1956-05-09

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to point out that in Votes and Proceedings for today there is a notice of motion standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce returnable on Thursday next which in its main purpose has precisely the same purpose as a motion already before the house standing as order No. 13, which motion is already in the possession of the house and has been debated. As Your Honour will see, the first part of the motion, dealing with the main substance of the motion that is already before the house, is precisely the same except for minor verbal variations as the opening part of the notice now in Votes and Proceedings.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an order cannot be placed on the order paper in this way in substitution for an order already there, nor can there be duplicating motions by the government in regard to the same subject. I submit that this is not in any way affected by the fact that there is additional material in the notice now before us. The effect of that would simply be to provide for an amendment of the motion already being debated by the house. I think it is clear that an amendment may not be made in this way. I think it is very clear that as far as proceedings are concerned nothing can be done by indirection which cannot be done directly. I think there is no question about the fact that this procedure would be ineffective, and I therefore submit to Your Honour that the notice now appearing in Votes and Proceedings should not proceed to the order paper tomorrow.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speaks, may I ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) if he has any authorities to cite which might be applicable to his point?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The effect of this is perfectly clear. Beauchesne's third
edition at page 138, rule 351, with the quotations which it gives, simply states this:
No member may amend his own motion, but with leave of the house he may withdraw it and substitute another.
That is a statement which I submit is directly in point on the question at issue here. Then at page 854 of Beauchesne's third edition there is the reference to Bourinot which was made in connection with an issue that came before the house on March 26, 1928, when, in the discussion, the words were quoted which I would quote here:
"A motion on the order paper must be in accordance with the notice of the votes; and, should a member desire to substitute another, or alter its terms, he must first obtain the leave of the house."


Mr. Fulton:: In addition, may I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's second edition, citation 387.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I support those who have already asked Your Honour to rule as to whether or not the notice of motion filed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should be permitted to reach the order paper. I might point out, first of all, that Your Honour is required to deal with a matter of this kind under the terms of standing order 50 which reads as follows:
50. Whenever Mr. Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the standing order or authority applicable to the case.
I would draw Your Honour's attention to certain citations in addition to those that have been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). In particular I would ask you to look at citation 325 in Beauchesne's third edition which reads as follows:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided . . .
I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this house has, by a decision of the house, already referred to the committee of the whole a resolution dealing with the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. In other words, the house will be asked-if the present notice of motion reaches the order paper tomorrow-to take another decision similar to one that has already been taken. That is the point which the Leader of

Business of the House the Opposition made. I am merely buttressing it by reference to citation 325.
I also remind Your Honour that on Monday of this week one of the reasons that Your Honour gave for denying the motion for adjournment under standing order 26 which my leader moved on that occasion was that it anticipated a subject in connection with which a resolution was already on the order paper and which the house had already appointed for debate.
I would also remind Your Honour that on other occasions in this session and in other sessions you, sir, have produced an abundance of citations and authorities to indicate that there cannot be two debates on the same subject before the house at the same time. There is already before the house a debate on a resolution with regard to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. Now we have proposed for the order paper another resolution which is in part the very same as the one that is already before us.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a new issue to arise in parliament. There have been previous occasions when the government, after placing a notice of motion preceding a money bill on the order paper, has found it desirable to make a change in the terms of that motion. I have not had time since I received my copy of Votes and Proceedings only a short while ago to do all the homework I should like to do, but I have found at least one such case. It occurred in 1945. Your Honour is smiling and I think that means you have been doing your homework, too. On that occasion-I notice Your Honour now shakes his head. On that occasion Mr. Ilsley, who was then minister of finance, had introduced a resolution forecasting a bill to amend the National Housing Act. The resolution was ordered referred to the committee of the whole house on October 9, 1945.
Later, it was decided by the government that the terms of the resolution, and accordingly the terms of the bill to be based thereon, should be extended. The government did not do on that occasion what I contend it is improperly trying to do now, put on another resolution saying the same thing as the first one but adding some words. Rather Mr. Ilsley, who is now a learned justice of one of the superior courts of this country, introduced another notice of motion which was to the effect that the resolution of October 9, 1945, be amended by adding thereto certain additional words. Subsequently this resolution was referred to the committee of the whole house. It was passed by the committee of the whole house

as had been the previous resolution and accordingly a bill based upon the composite resolution was introduced.
It is in my mind that there have been other such occasions. I believe Mr. Ilsley was the mover of another bill in which the same procedure was followed. It is also in my mind that there have been bills dealing with veterans legislation where changes have been decided upon after the legislation was before the house; in some instances perhaps as a result of a recommendation of a special committee on veterans affairs, and as a result of that decision to change the bill a subsequent amending resolution has been presented to the house. I confess that with regard to these instances I am relying on my memory, not yet having had time to locate them in the records, but I think the records will confirm my memory.


Mr. Brooks:: Your memory is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Royal is confirming my memory. The point is that in the past the government has, whether on its own initiative or because of debate in the house, before extending the terms of a resolution already presented to the house, followed the proper procedure of introducing an amending resolution amending that which was already on the order paper.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is the proper procedure and accordingly it is my contention, along with that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), that the present procedure is highly improper. Frankly, I do not see how Your Honour could contemplate allowing debate on a resolution such as that which is now on Votes and Proceedings but not yet on the order paper, in the light of the fact that the house is already engaged in a debate on the previous resolution on the same subject. Your Honour has drawn on the rule about repetition frequently in this session and the last session, and has had occasion to give us a number of authorities and citations on this point. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that you should rule that the notice of motion which appears in the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, May 8, in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is out of order so long as the other resolution is on the order paper. Therefore, this second resolution should not be permitted to reach the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that all hon. members are satisfied that the point of order has been well stated.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish at this stage to intervene because the point has been clearly stated both in the arguments that have been advanced and in the citations to which you have been referred; but there is an aspect of the situation having to do with the fact that the matter is now in Votes and Proceedings rather than on the order paper. If that matter has any bearing with Your Honour I would want to be heard on it. I do not want to intervene at this stage because it is perhaps not a point which Your Honour will think material. Therefore, I should like, if I may, to reserve the right to argue further until Your Honour indicates whether you think the point is material or not.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated that he did not have time to do all of the homework that he would have liked to have done on this matter, and the hon. member for Kamloops has just indicated that he is reserving his rights to speak further on another point which perhaps may be raised in this discussion. I say that no hon. member will be prejudiced if we wait until tomorrow when the resolution appears on the order paper. At that time we can have the point finally disposed of. I would imagine that that would be the best procedure because I feel sure that whatever is my judgment today-perhaps I should not say "I feel sure"-but I suspect there might be more arguments to be heard on the same point tomorrow.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may, then, my contention is that the resolution should not be allowed to appear on the order paper but in fact should be removed from Votes and Proceedings. If we have to accept the suggestion just made, the available result would be this notice of motion would appear on the order paper where I maintain it should not appear under present circumstances. Therefore, perhaps I may be permitted to say-


Mr. Byrne:: How do we know what it is until we see it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did I hear one of the hon. members from the Kootenays, the hon. member for Kootenay East, say, "How do we know what it is until we see it?"


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member should
perhaps acquaint himself with the facilities which are available to hon. members to find out what is in Votes and Proceedings.
Business of the House


Mr. Argue:: I thought he saw it yesterday morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am listening to the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to know that, Your Honour. I hope you can hear me above some of the rather inane remarks that have been made.


Mr. Speaker:: I always hear the hon.
member with great pleasure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It then is apparent that Your Honour has read Votes and Proceedings, which is more than the hon. member for Kootenay East has done.
The question of whether this matter should be allowed to stand over until tomorrow, or whether it should be removed now from Votes and Proceedings is dealt with in a statement that appears in Bourinot's fourth edition on which much of the many citations in Beauchesne's second and third editions to which you have been referred is based. At pages 312 and 313 of Bourinot it is clearly stated that it is the responsibility of the Clerk and the Speaker to satisfy themselves as to the propriety of a notice of motion which is submitted to appear on the order paper. If Your Honour is satisfied that it is not in order then Your Honour returns it to the member submitting it in order that it may be amended or, I would suggest, in order that other steps necessary be taken before it can appear on the order paper.
At pages 312 and 313 Bourinot, where he is discussing the procedure to be followed in dealing with questions submitted to appear on the order paper, and which he makes applicable to notices of motion, says as follows:
The questions are first handed in to the Clerk or assistant clerk of the house and are then printed among the proceedings and appear in due time on the order paper under rule 25.
And then continuing on page 313, he says:
The Canadian practice is identical with that of the English Commons-
-and so on. He continues:
It is the duty of the Clerk to point out any irregularity to the Speaker as in the case of notices of motion and if the latter is of the same opinion he will order the Clerk to communicate with the member, so that he may have an opportunity of amending his notice.
That part of the procedure there being discussed is clearly made applicable to notices of motions and I will merely assure Your Honour and the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) that the resolution of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) appears in Votes and Proceedings under the
3718	HOUSE OF
Business of the House heading, ' Notices of Motions and Questions" so that the issue is indeed properly before Your Honour.
While I appreciate that it is not a point which comes up very frequently and no one is trying to press Your Honour unduly, I submit it is essential that it be dealt with today. Perhaps Your Honour may care to reserve your opinion for a while, although I think the authorities speak so clearly that that is not necessary, and I do submit that whatever may be the time at which you give your decision it should be given today, because in our submission this notice should not be allowed to stand on Votes and Proceedings and should not be allowed to appear on the order paper tomorrow.
For the benefit of other hon. members I would just like to read the citation in Beau-chesne's second edition to which I referred, citation No. 387 at page 125, which reads as follows:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the house, such as the subject matter of a bill on the order paper.
And it applies equally clearly to the subject matter of a resolution or motion already on the order paper.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think there is one thing that should be proved. Is government action on the pipe line west of Winnipeg the same thing as the government co-operating with the province of Ontario to build the line from Winnipeg east? It has to be proven that these things are the same, which to my way of thinking requires an outstanding stretch of imagination.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word on the point raised by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I submit that the matter now before us is on all fours with the instance in 1945 to which I have already referred. On that occasion what was before the house was a bill respecting the National Housing Act and the subsequent decision of the government was to provide more powers under the legislation than had been initially decided upon. In this instance what is proposed by the government is the setting up of a Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. Both resolutions deal with that main purpose. The second resolution merely adds to the powers that the government would confer upon that corporation under the first resolution. I submit that it should be treated in the same manner as was done in 1945.
However, Mr. Speaker, the reason I rose again was to suggest this to Your Honour.


Unlike most points of order that are raised I am not sure that this is one that has to be decided at this very moment. It seems to me that the time when Your Honour must decide whether this proposed notice of motion is to go on the order paper is just before the Clerk sends out the copy for the printing of tomorrow's order paper. In other words, Your Honour has several hours in which to make that decision, and although for my part I do not think it should reach the order paper I am prepared to wait until tomorrow's order paper appears to ascertain what decision you have made. However, in expressing my willingness to let Your Honour make the decision later, I wish to give notice that if this resolution does appear on tomorrow's order paper as a government notice of motion, I will then raise the point of order that-


