should not raise this particular item from 1 to 2 cents, or whatever it is, but I would point out that this action has been taken after negotiations with the only other government that would be concerned, and it has met with their approval. Under the circumstances I think it is a proper action within the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
May I also answer one other remark of the hon. member for Eglinton. I do not think he is suggesting that back in 1946 or 1947, whichever it was, it should have been the duty of the officials of the Department of National Revenue to have foreseen the development of fruit cocktails in cans.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I made it quite clear that when I referred to lack of foresight I did not suggest that there was anything culpable about it.


Walter Edward Harris: We are dealing with many tariff items, and it is not to be expected that one could or should legislate for what might happen in the future. You have to deal with the problems as they arise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one point I am not clear about, and that is the minister's explanation about pineapple. We do know there are several items under 106; we do know that if peaches enter Canada in cans

or containers, or apricots, or pears, or pineapples, they come in under the rates provided; but a mixture containing peaches, pears or apricots comes under the duty now being increased. Do I understand the minister's statement to be that this description of the ingredients is not exclusive, and that as long as one of those three ingredients is in the mixture it can contain as many other ingredients as the mind of man can devise and it will still come under item 106?


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would hesitate to suggest that anything the minister says is not correct, but I think there have been judges, perhaps not of the calibre they should have been, who have been stupid enough to look only at the words of the item and not at what the minister has said in the house. I suggest most earnestly that it would be wise if a change were made. I am not going to suggest it tonight. As I say, there are judges who might be perverse enough not to follow what the Minister of Finance has said. They will look at the item and consider that their bible and not go beyond it.


Walter Edward Harris: I understand that the courts and the tariff board do just what my hon. friend has indicated. Any opinion I express here is merely my own opinion of the wording of the item, and I fully recognize that a court may take a different view.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have had one hon. member tonight wanting a guarantee that no two lawyers would take a different view of a certain clause, and I think it is just as hard to be sure that judges will always do what we think they should. I repeat that it seems to me wise to amend this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I suggest to the minister that he take another look at this phraseology and perhaps give instructions to revise it when the bill is before us later on.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall have a look at it later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to say just one word in answer to the minister. I do not blame him for not liking my criticism of what I referred to as government misbehaviour. In view of the minister's reply I think I should put this further brief statement on the record.
In the first instance the schedule was set up without any reference to mixed fruits, and the department ruled that therefore mixed fruits came under the "n.o.p." item. Later on the department took the liberty of making a change and saying that henceforth mixed fruits would be peaches and were therefore
Customs Tariff
dutiable at that rate. The matter was referred to the tariff board, which ruled that the government was wrong.
It seems to me that if the government were determined to increase the rate they should have brought the matter to parliament, but they went on and there were appeals by the government and by those on the other side to various courts until a final decision was given, with the result that the government had to make repayments running into millions of dollars.
I do not think that the government should play around with parliament in that way. I think this is one type of thing that goes on in relation to tariffs which is very bad. Virtually changes in the tariff are being made by administrative decision within the department. If changes are to be made in the tariff schedules, they should be made by bringing the matter before parliament. It is because I hold that view that I expressed the opinion I did a moment ago.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not want to pursue the argument any further, but I would hope the day will never come when the government is not at liberty to use the court procedure which is provided for determining what things like this may mean.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall this resolution carry?


An hon. Member:: It is 10.30.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to refer to item 207c, which has to do with the tariff on ethylene glycol and mixtures thereof. I notice it is proposed to increase by 10 per cent the British preferential tariff and most favoured nation tariff, and the general tariff by 27 per cent. We are, of course, concerned with the most favoured nation tariff, because I imagine most of our imports will come from the United States.
I wonder if the minister could tell us the reason for increasing the tariff on ethlyene glycol which is to be used in the making of antifreeze. Was it based on representations made by manufacturers of antifreeze in Canada and, if so, is he in a position to show whether the competition to antifreeze sales from south of the border was unfair competition or injurious in any way to them? We know that the price of antifreeze has been fairly high in Canada, and predictions now are that it will be still higher as a result of this increase.
Anything that is done here will result in a higher price and, of course, I am very much opposed to it because it is one of the things that enters into the cost of production for agricultural products. It is used very widely