An hon. Member:: You have raised it already.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I now give the house notice that a point of order will be raised against your putting the question for the house to decide that the resolution should be considered at the next or any future sitting of the house.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member permit me to speak and I will give the floor to the hon. member afterwards. I should like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if he has considered that at this session we have had a government bill on the order paper having to do with equal pay for equal work for women. There were two bills on the same subject. There were also two bills dealing with small loans, one by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and one by the government. I should like to hear his comment on those two instances where there have been two bills in each case that were similar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The member for Winnipeg North Centre seldom declines an invitation to say a few words on procedure. I have given thought to the point which Your Honour has raised and I suggest that there are certain very real differences. In the case of the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) with regard to equal pay for equal work for women and in the case of the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) regarding small loans companies, those private bills were placed on the order paper in advance of the notices of the government bills.
It might be argued that those bills blocked the government legislation, but the answer

to that argument is that the rule books contain a provision which is known as the rule of anticipation. This rule establishes an order of priority and provides that certain legislation shall have priority over other kinds of legislation. Government bills are listed as being higher in priority than private members' bills. It is provided in the authorities for a government bill to be placed on the order paper and have priority over a private member's bill dealing with the same matter. That is precisely what has happened. I think it has been pretty well understood that since the government legislation regarding these two subjects appeared on the order paper Your Honour would not permit further debate on the private members' bills. They are now blocked by the higher priority of the government legislation.
But there is nothing anywhere in the rule books that says that there is any difference in priority between one government measure and another. I suggest that the government cannot come along and claim that its second thought has priority over its first thought and that therefore it takes precedence over the resolution already there. It seems to me that the situations are quite different. In this case the government should fall back on the procedure used in the instance to which I referred when Mr. Ilsley had the national housing bill before us and in the other instances which I hope I will be able to give if this matter comes up tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that if you permit the notice of motion to proceed to the order paper and to appear on tomorrow's order paper that will not dispose finally of the matter because, as you have been told, a point of order will be raised tomorrow with respect to the contents of the order paper. But that fact of itself does not dispose of the point that has been raised here today. In this respect I wish particularly to speak in support of the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).
I have always understood that, in an obvious case, that is to say where a notice of motion obviously offends the rules, it is the responsibility, in the first instance, of the Clerk of the house, and in the final instance of the Speaker of the house, to decide whether such a motion obviously out of order should be permitted to be printed, first of all in Votes and Proceedings as a notice of motion and then on the order paper of the house for the following day. My understanding is that in an obvious case that responsibility rests upon the Clerk as an officer of the house in the first instance and then on the Speaker.
Business of the House In my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, this is such an obvious case and for that reason it does require a decision today.
As was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it may be that you do not have to decide the point on the spur of the moment but in my respectful submission a decision must be made by you, Mr. Speaker, today before the contents of tomorrow's order paper go to the printer to be printed.
I wish to enlarge on the point and the reasons why I submit to you that this notice of motion appearing in Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday, May 8, is one of those cases of a notice of motion obviously out of order, so obviously out of order as to call on your part for a direction that it shall not be printed at the expense of the taxpayers of this country in breach of the rules of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The similarity of the notice of motion to one already on the order paper is perfectly apparent to all who will look at it. I am not saying it would be apparent to those members opposite who obviously have not read it but it is perfectly obvious to any hon. member who will take the trouble to read it.
Let me draw your attention to this fact. The resolution already on the order paper, which has already been debated one full day and stands by order of the house for further debate on a later day, has three paragraphs to it. If you will compare the three paragraphs word for word with the contents of the notice of motion appearing in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings you will find everything there repeated in the new notice of motion. For instance, the first paragraph of the notice of motion, No. 13 on the order paper, and standing since March 15, has to do in the first instance with the introduction of a measure to provide for the constitution of a corporation. That first paragraph in the notice of motion of March 15 is reproduced in full in the first paragraph of the notice of motion that appears in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings.
There are two other paragraphs in the notice of motion of March 15. The second one has to do with empowering the corporation to do things that are conducive to the attainment of the objects set forth in the first paragraph and goes on to provide that the corporation may borrow money to an aggregate amount not exceeding $130 million. You will have already observed, Mr. Speaker, that the new notice of motion has five paragraphs to it and that the contents of the second paragraph of the old notice of motion
3720	HOUSE OF
Business of the House are reproduced in the fourth paragraph of the new notice of motion. There is one clause in the third paragraph of the new notice of motion which takes care of the only difference, in that provision is also made that the corporation may do such things as are conducive to the attainment of the foregoing purposes.
Then, sir, as to the third paragraph in the notice of motion of March 15, you will find that reproduced verbatim in the fifth paragraph of the notice of motion in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly apparent that there is not only such similarity between the two notices of motion as to be perfectly obvious but there has been reproduced in the notice of motion of yesterday the entire notice of motion of March 15 and all that has been done by the government is to add two paragraphs which appear as the second and third paragraphs of the new notice of motion by which additional provisions are sought to be made in relation to the same measure.
If we are to permit the defeat of the rule of the house embodied in citation 387 of Beauchesne, second edition, which expressly prohibits the anticipation of something that is already on the order paper by something new introduced, then, sir, all that one has to do to achieve that defeat of a well established rule of the house is simply to add a couple of new things or, for that matter, one new thing, to something that is already on the order paper, something that is not only on the order paper but has already been debated by the House of Commons and ordered to stand for further discussion at a later date. That is all that needs to be done. Just add something else and then you escape the rule with regard to anticipation.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the plain rules and well established procedures of the house are not to be defeated in a manner of that kind. It just means that it would be the simplest thing in all the world from this point on to add something to anything that is on the order paper, bring it in in that way and, if you please, put it ahead of something that is already on the order paper. Yesterday the Minister of Finance as leader of the house, in answer to a question I put to him, made it quite clear that it is the intention of the government to take this new notice of motion in priority to the resolution standing on the order paper as order No. 13. So that you have the plainest kind of attempted anticipation, taking something new ahead of something already on the order paper and in this case consisting of precisely the same resolution with the addition of two new paragraphs.


In such a case it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if I may respectfully say so, that it is the duty of the Speaker of the house to dispose of this question today in view of the fact that the notice of motion appearing in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings is so obviously out of order as being an attempt at anticipation in relation to the notice of motion of March 15 that it is your duty to rule today that that notice of motion shall not be printed in tomorrow's order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say first of all that all hon. members who have stated the point have been very helpful in citing authorities and dealing with the point quite fully. There have been several points raised. There is one, however, that I should like to see disposed of immediately. In discussing the point of order some hon. members have emphasized that their view as to why this procedure is out of order is the most obvious one. It is so obvious to them that they do not see anything else but their own view as being the obvious one. Then they go on further to say that it is the duty of the Clerk and the duty of the Speaker to decide in a certain way, as if both the Clerk and the Speaker would not be doing their duty otherwise.
I want to say immediately that I have been associated with the Clerk of the house for over seven years, as Speaker for the last three years and as Deputy Speaker and deputy chairman of committees for four years prior to 1953. In my view no one knows his duty better than the Clerk of the House of Commons. Whatever he does in his capacity as adviser to the Speaker it is not his responsibility. It is that of the Speaker and I fully accept whatever responsibility is mine.
I want to say that whenever a notice of motion goes to the order paper it is dealt with by the clerk of orders and notices, who is a different person from the Clerk of the House of Commons. The clerk of orders and notices has been a member of the staff of the house for over 30 years, has had a great deal of experience and takes a look at these motions before he puts them on the order paper. If he has any doubts he may refer to the assistant clerks, of whom there are two, or to the Clerk himself. If the Clerk has no doubt whatever these motions never come before me but if he has any doubt he may put them before me.
By quoting pages 312 and 313 of Bourinot's fourth edition the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) indicated that the officials of the house have certain duties with respect to the preparation of the order paper. There is no doubt about that fact. That is what they are there for. But someone must take the responsibility and that someone is the one who

is occupying the chair. I say again that I take full responsibility for whatever has taken place. Let us have that point clear and let us keep the officials of the house outside the argument.
Now that we are all in agreement on that particular matter, I should like to go one step further. Hon. members have objected to the notice of motion which is now on the notice paper and which normally should appear on the order paper tomorrow as a government notice of motion. They have objected to it on the ground that it anticipated a notice of motion which has already been taken up by the house and been considered in committee of the whole. I should like to inform hon. members that according to Campion at page 176, we find this. Campion deals with the rule that the same question may not be twice offered in the same session and I should like to quote this portion:
The important points in connection with this rule are:
(1)	Judgment must have been expressed. Consequently a motion which has been withdrawn, or has not been seconded, or has been superseded, may be repeated.
(2)	The rule does not apply as between the various stages of bills. The different stages are intended as so many opportunities of reconsideration. Hence decisions taken in committee may be reversed upon the report stage, and these again on consideration of Lords' amendments.
At page 202 Campion deals with bills that have to be introduced with preliminaries, namely the resolution preceding a money bill. Under the heading "Bills brought in on an order of the house", he says this:
This is the old procedure, which has been practically superseded except in the case of money bills and bills introduced under S.O. No. 12.
That is standing order No. 12 in the United Kingdom.
Bills introduced on an order may be preceded bv certain preliminary business.
Then he deals with preliminaries.
With Preliminaries.
(a) A certain class of bills, whose main object is the expenditure of money or the imposition of taxation, generally called 'money' bills, are still required to be preceded by resolutions passed in committee of the whole house and agreed to by the house on report. In this case the bill is ordered to be brought in immediately after the resolutions are agreed to.
The resolution preceding a money bill is nothing but the order for leave to introduce a bill which entails the expenditure of money. In my view it is part of the bill. A money bill has various stages and the preliminary stage, which is the resolution, is part of the set-up in the bringing in of a bill. When a bill is introduced without a resolution I ask the house the question "Has the hon. gentleman leave to introduce this bill?" The house having acceded to that
Business of the House suggestion then the Votes and Proceedings read "Ordered that the bill be introduced". Then I ask for first reading. When a money bill is introduced, it must be preceded by a resolution and once the resolution is concurred in by the house, the order is for leave to introduce the money bill. That is the position.
What is the position at the moment in this instance? A resolution is on the order paper and the order is "House again in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution". I stress the word "proposed" because I submit to hon. members this consideration: When does a resolution become a resolution? After it has come out of the committee of the whole. As long as it is in committee of the whole and until it is reported it is only a proposed resolution. As a matter of fact, as hon. members know, a motion preceding a money bill may be amended in committee and it is not even reported with amendments when it is reported. A resolution may be amended in committee of the whole provided the terms of reference of the royal recommendation may allow the amendment in committee. Otherwise a new royal recommendation is necessary. In this case we have on the order paper "House again in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution" which deals with certain matters. We now have on the notice paper a certain proposed resolution which deals with the same subject matter as does the proposed resolution which is in committee of the whole, plus other matters which require the royal recommendation because of the financial initiative of the crown.
ft hon. members will bear with me, I would ask them to look at page 499 of May's fifteenth edition. There they will find this: There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions. But if a decision of the house has already been taken on one such bill, for example, if the bill has been given or refused a second reading the other is not proceeded with if it contains 'substantially the same provisions, and such a bill could not have been introduced on a motion for leave. But if a bill is withdrawn, after having made progress, another bill with the same objects may be proceeded with.
This is complemented by what appears in Bourinot at page 548 where Bourinot quotes a reference to the English authorities which is as follows:
"Whilst a bill is still pending, and until it is completely disposed of, there is nothing whatever to prevent another bill for the same object being introduced."
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when I asked him
3722	HOUSE OF
Business of the House what was his view of what I consider to be a somewhat parallel situation with respect to two other instances that happened during this present session,-that is in connection with a bill on small loans introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and a bill on a similar matter introduced by the government and also a bill introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) for equal pay for equal work for women and a government bill on the same subject-said there was an order of priority in dealing with the rule of anticipation and that the authorities stated that a government measure has priority over a private member's measure. At this moment I think that he and I will come to an agreement the minute I tell him that the priority which he gives to government bills arises out of certain standing orders to the effect that there are more government days than there are private members' days and that whenever government days are in progress the government, according to standing order 18-it used to be standing order 17-has complete initiative as to what order it will take up. But with respect to the point that the rule of anticipation has established a scale of values, may I say that the scale of values does not apply as between government bills and private members' bills. It applies as to the various stages along the way of a certain bill as against another which may not have advanced so far.
What was the page I quoted a moment ago about the rule of anticipation? I suppose that, while I am looking for this reference, it is for hon. members a pleasant interlude in which to think over what they have said and what I have said.
We will look at the scale of values which has been established by Campion at page 178. He says:
The anticipation rule, which forbids discussion on a matter standing on the paper being forestalled, is dependent on the same principle as that which forbids the same question being twice raised in the same session. In applying the anticipation rule preference is given to the discussion which leads to the most effective result, and this has established a descending scale of values for discussions-bills, motions, amendments, etc. Thus a bill or other order of the day must not be anticipated by (or more shortly "blocks") discussion of a motion, amendment, or subject raised on another motion, such as that for the adjournment of the house.
While it applies between the various stages of a bill, there is no order of priority as between government bills and private members' bills. Now, before I go any farther I am prepared to give my ruling. I would hope that because of what I have said it would not appear to some hon. members as obvious as


they thought it did that I should rule differently than I am about to rule. Would there be something else hon. members would like to say?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not propose to add to what I said in regard to the point of order, but I do wish most emphatically to say something by way of comment on your opening remarks which seemed to put an interpretation on remarks of mine which those remarks were never intended to bear.
You seemed to suggest that there was some criticism on my part of the Clerk of the house. Let me make it very clear to you, sir, that there was no criticism of the Clerk of the house. No hon. member of the house holds the Clerk of this house in higher esteem than I do, whether as an efficient, painstaking and conscientious officer of this house or as a gentleman whom I personally hold in the highest esteem.
With great respect, sir, I tell you that I am surprised that you should have said anything today that seemed to suggest that there was, in my remarks, any reflection upon the Clerk of the house because there was no reflection therein upon the Clerk of the house. There is no excuse on the part of anyone hearing or reading my remarks for drawing any such inference from them. I want to make that abundantly clear. What I said was this. I thought there was a responsibility that rests on the Clerk who, in the first' instance, looks at these notices of motion. I said the ultimate responsibility rests on the Speaker of the house. As I understand the practice, and the proper practice, it is this. In these cases, if it appears to the Clerk of the house or that member of the staff who exercises that function under the general direction of the Clerk, in this case the clerk of orders and motions, that a particular notice of motion is out of order, then as I understand it he discharges his duty by drawing that fact to the attention of the Speaker. I understand that to be the rule and the practice. Then, the responsibility rests on the Speaker to decide in that case whether the notice of motion ought to be printed in Votes and Proceedings of the day.
That is as far as I went in regard to anything I said concerning the responsibility of the Clerk of the house. I regret very much that you should have put on my remarks an interpretation of which, with great respect, my remarks were incapable.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me immediately deal
with that point. I want to tell the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that it was not my intention to put any interpretation on his remarks different from that

which he has acknowledged. I think he has at this moment given the exact relationship which exists between the Clerk and myself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad indeed to hear you say that because I must confess I had myself wondered whether or not I should take up the matter which has been taken up by the hon. member for Eglinton, but that is probably not now necessary, except to say this. Any attempt anywhere to represent the point of order which has been raised, and our submissions upon it, as a reflection upon any of the officers of the house would, of course, be a most improper course. I relied upon the authority of the quotation I read from Bourinot, who himself was a prominent Clerk of this house, and which makes it quite clear as to where the ultimate responsibility lies. He said:
It is the duty of the Clerk to point out any irregularity to the Speaker as in the case of notices of motion and if the latter is of the same opinion he will order the Clerk to communicate with the member,-
I have read that citation in full, and it makes it quite clear where the responsibility lies. I wish to make it quite clear, in addition to what the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said, that it cannot be taken as a reflection upon any of the officers of the house or indeed upon anyone, when one quotes authorities with respect to the practice and procedures in this house. It seems to me it is difficult to see why, in this quotation or in raising the point, there may be implied any reflection upon anyone in this house.
May I deal with one or two points on the point of order which you have made. In the latter part of your remarks, as I understood them, you were arguing that it was quite in order to introduce another bill to supersede or take the place of a bill already on the order paper, and you relied upon some authorities to substantiate that proposition. You argued that by inference as I understood it, and I am endeavouring to appreciate your argument to the full and not misstate it, it was therefore quite regular to introduce an amendment to a resolution at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: When a resolution is in the
committee of the whole stage, it does not become a resolution until it has been reported by the committee and concurred in by the house. As long as the terms of the resolution are in committee, they are the terms of a proposed resolution. They may be amended provided the amendment remains within the ambit of the royal recommendation. We had a case like this last session.
Business of the House


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that restated because this procedure now suggested is not an amendment. It is a new resolution or it purports to be a new resolution. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce had not given notice in Votes and Proceedings but had said when we got back in committee, I propose to introduce an amendment to the proposed resolution, that would be an entirely different thing. However, that course is not being followed. With a proposed resolution already before us and in the possession of the committee, what it is sought to do here is to substitute for it a new and different resolution, not an amendment. This creates an entirely new situation and does not, in my submission, follow from the precedent with respect to bills upon which Your Honour based your argument this afternoon.
It is true that May at page 499, already referred to by Your Honour, does say:
There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provision (s). But if a decision of the house has already been taken on one such bill, for example, if the bill has been given or refused a second reading, the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions,-
I should like to refer Your Honour back to page 383 in which it is said:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the house, whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion.
Here we have a motion on the order paper made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and which is being considered, that it is expedient to introduce a bill. That motion is now being considered in the committee of the whole. The Minister of Trade and Commerce proposes by the notice given in today's Votes and Proceedings another motion, not to amend the present one but to introduce a different one, both dealing with the same subject matter, and dealing with the subject matter of a motion already appointed for consideration by the house. Therefore, my first point is that here clearly within the meaning of May at page 383 we have a proposed motion which anticipates the matter of a motion upon the consideration of which the house has already embarked, and the further consideration of which is appointed for another day. That, I think, deals with the question of the difference between new resolutions and amendments.
Now, I go back to page 499 and the citation that you referred to which states that it is in order to introduce a new bill dealing with the same subject matter as another. May makes it clear that if a decision of the house has already been taken on one such bill, for example, then you could not introduce another bill. I submit that while it is not

Business of the House exactly on all fours, my proposition is largely the same; that when a decision of the house has already been taken with respect to the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce now on the order paper we have decided to commit that motion for consideration by the committee of the whole. That decision has been taken. It is true that the matter has not yet been finally disposed of, but we have had a decision of the house with respect to the motion, and now here we are with another motion coming along dealing with exactly the same thing and we are asked to take another decision. If that does not anticipate a motion already appointed for consideration, and if it does not seek to introduce a matter on which a decision of the house has already been taken, then I do not know the meaning of those words.
I believe that if Your Honour will read the two citations together, the one on page 499 and the one on page 383 to which I have referred you, you will see that there has to be something to reconcile the two which are otherwise in apparent conflict, and I believe I have suggested the only way in which they can be reconciled. That way is, firstly, it is not an amendment; it is a new motion. Secondly, it deals with something on which a decision of the house has already been taken because the house decided that the original motion is the one that should be referred to the committee of the whole. Now, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is asking us to decide that we were wrong then and it is some other motion that we should refer to the committee of the whole. That is my submission on the point that Your Honour has raised in answer to us.
Whatever may be Your Honour's decision you must recognize, sir, that we advance our point of view with vigour; we believe it to be correct. We may say, in the course of argument, we think it is so clear that a decision is obvious. Surely you will permit us to argue with vigour without saying we are reflecting upon you if your decision should happen to be the other way, however much we disagree with your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: May I put the mind of the hon. member at rest by saying that there cannot have been a decision of the house with respect to this resolution precisely because of the terms of standing order 61, which reads:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
;Mr. Fulton.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think I can do this briefly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought it was time to get some applause from the government side and I knew that was the way to get it.
First, it is still my view that Your Honour does not need to make a ruling at this moment. It is still my view that Your Honour has until printing time tonight to make a ruling as to whether or not this new notice of motion should go on the order paper.
The second point I wish to make is this. I hope it is very clear that the only point now being debated, the only point on which Your Honour will rule, whether now or before printing time tonight, is as to whether or not this new notice of motion is allowed to go on the order paper. What I am reserving by making that statement, Mr. Speaker, is this. I feel that if Your Honour does decide that the motion should go on the order paper, we still have the right, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce seeks to move it, to raise a point of order against the question being put to the house at that time, and I shall do so.
The third thing I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is precisely on the point which the hon. member for Kamloops and Your Honour were discussing just a moment ago. It seems to me that Your Honour and some of those who are interjecting from the government side, like the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, are trying to make too much out of the word "proposed". It seems to me you are trying to make too much out of the fact that it is not a resolution of the house until it has gone through the committee stage, been reported back to the house and approved by the house. What I think Your Honour should consider is that the motion which the Minister of Trade and Commerce will seek to move tomorrow will be asking the house tomorrow to make a decision substantially the same as the decision which the house made on Monday, February 6, 1956, as reported at page 877 of Hansard. It was not just a mere formality that the house went through on that occasion. This is what Hansard says:


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient . . .
And so on.
Then, after the resolution is printed in full, there appear these words:


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At that time this was not just a formality; this was not just something pro forma that

the house went through because it was 2.30 in the afternoon. We made a decision of the House of Commons to refer this resolution to the committee of the whole. That was done on February 6, 1956. It is not only recorded in Hansard', it is recorded in Votes and Proceedings of the same day. I remind Your Honour of citation 252 in Beauchesne's second edition, which says that the Journals- in other words, Votes and Proceedings-are the official record of the house. In other words, this is an official, definitive, substantive decision of the House of Commons on February 6, that this certain resolution be referred to the committee of the whole house.
Now, the minister seeks, by the notice he has given, to move tomorrow a motion which will again read, if it is allowed:
Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:-
I suppose it has been approved by His Bxcellency.
That it is expedient-
And so on.
If the motion is put against our objection tomorrow and if it carries it will have at the end the words: "Motion agreed to", whereupon the Votes and Proceedings, the Journals of this house of February 6, 1956, and of May 10, 1956, will record the passing of two motions which are almost identical. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with the same vigour, the same belief that I think our position is obvious, as has already been expressed by hon. members to my right; that for the house to do that would be flying in the face of the rule which I quoted when I rose some time ago and quoted citation 325 in Beauchesne's third edition which states that a motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided. This house decided the question to which I have referred on February 6, 1956. The Minister of Trade and Commerce wants it to decide substantially the same question tomorrow. I submit that Your Honour's-I am sorry, I will not use the word that almost slipped out-statement to us in the past regarding repetition in debate and with regard to having two debates on the same subject supports the position we are taking that this motion should not be allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: I know he is doing so inadvertently but in my view the hon. member is confusing a decision on the merits or the subject matter of the resolution and decisions of the house which are merely to get things going, these formal procedural motions.
Business of the House
How can a resolution preceding a money bill do anything but what is prescribed by standing order No. 61? We have to go through the procedure to put that resolution into committee because of our own standing order No. 61 which says that before we decide about the merits of the resolution we must go into committee of the whole on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask another question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does Your Honour recall that the motion of February 6 which called for a decision at the next sitting of the house was the subject of a recorded vote in the house when that decision was taken, thus making it a decision of the house which was taken twice?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but the decision taken was that the house did want the Speaker to leave the chair for it to consider the resolution in committee. The fact remains that no decision was ever taken on the resolution itself. Let us not have any confusion about that. The citation in Beauchesne's which the hon. member has read about the amendment to a motion has to do with the subject matter of the resolution itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, Mr. Speaker, neither will the minister's motion tomorrow then, in your terms, sir, be a motion regarding the subject matter of the resolution; it will be a motion for the house to go into committee on a resolution and the resolutions are almost identical.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course one can make a long argument about these things but the rules are that if an hon. member wishes to introduce a resolution and especially a money resolution it must be proceeded with by the royal recommendation and 48 hours' notice must be given.


Mr. Michener:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. gentleman has something to say that is of paramount importance.


Daniel Roland Michener: It is not of paramount importance, Your Honour, but I just put this question to Your Honour. If the motion to go into committee had been negatived on this resolution, would Your Honour then consider that the same motion could be made again?


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker would not have left the chair that day but the motion for him to leave the chair could have been made the next day.

Business of the House


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh no.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh yes. Well, hon. members seem to be surprised. The motion is that this house go into committee of the whole at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution. By "next sitting" is meant the next sitting at which the government decides it wants to take it up. If that motion is defeated another motion can be made to reintroduce the resolution because the house may decide it will go into committee of the whole on some other day although it has been decided on a previous day not to go into committee of the whole. The same with the motion on second reading. If the house decides on that day it will not read it it may be read a second time on another day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does Your Honour argue that if the motion that a bill be now read a second time is negatived the government could introduce that motion again during the same session? If the motion that a bill be now read a second time were negatived and the house decided it should not be read a second time, does Your Honour argue that the government could introduce that same motion later during that session on the same bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Oh yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh no.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops seems to be scandalized by my statement to that effect and now the discussion is ranging from one point to another. Hon. members will admit that some of them might have come prepared to discuss this point of order whereas I was not prepared. I am not going to allow myself to go throughout the various rules of the book this afternoon and the citation to which I referred should be easy to find. The citation is to the effect that it is not appropriate for the people opposing the bill to vote against the second reading because all they decide then is that second reading be not now given, and that it be given second reading some other time. That is what the citation says; look at the second reading of bills. See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 656.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, may I say one word. I presume that hon. members of the government before this was introduced gave consideration as to whether or not this was the right way to proceed and the odd thing to me is that no member of the government has risen to support any argument in favour of considering this. You, Mr. Speaker, have


had to carry the burden of the whole argument. I am sui*e they must have gone into this rather thoroughly.


Mr. Dechene:: This is not a debating society.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) spoke for the government.


An hon. Member:: It is too complicated for them.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members should not imply that there might have been some sort of a sinister conspiracy in order to organize this.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, Mr. Speaker, do not put that interpretation on my words. I was commenting on the fact that you are the judge in this particular instance and I was expecting arguments pro and con from those who believe that this is or is not the right procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to tell hon. members that the resolution which is now on the order paper-I still have to read it. I heard the statement made by the minister the other day in which he explained that he would place another resolution on the order paper and I consider that that is what we are talking about. I have not read it.
It is up to any hon. member to come and consult the officials of the house or even to come and consult me. It is one of the duties of the Clerk to advise the Speaker. While the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) were speaking, the Clerk was good enough to send me some very good references which I had time to read. I listened very attentively to the points made by all the hon. members who spoke. They spoke at sufficient length to permit me to examine the references and I am making my ruling. We are at the point now where we are discussing-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is Your Honour making a ruling on a resolution which you say you have not read?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not called upon to rule on the content of the resolution. I am called upon to rule as to whether or not that resolution should be on the order paper following the rule which says that 48 hours' notice should be given. The resolution will come up tomorrow as a notice of motion and the motion will have to be made to appoint another day in order to have it considered.
Now, I offered earlier to delay the judgment in this case until tomorrow. Hon. members have indicated that they wanted to have a ruling now. I have given my ruling

and I think we have had a discussion of sufficient length. I will say this to hon. members. If after reading Hansard tomorrow morning and after consulting with the Clerk there is any reason why something should be done in order to remove the resolution from the order paper, I will see to it that that action is taken; but if, on the other hand, after carefully reading all the arguments that have been put forward and all the authorities that have been cited and after discussing the matter fully with the Clerk and his assistants I have to come to the same conclusion that the matter may still be considered by the house, then it will be on the order paper tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to refer the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) to citation 656, which reads:
The opponents of the bill may vote against the question that the bill "be now read a second time": but this course is rarely adopted as it still remains to be decided on what day it shall be read a second time, or whether it shall be read at all; and the bill therefore is still before the house, and may afterwards be proceeded with.