Customs Tariff
now on the prairies, not only in agriculture but by consumers generally. So unless tjiere is a good explanation for the increase, I shall have to oppose it.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend has read the report of the tariff board on that particular item. It was referred to the tariff board by my predecessor, and before the committee carried out the recommendation of the tariff board they studied the whole question of ethylene glycol and its components.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask this question, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister in agreement with the general prediction being made today that the result of this will be a higher price in Canada for antifreeze?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, a great many things will enter into the cost of the various forms of antifreeze. I think my hon. friend knows that some forms of antifreeze have a very high content of alcohol, and some a fairly low content. There is good competition in this particular field in Canada. It may well be that my hon. friend will be able to buy the product at one place at $3.50, or whatever the current price is, and get something at $2.95 at another place. I am sure he can. It depends on how much he wants of a pure product when he pays the price at a gasoline station.
I realize that the moment this was announced someone predicted it would bring an increase in the price of antifreeze. I suppose that is the thought anyone has, when there is a change in the tariff, but I should point out that there are reductions in the tariff in the three items referred to here. I would not think that the increase in the one item would be sufficient to make any material difference in the price of antifreeze.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, let me put it this way. If, as a result of the increase in the tariff, the government find there are substantial increases in the prices of antifreeze in Canada, would they be prepared then to recommend that this tariff be reduced again? That is question 1.
The second question is this. The minister referred to the fact that there is a decrease in the tariff under item 207d, which is quite all right with me. But you will notice that ethylene glycol is the base which is used for the manufacture of antifreeze. It would appear to me that by placing a tariff against the base product and lowering the tariff on the finished product, antifreeze itself, we are going to be importing more antifreeze and preventing it from being manufactured here to the extent of the increase in the tariff on

the base product. Surely that is not the result the government wishes. I am sure the government would not wish to restrict or hamper in any way the manufacture of this product in Canada. Yet that would be the result of this tariff increase.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to exercise my rights as a member of this house. It is now 25 minutes to eleven, and I say it is an imposition on the good nature of the members of this house to carry on further at this time.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am sure it is an imposition on the good nature of the members to have to spend extra hours like this on the work of the house. But this is the last item of the resolution, and if the resolution were carried tonight, the bill would be available for distribution and consideration before we have to take it up again.


Mr. Winch:: On that question, Mr. Chairman, could we ask the hon. leader of the house if he would tell us what will be the business for tomorrow, so those of us who want to get prepared for that can so do and the rest can talk as long as they jolly well please, for the rest of the night?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I for one promise not to say another word, and when the resolution is carried I shall announce the business.


Harold Edward Winch: Those who wish to speak may do so for as long as they like, but for those who do not wish to take part in this, can you tell us what the business will be for tomorrow?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the second resolution carry?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, 1 still do not think the minister has satisfied the house on this point. I should like to ask him whether his attention was called to the report on the profits made on ethylene glycol. I am referring to the report made by the restrictive trade practices commission to the Minister of Justice only some 24 months ago, wherein a very high rate was mentioned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, could I say one word. I think I am partly responsible for our sitting after ten o'clock. Though we did not make any promise, we acquiesced in the minister's proposal in the hope that we could get through quickly. Now it looks as though we are branching into a discussion that might go on indefinitely. If those who are asking questions are not prepared to let this go now and let the rest of the discussion come on the bill, then it seems to me the time has come when we might ask the minister to call it ten o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the consideration the house has given, and I would hope we could postpone any further questioning until this section of the bill is dealt with. I could answer my hon. friend immediately, though. He will recall that the price of antifreeze fell quite noticeably about two years ago, at the time to which he is referring. I am aware of the report he speaks of. If hon. members find it possible to leave further discussion of this until the bill is dealt with, I would appreciate it very much.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions 3 and 4 agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Walter Edward Harris: for leave to introduce Bill No. 506, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take third reading of the bill to amend the Canada Elections Act; then the resolution with respect to the Income Tax Act, the Railway Act and the Tariff Board Act; then second reading of the amendment to the Criminal Code; then second reading of the bill to amend the Judges Act; then second reading of the bill to amend the Transport Act. I understand that representations have been made and that my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) has decided that this bill might
Customs Tariff
properly be referred to a committee. On that understanding I am hopeful that the debate will not be extended on second reading, so we could have the matter placed at once before a committee and could invite here certain persons who wish to make representations.
When that business has been completed we shall perhaps ask the indulgence of the house to revert to the amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Railway Act and the Tariff Board Act in order to take second reading, if that is found possible after having heard the explanation at the committee stage. Then we shall move to go into supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Silence now does not necessarily mean consent.


Walter Edward Harris: No. Then as I say, we will move to go into supply and if we get into supply we shall take the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister whether he is now in a position to indicate what the business will be on Thursday and Friday?


Walter Edward Harris: Consideration of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries first, and then those of the Department of Justice.


George Alexander Drew: When is it intended to call the Department of National Defence again?


Walter Edward Harris: At the moment there is no plan. I will see what arrangements can be made.


[Stage Direction]
It being forty-five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday. June 22, 1955