PATENT ACT


Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. 292, to amend the Patent Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS

['This matter is being studied. A connecting road would need to be built to the site considered most appropriate for a new wharf. I have communicated with the government of Quebec asking if they are prepared to build such a road but to date have not received their answer. I have told the government of Quebec that we cannot proceed further with our studies until we know if they are prepared to undertake construction of the road.']
Mr. Speaker:: I would remind hon. members that it is now four o'clock, so under the rules we could not take up starred questions. Probably I spoke too much on the point of order. Standing order 39 (1) (b) reads:
Starred questions shall be taken up on Wednesdays after the ordinary daily routine of business has been disposed of and not later than one hour after the time of meeting of the house. If proceedings thereon be not concluded at the expiration of one hour after such business has been entered upon, such starred questions as have not been taken up shall stand over until the next Wednesday sitting.
Perhaps we are all responsible for not having stopped in time to permit our taking up starred questions before this, and perhaps with unanimous consent we could set aside this rule for today.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Maltais: 1.	Is the federal government giving consideration to the construction of new wharf facilities for improved ferry service at Baie Ste. Catherine, Quebec?
Orders for Returns
2.	If so, have arrangements been made with the government of the province of Quebec to construct the road leading to the proposed new wharf?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: This matter is being studied. A connecting road would need to be built to the site considered most appropriate for a new wharf. I have communicated with the government of Quebec asking if they are prepared to build such a road but to date have not received their answer. I have told the government of Quebec that we cannot proceed further with our studies until we know if they are prepared to undertake construction of the road.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): What was the total amount of money paid to each of the following companies for the storing of butter during the year 1955: Ayer Storage Limited, Montreal, Quebec; Canada Cold Storage, Montreal, Quebec; Federal Cold Storage, Montreal, Quebec; Lovell & Christmas (Canada) Limited, Montreal, Quebec; Manitoba Cold Storage, Winnipeg, Manitoba; National Harbours Board, Montreal, Quebec; Montreal Refrigerating & Storage, Montreal, Quebec; Terminal Warehouses Limited, Toronto, Ontario; Trenton Cold Storage, Trenton, Ontario; Winnipeg Cold Storage, Winnipeg, Manitoba?


ARMED SERVICES-RECRUITMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Hamilton (York West): 1.	What was the total cost of recruiting for each of the three armed services for the last 12 months for which figures are available?
2.	What is the breakdown of these costs under the following headings: (a) advertising; (b) recruiting centres and offices; (c) travelling teams; (d) other costs?



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Have any orders in council been passed since January 1, 1946 which exempt any product from sales tax?
2.	If so, what are the numbers of such orders in council?
3.	Are any of them still in effect?
4.	If so, what are the numbers thereof?



HOGS-PRICE AND GRADING STATISTICS

Mr. Smith (Battle River-: Camrose):
1.	What was the price paid per cwt. for (a) grade A hogs; (b) grade B1 hogs; (c) other grades of hogs, on the (i) Vancouver; (ii) Edmonton; (iii) Winnipeg; (iv) Toronto markets, on the 15th of each month from September 15, 1955 to April 15. 1956 inclusive?
2.	What percentage of hogs marketed on each of the above dates was placed in (a) grade A category; (b) grade B1 category; (c) other categories?

Inquiries of the Ministry



C.N.R. AND T.C.A.-ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES

Mr. Siewari (Winnipeg: North):
1.	What was the amount spent for advertising by Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines during the calendar year 1955?
2.	What agencies were employed?
3.	What amount was paid to each agency?



LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER APPLICATIONS

Mr. Robinson (Bruce): 1.	Were applications for lighthouse keepers called for in connection with Port Stanley, in 1954, and Port Dalhousie and Niagara-on-the-Lake, in 1955?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of the applicants?
3.	Who was the successful applicant for each position?
4.	What are the respective salaries paid?
5.	Does the department practise promotion within the lighthouse keeper service?
6.	If so, was this done in connection with the abovementioned locations?



SOCIAL WELFARE, QUE.  FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Maliais: 1.	During	each	year,	from	1951	to	1956,	whatamounts have been paid by	way	of	(a) family
allowances, (b) old age pensions to Canadians having reached the age of 70 years; (c) unemployment insurance, in the county of Charlevoix, Quebec?
2.	During	each	year,	from	1951	to	1956,	what
amounts have been paid by way of old age pensions to Canadians between the ages of 65 and 70 years, in the province of Quebec?
3.	During	each	year,	from	1951	to	1956,	what
amounts have been paid by way of pensions to blind persons, in the province of Quebec?



EDUCATION


Mr. Enfield: During the fiscal year 1955-56, what sums of money by way of outright grants, bursaries, scholarships and loans were expended by the federal government directly in aid of education in Canada, including grants for assistance to Indians and Eskimos (a) by each department of government in each province, for aid to university students, and including professional training; (b) by each department of government in each province for education on the secondary and elementary school levels?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Could the minister report to the house, either now or later, on the refusal of immigration officers to admit to Canada Dr. Corliss Lamont who was to deliver lectures in the First Unitarian Church, Toronto, yesterday, and the grounds for such action by these officers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could the minister also say why he has changed his departmental mind?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, although the question relates to an individual case I think it is of sufficient public interest to make it desirable that a reply be made. I may say that Mr. Lamont arrived in Windsor yesterday. According to the information I have received from our Windsor office, before he arrived he advised the United Press, I am not sure whether in New York but at least somewhere in the United States, that he was coming to Canada to give some lectures. The United Press spoke to our office in Windsor and asked what would be done about him when he arrived.
It is quite probable that if these things had not happened there would have been no question raised about his entry into this country, but because these queries were made by the press, queries which perhaps in my suspicious mind might have been inspired by Mr. Lamont, certain questions were put to him. It appeared to the inquiry officer that he fell within the classes of person which parliament saw fit to prohibit entry to Canada under section 5 (1) of the Immigration Act which reads:
No person, other than a person referred to in subsection (2) of section 7, shall be admitted to Canada if he is a member of any of the following classes of persons:
(1) persons who are or have been, at any time before or after the commencement of this act, members of or associated with any organization, group or body of any kind concerning which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it promotes or advocates or at the time of such membership or association promoted or advocated subversion by force or other means of democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada, except persons who satisfy the minister that they have ceased to be members of or associated with such organizations, groups or bodies and whose admission would not be detrimental to the security of Canada.
In view of the information which was given to the inquiry officer by Mr. Lamont, and which indicated that he had at one time belonged to a certain organization which the attorney general of the United States had indicated was a subversive organization in that country, I have no criticism to make of the conscientious civil servant who ordered his deportation. Mr. Lamont was informed at once that he had a right of appeal to the minister. Up until a late hour last night he had not exercised that right, but I am told that he filed an appeal about midnight.
Early this morning I began to make inquiries about this matter which I confess had disturbed me. I found that an appeal had been entered and I took steps to see that

the material respecting the appeal was communicated to me in an unusually rapid way so that I could make a judgment upon it immediately. Upon considering the evidence in the case I could not satisfy myself that Mr. Lamont necessarily fell within the classes of persons mentioned in section 5 (1), and I accordingly decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and to allow his appeal.
I have been advised that he is on his way to Toronto to fulfil one of the two engagements. I took this course because it did not appear to me that, whatever the letter of the law might be, a lecture given by Mr. Lamont at the Unitarian church in Toronto would be the slightest danger to the security of Canada, and I did not think it was wise to have any unnecessary impression created that we in this country were afraid of listening to people like Mr. Lamont or that we were trying to suppress free speech. I think I might add, however, that it is my own belief, a belief which I doubt if I could support by concrete evidence, that this was a deliberate attempt on the part of a communist front organization to portray this country as a country in which we are afraid to allow free speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of the serious nature of the minister's last statement, can he tell the house what is the name of the communist front organization about whom he has these suspicions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The name of the organization in question is the national council for American-Soviet friendship.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would he let the house in on the secret of how in the Lamont case-and I am not criticizing the judgment of the minister- it was that they operated so quickly? I should like to get the name of the solicitors who can get action that quickly. Would the minister tell the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know, sir, whether that kind of question merits an answer in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I now ask the minister once more, regardless of what he thinks of it, was it the president of the Liberal federation of Canada who did it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The first person who
motivated the minister to take any action in this matter was the minister himself.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the
New York Times says.
Inquiries of the Ministry

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of the last part of his statement in which he replied that Dr. Corliss Lamont had been a tool of a communist front organization in his attempt to enter Canada. I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the fact that Dr. Corliss Lamont was exonerated by a committee of the United States Senate on precisely that charge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Colin Cameron: -and that the charges-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member giving information or is he asking for information?


Colin Cameron: I am asking whether the minister knows, because I am very much surprised if he does not know, but apparently he does not.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps no one would be surprised if the hon. member would ask a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I would be extremely surprised if, when Hansard is examined, it will be found that I said that Dr. Lamont was a tool of anybody. I do not think I used any such expression. I have not made an exhaustive study of his biography and I hope I shall not be obliged to do so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received an answer to his telegram to the seafarers' international union? If so, have they accepted the offer of the government to provide mediation services?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will be glad to know that my answer will not be as long as yesterday. In answer to the hon. member's question I should like to bring the house up to date, and I shall be quite brief.
The Canadian director of the seafarers' international union has advised me by telegram that the strike deadline set for two companies could only be postponed by means of another vote which could not be taken in time. However, he promised co-operation in any effort to mediate the dispute. I replied that mediation would be provided on the
3730	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry understanding that the mediator's efforts would be directed toward settling the entire dispute involving the seven employers rather than just the two where a strike is threatened.
Counsel representing the association has also advised me that the companies are willing to participate in any mediation proceedings, despite the strike notice to two companies, on the understanding that such proceedings are between the association of lake carriers and the seafarers' international union.
In order, therefore, to assist the parties in the settlement of this dispute I have appointed Mr. H. Carl Goldenberg, Q.C., of Montreal, as an industrial inquiry commission under section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to act as mediator. Mr. Goldenberg has had many years experience in dealing with labour relations matters and is entering upon this assignment immediately.



RAILWAYS AND NON-OPERATING UNIONS   REQUEST FOR FURTHER STATEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Has the minister now heard from the two parties to the meeting which was discontinued yesterday concerning railway wage negotiations, and can he say what steps he is taking to try to achieve the implementation of the report of the conciliation board that he appointed?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have heard from the two parties. As a matter of fact, I have been in constant touch with the representatives of the two parties. The government is giving very full consideration to this important matter but I am not in a position to make a statement on it today. However, I can assure my hon. friend and the house that I will make a report just as soon as it is possible to do so.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the delay in the completion of the discussion of the minister's estimates, could the minister make a statement to the house at an early date answering the question I asked, as recorded at page 1617 of Hansard, with regard to the establishment of a floor price on dogfish livers? I am not asking for an answer today


but I should like the minister to make a statement as to what has been decided.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: About ten days or two weeks ago the government did decide to take the advice of the fisheries research board and the fisheries prices support board and offer a bounty of $10 a ton on dogfish delivered to reduction plants on the west coast. At the present time the fishing industry and the fishermen's union are considering the matter with respect to the amount which the industry can afford to pay to supplement that bounty to make the operation an economical one.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to repeat a question I addressed to the Prime Minister the other day on the orders of the day and to which I did not receive an answer. It had to do with what steps are being taken by the government to ascertain how great the shortage and need of engineers and scientists in Canada is.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I will have to take that question
as notice. I do not know what kind of investigations are being made. I know that there have been .communications to the government and that there may be information available about the subject. I will try to get it and communicate it to the house.



PIPES LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has yet tabled the current agreements between the government and the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company which he said yesterday he would table as soon as they had been signed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understood that the agreements were to be tabled before the house met today. Perhaps my parliamentary assistant can tell me whether they were. I feel sure they were but if not they will be tabled very shortly.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, they were tabled before two o'clock.



INQUIRY AS TO REPLIES TO MR. MCMAHON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether his inquiries in his department have established whether or not he wrote any letters replying to Mr. McMahon's letters? The minister said he would table them if there were such.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been rather busy
and I have not been able to search my personal files for acknowledgments of letters. However, I have a staff who read Hansard. I assume that my staff noticed the discussion, and I also assume that if there had been any replies they would have been tabled. I have not inquired personally.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does your staff not usually
let you know what they find?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sometimes, and
sometimes not.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of press reports respecting the meeting of the NATO council. Was any arrangement or agreement arrived at as among Britain, the United States, France and Canada whereby there is going to be a change in the attitude that has been taken by these powers other than France toward the shipment of arms to the Middle East?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker; no such agreement was discussed or reached at the NATO meeting in Paris.


GATT-REPORTED TARIFF CUTS BY CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give the house any information about the reported tariff cuts that Canada is making within the GATT organization?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a report from Geneva. I will be glad to announce it when any information comes to hand.
Income Tax Act WAYS AND MEANS
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide, among other things:
1.	That for the 1956 and subsequent taxation years, in the taxation of employees who are beneficiaries under an employees profit sharing plan, (a) gains and losses of the trustee under the plan in connection with investment transactions shall not be taken into account in calculating the income of the employee: (b) such part of any amount received by the trustee as a dividend from a taxable corporation as is taken into account in calculating the income of the employee shall be deemed to have been received by the employee as such a dividend for tax credit purposes; and (c) there shall be excluded in calculating the income of an employee for the period of his first three years as a beneficiary under the plan any amount contingently allocated to him if, within that period, the employee does not become entitled to receive that amount upon his withdrawal from the plan.
2.	That for the 1955 and subsequent taxation years a deduction shall be allowed for expenses of attending in Canada not more than two conventions annually relating to the business of the taxpayer.
3.	That for the 1956 and subsequent taxation years uncertainty regarding the applicability of outstanding regulations respecting depletion allowances be removed.
The Chairman:: House again in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Income Tax Act. May I remind hon. members that last evening the committee had completed its discussion with respect to paragraph 1 and that when the committee rose at ten o'clock it had been discussing paragraph 2.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, last evening I had made some remarks on paragraph 2 chiefly concerning the fact that the words "in Canada" should be taken out of this particular section. I should like to repeat those remarks in substance again today, Mr. Chairman, particularly in view of some remarks which are reported in the Globe and Mail this morning and which were allegedly made by the Minister of Public Works last night in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I refer to the news item in the Globe and Mail this morning which is quoting the minister as follows:
"We are a nation on the march," he said. "We are a nation keenly in need of the sort of training and skills you are getting here at M.I.T. ..."
Then further on we find this:
He said Canada faces a great shortage of engineers at a time when every effort is being utilized to develop natural resources.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that some ministers of the government are trying to

Income Tax Act
encourage the training of engineers, scientists and so on, lauding the skills taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology while on the other hand some other branches of the government are apparently trying to prevent Canadian engineers or rather to discourage Canadian engineers-I should not say "prevent"; "discourage" is a better word-scientists, doctors and so on from obtaining the advantages of this institution to which I have referred and many other fine institutions in the United States, Europe and elsewhere. Last evening the Minister of National Revenue made some remarks at which I was somewhat surprised when he said that the reason they had limited this to "in Canada", or he infers that the reason the two words "in Canada" were included, was that one doctor had gone to Europe to attend a convention, had taken his wife with him and apparently had gone on quite a spree and tried to deduct the expenses. That well may be the case. Then I believe the minister went on to say that because of certain events such as that-and I would not disagree with the minister in that particular instance-it was decided-


Mr. McCann:: Did I say "such as that"? No, I did not.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Possibly I may be oDen to correction but I shall leave the matter to Hansard.


James Joseph McCann: I referred to nobody's spree at all.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Possibly the minister did not use the word "spree".


James Joseph McCann: No.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The inference was the same, namely that the doctor had a very good holiday.


James Joseph McCann: No. That is your inference.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I will stand by whatever is in Hansard with respect to what the minister said. It was to the effect that the doctor had a nice trip or words to that effect. I would be prepared to agree with the minister that in cases such as this the minister is probably quite right. But if scientists, doctors or engineers were going to attend conventions where their own knowledge would be increased and thereby the technical knowledge and skills required in this country, which is apparently in need of them at the present time, it would not seem to me to be too difficult to iron out the matter. For instance, a regulation could be made in the department that they could not take any of their wives or families with them. I think that would help. Possibly there might be

some limitation on the expenses that could be deducted for conventions and such like. But simply to say that a certain incident-and that may be possible-prompted this legislation is rather shortsighted, in my opinion, in view of the need for trained scientists, engineers and doctors in this country. Since, as I believe I mentioned last evening, it is difficult to increase the numbers too quickly, the best we could possibly do is to try to increase the skills of those who are already there.
The discussion last evening, Mr. Chairman, seemed to revolve chiefly around the medical profession in particular. I would certainly agree that it is an extremely important profession. Advance in medicine might certainly be helped by our Canadian doctors attending conventions in the United States, South America and in Europe. I do not think any one would suggest that Canada is the sole repository of medical knowledge. A little later on in his remarks I believe the Minister of National Revenue suggested that if wealthy men go to these conventions, they should pay for it. I would quite agree that wealthy doctors, engineers and other scientists can well afford to go to conventions in other places. But by the time that men in the medical profession and in the other professions I have mentioned get to be wealthy they are usually fairly well on in years. It is the young scientists, the young doctors and the young engineers who are interested in getting this additional knowledge, not the old ones, or at least not to the same extent. If you want to encourage our young doctors, scientists and engineers to try to acquire knowledge in their fields and thus help not only themselves but this country when it is in need. I do not think the way to go about it is to discourage them in every way possible. Everyone knows that young doctors, and young scientists on staffs or working on their own often have families and have children to bring up; maybe there is a mortgage on the house to pay off. They have not enough money to go travelling even to fairly close parts of the United States. I think the government could very well help out by allowing any such scientist, engineer or doctor to go to two conventions a year, no matter where they might be, and allow their expenses, within certain financial limitations, as a deduction from income. Of course, this would not apply to their wives and families. I would agree with the remarks made last night in this respect by the Minister of National Revenue; that would certainly not be reasonable.
I cannot see why this restriction is placed in this resolution. As was pointed out by several hon. members last night, a doctor in Vancouver might want to attend a convention

in Halifax or in Quebec city, which is a long distance from Vancouver, and his expenses would be deductible. But if there were a convention in Buffalo a doctor living in Hamilton would not be able to deduct his expenses if he attended that convention, yet there would be little comparison between the two items of expense.
I should like to point out one other matter in this regard. A great many young scientists are on the staffs of our universities. Since they are salaried people, I understand from my colleagues who are accountants that they could not make a deduction of their expenses in attending conventions. However, their university could pay their expenses and allow them as a deduction. I think most of us realize, particularly in view of the news in the last few days that universities in Canada have had to raise their fees-which is a regrettable circumstance indeed-that most universities are not affluent. If the universities of this country wish to increase the knowledge of the scientists or engineers on their staffs, then the administrative bodies of the universities should be allowed to send these staff members abroad to gain that additional knowledge. The knowledge in all branches of science, like medicine, is certainly not confined to one country. I would hope that the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary assistant would give some kind of answer this afternoon to explain why there is this restriction, "in Canada", included in this resolution.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I must say, Mr. Chairman, I was rather disappointed a few minutes ago to observe that the Minister of Finance had apparently been called out of the house, because I certainly felt we should have had some reply from him to some of the questions that have been raised before this resolution is carried. I feel that some of the problems that were raised last night in respect to the inequities that, in my opinion, are going to be aggravated by the introduction of the proposal in section 2 of the resolution, do call for some explanation by the government as to why they are going to be allowed to continue. I recognize that the Minister of National Revenue did participate in the debate last night. But I would point out to you, as the minister so often and carefully explains to us, that the minister's function is an administrative one relating to the collection of taxes rather than to policy in regard to the imposition of taxes. His participation in the debate does not really constitute an answer from the government on the policy matters that have been raised.
In regard to the question of the discriminatory features that are in the present
Income Tax Act
section 5 of the act, which I suggested last night are going to be further aggravated by the proposal that is now before us, I mentioned that I had raised this particular matter last year and the year before. I recall that a year ago the parliamentary assistant did make some reply but his reply, in effect, was that he would draw my remarks to the attention of the minister. It would appear that if we get any reply on this matter it is going to be a somewhat similar reply from the parliamentary assistant. I would submit that on a matter which is as important as this, which affects many millions of Canadians, that sort of answer from the government is not good enough. For that reason I think we should expect some statement on these questions from the Minister of Finance which we could accept as a statement of the government's attitude or the government's policy on this matter.
If in their view discrimination does not exist, I for one would welcome some attempt on their part to explain why they take the view the act is not discriminatory now. It seems to me when one thinks of the situation I mentioned last night where you find an appeal being dismissed, and the judge who dismissed the appeal expressing such obvious sympathy with the plight of the appellant, as was the case in the situation to which I referred, that in itself should give us cause for considering the validity of the arguments I have been advancing. I know that it is all very well for me to go to the minister privately, as I did at the end of the last session, and get from him a straightforward private answer, which was really no explanation of policy. It is all very well for me to have to do that again this year, but I submit we have a right to expect some sort of explanation from the government or the Minister of Finance, who is charged with the responsibility of setting government policy on matters of this kind, before we are prepared to vote on the question that is now before us.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Before the parliamentary assistant answers, I want to repeat one suggestion I made last night. What is the objection to putting in the words "and the United States", making it Canada and the United States? If my argument last night that that would cost little or nothing was valid, and if the argument was valid that there may be a great balance of convenience in extending the scope of the measure to include south of the line, I ask the parliamentary assistant to give us an answer on that. I would further ask, if it is not possible for him to give us an affirmative answer today, would he at least say to us that this will be considered before the budget bill is introduced.

Income Tax Act


Mr. Monieilh:: Last evening the parliamentary assistant had this to say, as reported on page 3704 of Hansard for May 8, 1956, when he was discussing clause No. 2:
It is proposed here to restore more or less the administrative practice that had been in existence prior to 1855, when that court decision was rendered.
I understand that to mean they were simply reverting to the situation as it existed before. Was it not the practice of the department to allow medical people to attend one convention in the United States at that time?


Mr. Benidickson:: Now, Mr. Chairman,
probably I could answer some of the points that have been raised in connection with this problem of deductions with respect to expense of attending conventions. It is not unusual for government proposals to be criticized from opposite directions. I think that is the situation we are in today. There are members of one group saying the proposal is unduly restrictive.
Then, we have had the proposal criticized by another group saying that it was unwise to re-introduce this opportunity at all. I do want to say at once to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that he could not have had a reply to his remarks of yesterday from a more qualified person than the Minister of National Revenue, who assumes all collection awkwardness related to tax laws if wise proposals are not contained in the Income Tax Act.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would permit me a word? I remind him that the Minister of National Revenue spoke before I did last night and therefore was not replying to the argument I advanced.


William Moore Benidickson: In any event, he pointed out the difficulty from the administrative point of view of examining and deciding on the merits of exemptions of relatively small consequence in dollar amount. They involve a great deal of detail and cost in the examination of the individual tax returns, and so on.
The hon. member for Greenwood placed quite a specific question forward. He said he wondered why the words "United States" could not be very readily included in the resolution. Well, what is really being done here is of course to provide something that was not secure or certain for the taxpayer in the past. This is really something to the taxpayer's advantage, since the court case technically speaking there was a doubt cast as to the propriety of even allowing the deductions in the past.
Now, part of the thinking that restricts this to Canada is that the merit and advantages to the taxpayer from attendance at

conventions outside the country cannot be determined as competently by the tax officials as claims for deductions for attending conventions in Canada. The other is that most people, through their trade and professional associations, probably have some obligation in the matter of attending either a provincial or a national convention in Canada; but it is seldom that those obligations extend to the attending of conventions outside of Canada. If they do extend, it is usual that the person going to a foreign country to attend a convention is an official delegate and has probably been provided with his expenses by the association that he is representing officially. But even if that is not so, the general reasonableness of providing some restriction and limitation I think will appeal to the committee, and I think it stands as something between the criticism that this is unduly restrictive and the criticism that it should not be restored at all.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on this matter. There are the chiropodists. They do not have any colleges in Canada but they generally have a convention in the United States at one or more of the colleges each year. Instead of having just the word "Canada", would it not be possible to put in the words "Canada and not more than 1,000 miles outside of Canada"? That would limit it to the United States. I know of one medical man who wondered whether he could afford to go to a convention in San Francisco.


Mr. Nicholson:: Or Florida.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, this was San Francisco. There was a medical convention there. He decided he would learn something there, and he went to San Francisco. When he returned to my city a case came before him which he was able to cure. He saved the woman's life because at that convention he had learned something that enabled him to give the woman treatment that he would not have been able to give her otherwise because no one in the district had the knowledge that they had at that time.


James Joseph McCann: Andersen's Fairy Tales.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, that is the truth.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have one comment to make. I quite agree with the parliamentary assistant about extending this beyond North America. I do not find the answer to my very simple request wholly convincing. Before the bill is brought down will the

parliamentary assistant take another look at this in the hope that there might be an amendment?


William Moore Benidickson: That is the invariable practice. Usually there is an interval between the introduction of these resolutions and the preparation of the amending bills in the final form. I assure my hon. friend that invariably the comments of the house at the resolution stage are examined very carefully before the bill is introduced.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I restate my question? Was it not the practice previously to allow one convention in the United States?


William Moore Benidickson: I think that was true under the administrative practice.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Thank you.


Mr. Holowach:: In the paragraph the year 1955 is given as the time in which the expenses of attending two conventions in Canada will be allowed. The paragraph reads:
That for the 1955 and subsequent taxation years a deduction shall be allowed for expenses of attending in Canada not more than two conventions annually relating to the business of the taxpayer.
Since all of us have made our returns for the year 1955, just in what way will this provision be taken into account? Will provision be made in 1956 for the 1955 convention expenses?


William Moore Benidickson: The intention is simply to keep uninterrupted the tax practice to the extent mentioned in the resolution, anybody who filed a tax return with respect to 1955 in fact had notice of this intention in March when the budget was introduced and prior to the filing of his return.


Ambrose A. Holowach: Will provision be made for those who were not aware of it?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, they can submit a claim for reassessment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I think the point brought out by the hon. member for Oxford and others relative to medical men is a sound and sensible one. For instance, in my own case my own dentist, who is a very able man in his profession, spends several weeks every year in New York, Chicago, or in some other centre attending clinics which he tells me are invaluable to him in keeping up with and abreast of the latest techniques in dentistry, and it makes a great deal of difference in the kind of treatment he is able to provide his patients. He also does considerable lecturing, and these trips are of great assistance to him in that regard.
As a businessman I have been able to travel extensively in the United States and
Income Tax Act
in other places to gain information for my company and I have been able to write off all expenses without any query. I can see no difference between that and trips made by medical men, scientists, engineers and so on, gaining information which is of great help to them in their professions. I do not think the government has given a satisfactory answer to this. The answer is simply: we do not want to do it, therefore we are not going to do it. I have not yet heard a realistic reason given by either the parliamentary assistant or the Minister of National Revenue as to why such expenses are not allowed to medical men, scientists, engineers and so on. I should like the government either to give a more plausible reason for not granting this request or to go ahead and follow the sensible course of granting it.


William Alfred Robinson: Have we completed our discussion of paragraph 2?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not satisfied with the answer the parliamentary assistant gave to the hon. member for Edmonton East. While the Minister of Finance announced his intention in March, this is a new state of affairs when it is taken for granted that laws become effective whenever the Minister of Finance makes an announcement. I think we should at least show the taxpayers of this country the courtesy of telling them they will have to wait until parliament enacts legislation.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the opinions expressed by the Minister of National Revenue last night when he discussed some of the problems that arise in connection with the passing of this legislation. I think it is bad enough to be using it at this stage but I think harking back to 1955 is unnecessary and unfortunate. If taxpayers were able to start with their 1956 returns, that should be all the minister could possibly ask this house to support. Certainly the taxpayers of Canada have filed their returns for the year 1955 and if they have not penalties will be levied. I can see no justification for the minister asking us now to support this section of the proposal which says that whatever has been paid in 1955 can be included.
I wonder if the minister would reconsider this point and decide whether or not he might change the date from 1955 to 1956?


William Moore Benidickson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have indicated that I thought there were advantages for the taxpayer in maintaining the practice without an interruption. I would think that a great number of taxpayers who for some years have been making claims of this kind are probably not aware of the exchequer court decision of 1955 and in the

Income Tax Act
regular course of filling out their 1955 returns have in fact claimed this exemption as usual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in view of the comment made last night by the Minister of National Revenue to the effect that these various exemptions create administrative difficulties and prompt some people to abuse them, and in view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance some time ago that one exemption begets the desire for another, I wonder whether any consideration has been given to raising the statutory exemption rather than providing these incidental exemptions?
In fact, perhaps the time has come to withdraw some of the little exemptions that we are allowed here and there and replace them by a straight increase in the statutory exemption to, let us say, $1,500 single and $3,000 married. Certainly it would be more acceptable to the average taxpayer and I gather from what the Minister of National Revenue said last night that it would make his task a much simpler one.


William Alfred Robinson: Have we completed our discussion of paragraph 2?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Paragraph 3.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word or two about this. My understanding is-and I am reading from the ministers' budget speech at page 2332 of Hansard- that this resolution is really connected with and arises partly because of a supreme court decision known as the Home Oil case. The resolution itself strikes me as a rather amazing departure from the somewhat austere and matter-of-fact wording of resolutions because what we read here is:
That for the 1956 and subsequent taxation years uncertainty regarding the applicability of outstanding regulations respecting depletion allowances be removed.
I would have thought that that could only happen in another and better world but nevertheless it is desirable to have a high objective. It does prompt me to say, however, that the resolution as worded sounds more like a prayer than a resolution.
Now coming back to the references made to the Home Oil case, I read from the minister's speech:
The reasons for judgment given by the court in the Home Oil case have created some uncertainty as to whether the present law and regulations as amended in 1951 are in sufficiently clear terms to support assessments made since 1951. It is proposed, therefore, to amend the law and regulations now to ensure that the intent of the 1951 amendment shall govern for the intervening period

and for the future. This amendment will not deprive any taxpayer of his rights under the supreme court decision for the years prior to 1951.
I take it that the parliamentary assistant will say something on this by way of explanation of the problem which is arising in the minds of oil producers between 1951 and 1956 and I also hope that he will just say a word about the terms of the Home Oil decision so that we may have on the record an explanation of the situation which prompts this resolution.


William Moore Benidickson: It will be noted by the house that it is now proposed that this amendment to the law and regulations shall date from 1956 and not from 1951, which was mentioned in the speech made by the minister as found at page 2332 of Hansard.
As originally announced, it was intended to make this amendment date from 1951 so there would be no uncertainty in the period from 1951 to the present. It was never intended to deprive the taxpayer of his rights under the supreme court decision for the years prior to 1951. However, representations have been made since the budget speech from which my hon. friend quoted to the effect that amending the law effective to 1951 would deprive taxpayers of the right to test the validity of the law and regulations as they now stand and have stood for the period from 1951 to the present and accordingly it is now proposed that the amendment shall date from 1956 only.


Mr. Nickle:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question or two to the parliamentary assistant on this particular subject. He states that by this proposed amendment he hopes to clarify some misunderstanding on the part of oil operators and others as to what the department actually means by depletion.
I presume what the department intends to do is to carry on in the future the same general policy followed by the department over the last several years, and that in effect is this: a statement to Canadian oil companies that if they want depletion on their oil producing properties they must quit exploring; however, if they want to gain the benefits of depletion allowance on their producing properties all they have to do is quit exploring for oil and let the exploration job be done by someone else.
It is a fact, sir, that as the regulations are now administered very few-as a matter of fact, less than one-tenth of Canadian oil companies-draw any benefit whatsoever from the depletion allowance. It is also true that while the act or the regulations would indicate a depletion allowance of one-third of

net profit is allowed on producing properties, in actual fact benefit from depletion for Canadian oil companies has amounted to less than 1 per cent of the revenue derived from producing properties.
The great question of Canadian policy with regard to depletion has been the cause of a great deal of concern not only to oil companies but also to governments and the general public of this country. For example, I find that the views I have expressed on this particular subject from time to time over the last three years are fully supported by the government of the province of Saskatchewan, a government which, as a socialist government, might normally be considered as one opposed to any form of tax hand-out, if you want to call depletion that, to private corporations. Yet we have a statement by Hon. J. H. Brockelbank, minister of natural and mineral resources of Saskatchewan, which appeared in the Western Oil Examiner of January 15 last. Mr. Brockelbank had this to say:
Another important point is that due to a special tax concession to risk investment capital in the United States, the American oil and gas industry has enjoyed an advantage over Canadian risk capital in the same field. In coming to Canada, the American oil industry has spent dollars which otherwise would have found their way into the American treasury.
These dollars, although welcome in Canada, have placed the Canadian investment dollar at a considerable disadvantage because of unequal dollar responsibility.
In its submission to the Gordon royal commission the Saskatchewan government went a little further than that. I think the comments made at that time might appropriately be read into the record of this house. The brief of the Saskatchewan government had this to say:
The second general question to which the attention of the commission is drawn concerns what appears to be the continuing hesitancy on the part of Canadians and Canadian companies to invest freely in the development of their national assets. The great resources boom that has played such a prominent part in the post-war expansion in the Canadian economy stems in large measure from the substantial inflow of foreign capital, first from the United States and latterly from the United Kingdom and western Europe.
This has been as true in Saskatchewan as in other provinces, especially in oil exploration where non-resident capital has played the major development role. The inflow of capital has made, and will undoubtedly continue to make, a valued and lasting contribution to the growth of the provincial economy. At the same time it would be highly desirable to secure a more active and expanded participation by Canadians and Canadian capital in this growth. Among the problems mentioned by Canadian companies in this connection, however, is the fact that under the combined impact of United States and Canadian federal income tax laws and regulations, the American-owned companies operating in this country enjoy
Income Tax Act
a competitive tax advantage over Canadian companies. If it is the policy of the federal government to encourage the fullest possible participation and ownership of resources by Canadian capital in the expansion of the domestic economy, a careful review and action to remove any competitive disabilities suffered by Canadian companies should be suggested.
The government of Alberta, which of course is a Social Credit administration, made even stronger representations in connection with this particular phase of the Canadian tax policy to the Gordon royal commission. In his statement to that commission the premier of Alberta was quite clear that the government of Alberta supported the idea of the inflow of foreign capital to that province, which of course has meant hundreds of millions of dollars for the provincial treasury, but at the same time it was said that the government of Alberta would like to see a much greater participation by Canadian companies and Canadian investors. It was suggested that the best way of achieving this would be by a revision of the Canadian tax laws in order to create actually workable and effective depletion allowances much along the lines of those applied under the United States law to all companies in the United States, whether they carry out their spendings in the United States or anywhere else in the world.
The Conservative party has put its views on record in connection with this important matter, and they have been on record for a long time. However, last January the national Conservative association of Canada decided to go a step further and put on the formal record its views on the matter of Canadian tax laws, particularly with regard to depletion. The following resolution was approved by the national Conservative association:
Whereas it is in the national interest that Canadians be encouraged to participate to the maximum in the development and ownership of Canadian natural resources such as oil and gas and other minerals;
We urge the Canadian government to amend the Income Tax Act, particularly in regard to depletion allowance and lease acquisition cost write-offs in order that Canadians may compete on a nearer to equal competitive basis in the acquisition and development of Canadian oil and gas and other minerals with Americans who have the advantage of United States tax law provisions.
These things I have read indicate pretty clearly that no matter where the political views of Canadians happen to lie as between a socialist or Social Credit provincial government or the Conservative party of Canada, all are agreed on one thing, that our Canadian tax laws discriminate against Canadian investment in the development of Canadian resources.
Before going any further perhaps I should examine the question of just what is a

Income Tax Act
depletion allowance. Depletion allowances are basically and simply the recognition that an oil well or a mine producing any form of mineral, be it coal, gold, iron or any other, is a wasting asset, is something strictly limited as to the ultimate production which will be yielded. In order to stay permanently in business the owner must continuously *explore to replace the reserves that are produced. In principle, depletion allowances provide natural resources production industries with a lower rate of taxation than other industries which do not have the same problem of replacing by exploration the products they produce. Depletion does not apply to what might be termed the normal business phases of such an industry as the crude oil industry. In other words the profits from refining or marketing the oil are taxed at the full corporate tax rate without benefit of any depletion allowance.
Under the present Canadian policy, a policy which has prevailed for some years, those operating oil and gas wells are extended a depletion allowance of 334 Per cent of the net profits, if any, remaining after all the costs of exploration and development have been recovered. However, because the huge expenditures in recent years have far exceeded the gross production income, only about one-tenth of the Canadian companies engaged in exploration have been in a position to make any net production income against which to apply a depletion allowance. The actual benefit of depletion allowances so far has only been about 1 per cent of the spendings made to replace and increase crude reserves. Therefore the purposes of the depletion provisions have been largely defeated.
Under the present regulations a Canadian company could discover an oil or gas field, and if it were carrying on active exploration work it could produce all the oil or gas from that pool and receive very little if any in the way of depletion allowance. On the other hand, if that company decided to halt or reduce its exploration work it could derive a substantial depletion allowance on the ultimate profits from the operation of that field. There is thus a penalty imposed under the Canadian tax laws upon any company willing to continue large-scale exploration, and that is a most undesirable thing in a nation whose future depends in no small measure upon the continued risking of large amounts of capital on natural resources exploration and development.
In contrast to the limited application of the depletion provisions to Canadian companies which pay out a large part of the exploration development costs in western Canada, there

is under the present tax policy a depletion allowance of 25 per cent of gross income extended to the recipients of gross and net royalty interests in Canadian oil and gas wells. In other words those who do not take part in the exploration costs of the oil and have a royalty interest in the production of individual wells are entitled to the full 25 per cent gross depletion allowance. This is allowed to many farmers and others who own mineral rights, and is a much greater depletion allowance than is allowed under the Canadian law to Canadian companies who are bearing the entire cost of exploring and developing these products.
I have suggested in the house at various times in the past that the government should amend its present depletion allowance regulations to provide that the present allowance of 25 per cent of gross production income now permitted to royalty owners in Canada be extended also to those who provide the costs of exploration and development, and that we should use this gross depletion allowance in place of the current allowance of a so-called 334 per cent of any ultimate net profits. Such a step would go a long way toward providing a continuing incentive for Canadian capital to maintain a large-scale exploration program in Canada. In addition, it would also put the Canadian in a more nearly equal position to his competitor, the American, in the drive to develop Canadian resources.
I might say that under United States law United States companies have a choice of the most beneficial to them of two depletion methods. They can either take 27J per cent on gross production income by way of depletion, or else they may take 50 per cent of net production income for depletion. The proposal I make that our depletion should be 25 per cent of gross production income is still not nearly as generous as that provided under United States law.
In addition to depletion on oil and gas wells, we do have in Canada depletion on our other mineral resources, and there seems to be no consistency whatsoever in the departments's application or determination of the principle of depletion. For example, base and precious metal mines are allowed a depletion allowance of 334 per cent of their annual profits. In the case of gold mines they are allowed a depletion allowance of either 40 per cent of their profits each year or else a depletion allowance of $4 per ounce of gold produced in that year. In the case of industrial mineral mines dealing with non-bedded deposits we have a depletion allowance of 334 per cent of the profits in each year. In the case of coal mines we have a straight depletion of 10 cents per ton for

each ton of coal mined in any given year. There are also in the case of certain types of mines special allowances by way of tax concessions.
But in each of these other mineral industries we have a situation somewhat different from that applying to the oil and gas industry. In the case of a metal mine or a coal mine we do not have the operator of that mine faced with the necessity of huge capital expenditures on exploration and development. In the case of oil particularly the companies, big or small, if they are going to stay successfully in business, must gamble up to many times the gross amount of income they can hope to receive from their properties that are producing at the present time, and the ratio of moneys they must expend for oil exploration compared with their production income is far higher than in the case of base metals or precious metals.
It has been pointed out very ably by a great many executives of various companies, big and small, including executives of United States oil companies, at the recent Gordon commission hearings that we in Canada make it tougher for Canadians to take part in their own resource development by making our depletion regulations in Canada somewhat tougher than those applying in the case of our American brethren. For example, here is a statement made on March 28 at the annual meeting of Canadian Oil Companies Limited, which I believe is the largest single wholly Canadian-owned integrated oil company. Harold Rea, president of Canadian Oil Companies Limited, had this to say:
The Canadian tax structure .	.	. gives non-
Canadians distinct competitive advantage in our own oil fields.
He went on to say:
Canadian crude oil must compete with foreign crude, but it is at a disadvantage in such competition if it is developed and produced in a tax climate less favourable than in other countries.
He concluded by saying:
We risk and lose one hundred cents on every dollar on the cost of unproductive acreage. United States companies risk only the net cost after deducting income tax.
The practical effect, so far as western Canada is concerned, is that there has been an increasing percentage of the proved and potential oil and gas lands of the west going into the hands of foreign companies. That is something we in the west do not blame on the United States oil companies because the fault largely lies right here in Canada, and I believe lies largely in the hands of the federal income tax department. By our policies, particularly with respect to depletion and certain other
Income Tax Act
phases of taxation, we have placed our Canadian companies at a very serious disadvantage in the development of our own Canadian resources.
I may say, sir, that there have been a number of Canadian independent oil companies that have developed in recent years and have done a fairly successful job of growing. But when we examine how they have grown we find that they have grown despite Canadian tax law, not because of any assistance from it. For example, some of our independent Canadian oil companies have been able to expand because they have had men in charge of them who were smart enough to go into new areas in the west ahead of the major companies, and were able to take by reservation large blocks of land. At a subsequent date, when the area became hotter than ever, they were able to make deals with the larger American companies as a result of which these American firms spent money for the exploration of these Canadian companies' lands with a share of the profits going to the Canadian company without the Canadian company being obligated to spend large sums on exploration. That has been one road to success for some Canadian companies, and I hope that road remains open.
Another road to success for some of our Canadian oil companies has been in drilling contracting, in other words going into some of the more normal phases of business and doing work for other companies, carrying out seismograph surveys, drilling oil wells and so on, on a contract basis and earning normal profits which supplement their earning capacity very largely and make it a little easier for them to get into the main job of exploring for and developing oil resources.
Then we have another method that some Canadian companies have followed, namely by going into refining or marketing. Some Canadian companies have been quite successful in that regard despite the stiff competition existing in those fields.
The fourth method by which some Canadian companies have endeavoured to stay alive and grow has been one forced on them, one which I am confident is very detrimental to the interests of this country, namely that of doing the reverse of what the United States companies have been doing. Where American companies have been coming into Canada, we find that Canadian companies have been setting up United States subsidiaries to spend their good Canadian money exploring for and developing oil and gas in the United States in order to gain the advantage of the tax laws of that country. I may say that in recent years there has been an outflow of tens of millions of dollars of Canadian oil money into

Income Tax Act
the northern United States, Texas and Oklahoma for the development of United States oil and gas resources because the tax climate in the United States is far more favourable than it has been and still is in Canada.
I would much prefer, and I am sure these Canadian oil companies would too, to see these dollars spent here in Canada in order to give Canadians a bigger share in their own natural resources. When the government brings in its amendment to the depletion regulations I would strongly recommend that it should not simply try to impose on a firm basis the interpretation of depletion that it had been applying or attempting to apply for some years, an interpretation which the Supreme Court of Canada threw out; but that in place of that it revise its depletion regulations in order to give Canadians and Canadian companies a far better break, to encourage greater Canadian participation in the development of some of our vital Canadian resources.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I should like briefly to support the argument which has just been made by my colleague the hon. member for Calgary South. I was extremely glad that the retroactive features of this legislation-which the budget address of the Minister of Finance indicated would be imposed-have now been withdrawn. However, I think we are still in the position that the depletion provisions of our Income Tax Act which are designed to be incentive legislation, are not acting as they were intended to act. As I understand the thing, their reason for being there is in order to give incentive to people to put money into exploration for oil and gas to develop that industry.
The nub of the matter is that they are not acting in the way they were intended to act because of the way they are applied. I think the matter is summed up concisely in the brief of the Canadian Petroleum Association to the royal commission on Canada's economic future which was presented on February 17, 1956. I should just like to read a paragraph from it concerning this matter:
The Canadian Petroleum Association submits that the motive behind the present provisions of the Income Tax Act and regulations whereby the operator of an oil or gas well is allowed to deduct 331 per cent of net profits as depletion or risk allowance was to provide the needed financial stimulus to enable the operator to use receipts from production for further exploration and development and still be able to pay a return to the shareholder. However, we also submit that the purpose of the allowance is largely defeated when Canadian producers, now in competition with foreign producers, must first deduct exploration expenditures before making this calculation. Indeed you might say that under the existing regulations the prudent operator is actually discouraged from the re-risking of his profit. This allowance, if properly applied, should result in more money being put back into exploration than would be
[Mr. Nickle.l
possible without it. In this way, the efficient operator not only would have the incentive but also the necessary substantial financial boost to keep him interested in taking the risk involved in the search for oil. The chance of having a greater margin after tax would induce both investor and speculator to support our oil and gas industry. With that incentive more sums would be risked, and more lost, but the search would continue.
If we are to have this legislation for an incentive purpose, in order to encourage the search for oil, why not have it in a form which will accomplish that purpose? What is the use of having it in a form which does not accomplish what the legislation is designed to do? I would therefore also strongly urge the Minister of Finance to reconsider this matter and put this depletion allowance on a basis which will enable it to do what it was intended to do, namely encourage the search for oil and at the same time place Canadian operators in a much better position, vis-a-vis United States operators, than they are in at the present time.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman. I want to draw the attention of the parliamentary assistant again to the very unusual nature of this resolution. It really gives us nothing definite to bite on. Paragraphs 1 and 2, of course, are quite definite. We know exactly what we are talking about. We have just now heard a powerful comment on this theory of taxation. Before we pass this resolution it would seem to me that we should have a great deal more than we have now. It seems to me that we should have the government's decision as to the whole depletion policy. Surely that would not be unreasonable.
The minister has candidly told us that he is holding over the excise resolution because he has a certain conclusion still to arrive at there. I submit that this might be usefully done here. We have heard this situation reviewed by a man of admitted knowledge in the field. We have heard the statements he has made as to the disadvantages under which Canadian explorers labour. Certainly they are widely believed. The department may have an answer satisfactory to them, but there is no doubt that they are widely believed. There has been more than one submission to the Gordon commission along that line. I ran across one the other day from Husky Oil by a man called Neilson. I think he is a man of standing in the industry.
This resolution at the present time merely expresses, as I say, a pious hope that uncertainty be removed. It is desirable, of course. But what is desirable before we decide is that we know what it is we want to make

certain. We have not been able to discuss that matter today at all. All we have by way of material is the Home Oil case. Then we have had what I submit is a formidable criticism by the hon. member for Calgary South. I do not imagine it would be reasonable to ask the government to submit the matter to the banking and commerce committee, but I suggest that it might well warrant further consideration and an income tax resolution, as I said a moment or two ago, sufficiently definite so that we may have a real debate on the question.
As the matter stands now, if nothing further is given to us it seems to me that this will go back to the government without any further suggestions, without any possibility of our criticizing what the government has in mind because, so far as I am aware, we do not know what it is. I have put this suggestion to the parliamentary assistant before he replies in the hope that it may be accepted as a reasonable and practical one likely to give us the necessary material so we can discuss it at the resolution stage.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I really do not think my friend the hon. member for Greenwood has any uncertainty about the word "uncertainty" that is referred to in this resolution. In speaking to the resolution he indicated that he had fully reread the remarks of the minister in the budget speech when the minister explained the nature of the uncertainty that was to be corrected this session.
Although there are only two paragraphs, I do not think it is necessary to read what the minister had to say as reported at page 2332 of Hansard of March 20. It was clear that he was attempting to leave no legal uncertainty as to the regulations or the intent of the government with respect to depletion allowances, even though the Home Oil court case may have created some uncertainty in the minds of certain people.
As to the broader argument with respect to depletion that has been advanced by the hon. member for Calgary South, may I say that I have every respect for his broad and special knowledge of the petroleum industry. However, I think he will agree with me that the content of his speech today varies little from the speeches he has made advocating similar policies not only last year but in previous sessions.
All I can say is that last year, on June 2, the Minister of Finance explained government policy with respect to depletion for the petroleum industry. He did that in answer to similar arguments that have been made here by both the hon. member for Calgary South,
Income Tax Act
and the hon. member for Greenwood, who read editorial comment at the time from the Montreal Gazette. This comment was in support of an argument such as has been advanced again today by the hon. member for Calgary South.
Now, I think everyone who has spoken on this subject of depletion in the petroleum industry has made reference to the Gordon economic commission. Naturally those who advocate changes in the tax laws with respect to depletion allowances in the petroleum industry have quoted from associations that have come before that commission and advocated something similar to their own views. I am not particularly going to take the other side today, because the Minister of Finance outlined his views last year. He received representations along this line again this year, and came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to change the present law with respect to depletion, except to the extent he mentioned in his budget speech at page 2332 of Hansard.
In the meantime, since the last budget we have had the Gordon commission. As I have said, one of the matters about which many representations have been made to the commission is this matter of the depletion allowance in the petroleum industry. The minister came to the conclusion that this year he would not make any changes in the situation with respect to depletion pending some report that might come from this commission. Now, inasmuch as some quotations have been made from briefs presented to this commission, I think it is only fair that I might say there are two views on this subject, just as there are usually on anything else. I myself recently picked up in the press a comment on a submission that had been made by the Bailey Selburn Oil and Gas Company to the Gordon economic commission. They said:
We believe that aggressive Canadian companies are well able to hold their place and have had a fair opportunity to do so.
I also note that one of our eminent accountants, Mr. J. G. Glassco, made representations to the Gordon commission and presented another view that has not been mentioned with respect to the United States investment, and I think it had a particular bearing on the investments that have been made in the Canadian oil fields. He is reported as having said in his brief:
The great majority of the recent increase in foreign investment in Canada has come from the United States and the taxation pattern in that country, particularly since 1950, has provided strong incentives to the investment of capital in other countries.
Reenactment of the United States excess profits tax at the time of the Korean war in 1950, and in force until 1953, brought about a situation where

Income Tax Act
profits taxable at rates as high as 82 per cent could he used to blot up preliminary losses resulting from development of new business. A good deal of such money found its way into Canada, particularly in the case of the petroleum industry.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what we are arguing.


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend may present some aspects of United States tax law that may be more favourable to those engaged in the petroleum industry than might exist in Canada. On the other hand, I would point out to him that there are many features that are of advantage to corporate taxpayers in Canada who are engaged in the petroleum industry that do not apply to somebody similarly engaged in the United States. I refer to the fact that our corporate tax rate is lower than that in the United States. I refer to the fact that the dividend tax credit allowance was introduced in Canada prior to its introduction in the United States. Those are all factors that, of course, are not brought out when the argument is one-sided.
But I do assure my hon. friends that this matter of depletion was again considered this year, and for the reasons I have indicated, particularly because of the economic study, it was not thought any radical changes should be made beyond those that are contained in the budget resolution. I suggest to my hon. friend there is no uncertainty about the limitations contained in that resolution, because they are outlined in the budget speech.


Carl Olof Nickle: First of all, since the parliamentary assistant has quoted from the Bailey Selburn brief to the Gordon commission, I would say that I happen to have a copy of it here. I did mention in the course of my earlier remarks that a number of Canadian independent companies had been able to go along successfully by the use of devious routes other than the policies laid down by the tax department. Bailey Selburn is one of those which have been notably successful by the use of methods outside the tax policy which I mentioned in my remarks.
The Bailey Selburn brief to the Gordon royal commission, after pointing out that they had been able to succeed by other means than the tax policy in Canada, came out very strongly in favour of amending the Canadian tax laws. Their final submission to the Gordon commission was this:
It is our opinion that amendments should be made in taxation regulations to permit:
(a)	A fair deduction for depletion of reserves on a gross production basis;
(b)	That lease costs be allowed as write-offs;
(c)	That moneys expended in drilling and exploration be deductible items for individuals and businesses in Canada where losses occur.

In other words Bailey Selburn, the outfit you have mentioned, joined with the rest of the industry in suggesting a change in the depletion laws.
The parliamentary assistant has said that since we have the Gordon commission and the Gordon commission is receiving a great many briefs on this subject and is going to come to some conclusion in the near future, perhaps we should not bother changing our policy on depletion now. Would it not be best, sir, to drop this amendment altogether and let the depletion law of Canada be that which the Supreme Court of Canada decided in the Home Oil case was the intention of parliament back in 1949? In other words, let us have in Canada well by well depletion, as the supreme court said was the intention of parliament in that Home Oil case.


William Moore Benidickson: Would my hon. friend say that has been the law since the regulation of 1951?


Carl Olof Nickle: The parliamentary assistant refers to the amendments made in 1951, which the minister now wishes to alter in order to avoid the chance that the Supreme Court of Canada will rule the 1951 amendment has exactly the same intent as the 1949 amendment. In other words the department obviously feels the Supreme Court of Canada will rule that in the amendment of 1951 parliament intended well by well depletion, and not this present policy of the department which rules that if you are going to spend money on exploration you cannot have depletion.
I would strongly suggest, sir, that we drop the amendment altogether and leave the law as it stands until we get a recommendation from the Gordon royal commission. In his answers last June 2, the Minister of Finance stated that a change in the depletion law was not necessary because we did not have a capital gains tax in Canada which, I presume, was one of those advantages under Canadian law that did not apply under United States tax law, where a capital gains tax does exist.
Sir, would the parliamentary assistant please explain to me how the absence of a so-called capital gains tax in Canada offers any benefit to the company whose purpose is to go out to explore for, develop and produce oil and gas? Surely the parliamentary assistant is not suggesting that the Canadian oil company makes its profit out of production by spending its money for exploration, then developing production and selling it presumably to the Americans or to anyone else, in order to realize a profit on production that it cannot realize under the existing tax policy of his department.


William Moore Benidickson: As to the latter point, Mr. Chairman, the reference to capital gains, of course, is a broad reference. My hon. friend did advance the argument that Canadians were discouraged from making investments, and particularly in their resources, because of discouraging tax laws. Certainly the absence of a capital gains tax in Canada is of advantage to investors in the natural resources of the country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It may be that I emphasized too much the wording of paragraph 3, but I did think there had been certain recent events which possibly create a situation where this thing might have another look taken at it. I am not going to pursue the argument today. Indeed, my argument is that we are not in a very good position to pursue the argument today. My thought was that in view of the representations recently made to the minister, a situation might have been created where a new look could have been taken at this. Instead of having to debate merely the removal of uncertainty from 1956 on-perhaps the parliamentary assistant will explain the situation with regard to the intervening years-I had hoped that it indicated a somewhat broader approach to the question, and that we might therefore ask to have paragraph 3 held, as the excise resolutions are being held, with the hope that it might be debated on a somewhat different basis and not merely as a question of removing uncertainty.


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend knows there is no relationship so far as the statutes are concerned and the presentation to this house of the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act. This is the last paragraph of the resolution with respect to the Income Tax Act, and the two statutes are dealt with by the house quite independently.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Before the paragraph carries I cannot help but add my voice to the submission made by the hon. member for Calgary South, in connection with his last remark. Certainly the resolution indicates that it is going to remove uncertainty, but it will obviously remove it definitely to the benefit of the department and not of the taxpayer. It seems to me the least that should be allowed here would be the continuation of the rule as laid down in the Home Oil case, and the taxpayer might be able to risk the chance of an unfavourable decision in the ensuing years, or until such time as the department might make up its mind as the result of submissions to the Gordon commission. When you read about removing the uncertainty it 67509-238
Income Tax Act
sounds very much as if it is giving some benefit to the taxpayer, and I cannot see that taking place.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the resolution carry?


Carl Olof Nickle: I should like to repeat one request to the minister; I am happy to see he is back in the house. In view of the fact that the Gordon royal commission has made, among other things, an extensive study of Canadian tax policy as it applies to natural resources industries, including oil, and recognizing the fact that the Gordon commission will be bringing in its report sometime in the next few months, would he consider withdrawing his resolution calling for an amendment to the depletion regulations until after the Gordon commission recommendations are available? In other words, let the definition of depletion allowance made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Home Oil case stand rather than try now, perhaps for just a short time pending the Gordon commission report, to amend what the Supreme Court of Canada believed was the firm intention of parliament back in 1949.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Chairman, I hope my presence or my answer will not be taken in any sense as disagreeing with anything the parliamentary assistant has said. I have heard part of what he said from time to time; I am quite satisfied with it. The hon. member for Calgary South ought to bear in mind that what we are doing here is restoring what we consider is government policy. We are not going further than that. We are merely putting government taxation back to where we thought it was before the Home Oil decision was given. Therefore to that extent he ought to be content.
If the Gordon commission makes a recommendation I am sure it will receive careful consideration. In fact I will go further and repeat what I am sure the parliamentary assistant has already said. I assured the members of this business, when they saw me two weeks ago, that the whole subject which I know is under discussion at the moment, would be considered again before the next session of parliament; but it was on the assumption that' by that time the Gordon commission would have reported. If it does not, it will be given another consideration. I think my hon. friend ought to accept the situation that the government would at' this session put the law back to what it thought it was, and leave the major decision as to whether there ought to be a change for full consideration which could not be given at this time.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Chairman, I gather then the decision is going to be something like this.

Income Tax Act
With regard to depletion for the production years 1949 and 1950 we have the definition of the Supreme Court of Canada of depletion policy which will apply. For the years 1951 to 1955, inclusive, we have the definition of depletion very much in doubt, in as much as so far no assessments have been made on oil companies for those years, and therefore it has not' been possible for oil companies to appeal to the courts for a definition of depletion as applied by the tax department for those years. For 1956 we will have presumably a new clear-cut definition of government policy on depletion, but it may be that in 1957 we shall have still a fourth policy based, I hope, upon recommendations to be made by the Gordon commission. We would then have at least three different depletion policies; one certain, 1949 and 1950; one uncertain, 1951 to 1955; and 1956, certain, presumably; and after 1956, most uncertain. Would it not be best in that interim period of 1956 to leave the law as it has been defined by the supreme court and then, after getting the Gordon commission report, review the matter next year?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure if the outcome were as indicated all those gentlemen who saw me two weeks ago would be very happy, because they would feel that by 1957 they had achieved as much as possible of what they had been arguing for for some time and they would not be objecting to that as an outcome. However, I think I should say no to my hon. friend's final question. I do not think it would be well to leave it. I think we ought to go on as we have heretofore, and if the lawsuits which I anticipate yield results for the period since 1951, well and good. If they do not, then the law may perhaps be changed in the light of any decisions we may make after reading the Gordon commission report.
I know it would be the act of a lazy man to follow the advice of my hon. friend and leave things as they are, but I think it ought-


Carl Olof Nickle: Not a lazy man, a fair man.


Walter Edward Harris: That is a matter of consideration, but I think we should put it back to where it was and consider it another year.


Carl Olof Nickle: Sir, one last remark, since the minister is now back. I would like to say something by way of congratulation that I did not say earlier during his absence. I would like to express my appreciation of the minister's acceptance of the fact that the principle of retroactive legislation would be highly dangerous. I am most happy that he has acceded to the request of chambers of

commerce and other bodies not to impose the retroactive feature on this depletion allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.

Edward Turney Applewhaite: The committee will now proceed to a consideration of the customs tariff resolutions. The first deals with schedule A to the customs tariff.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As the minister stated in his speech, the changes are not too far-reaching. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant or the minister would make a few observations. There are a few changes, some of which on the face of it require some explanation. For example, I notice the second one, No. 137a, appears to involve a considerable increase and that appears unusual.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, it has
been our practice to have you call the tariff items one by one as they appear in the ways and means resolutions which were presented on budget night, March 20, and to which the hon. member for Greenwood has referred by quoting the number of one of the items up for tariff treatment change.
For the convenience of hon. members I might again briefly indicate a method that would be helpful in examining the changes that it is proposed to change legislatively in this way. Generally speaking, a change is indicated by italicized printing. Sometimes italics are not shown in the resolutions because an elimination of words may be involved, in which case that method of scrutiny would not be possible.
We also have two columns. One of which shows the proposed rates that would be effective based on these proposals, and then alongside of this column there is a column showing the rates in effect prior to the rates proposed in this budget.
I think, Mr. Chairman, you could perhaps call the items. I shall be glad to comment upon any item on which hon. members want a special comment when called upon to do so.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Subject to the approval of the committee, then, for the purpose of discussion I propose to call the marginal numbers of the items as they appear and hon. members will stop me when they reach an item which they wish to discuss. The first item we shall deal with is item No. 13a.
Item 13a agreed to.
Customs tariff-137a. Molasses powder without admixture or mixed only with any necessary anticaking agent, per one hundred pounds: British

preferential tariff, 35 cents; most favoured nation tariff, 45 cents; general tariff, 50 cents.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the parliamentary assistant make a comment on the change there?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend will recall that last year we had a very extensive tariff revision of molasses and related sugar items. It does happen that this particular item, molasses powder, was not provided for in last year's statutes. It had been a distinct item previously. The amount of imports is very inconsequential; I think imports amount to only $2,000 a year. The proposed item reestablishes the rates of duty which applied to molasses powder prior to last year, when molasses powder was not provided for as a distinct item in the molasses group.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 172 agreed to.
Customs tariff-206c. Bottles; tubes, bail bands, labels, corks, stoppers or other closures, for use with bottles, whether or not assembled into units partially filled with anticoagulating solutions or not; filters, drop counters, clamps; all of the foregoing, when imported to be used exclusively for the collection, preparation, storage, transportation or administration of human blood (whether whole or in the form of liquid or dry serum or plasma) and extenders or substitutes therefor; component materials to be used exclusively in making the foregoing articles, anti-coagulating solutions and extenders or substitutes: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why is that in at all
when there seems to be no change whatever?


William Moore Benidickson: This is a matter of punctuation. A semi-colon has been placed after the word "bottles" instead of a comma.


Mr. Nowlan:: There should be a full stop after bottles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 219d, 276g, 279, 288b, and 326e agreed to.
Customs tariff-326m. Articles of glass, not including plate or sheet or machine-made tumblers, to be cut or mounted, when imported by manufacturers of cut or mounted glassware, for use in the manufacture of such glassware in their own factories, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe:	British preferential tariff, free;
most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 32£ per cent.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: May we have a word on that?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend I think knows there was a tariff hearing with respect to certain items of glassware and which altered tariff classifications. Following that decision the previously existing rates were 67509-2381
Customs Tariff
provided by temporary items. This now proposes to make the temporary item statutory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 326n, 372 and 376a agreed to.
Customs tariff-390. Castings, of iron, malleable, in the rough as from the moulds, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 27£ per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, with
respect to tariff item 390 I am proposing an amendment to the resolution as it appears on our resolution sheet. Items 390a and 390b cover iron and steel castings. In the budget resolutions the words, "in the rough as from the moulds" were added to these items. This change was made for clarification purposes only; no change in duties was intended.
Since the budget it has been brought to our attention that, because of the words "as from the moulds", castings from which excess metal has been removed or which have been heat-treated or repair-welded will no longer qualify for entry under these items. It is therefore proposed that the words "as from the moulds" be dropped.
In the interest of simplification, the three items are being amalgamated under one number by virtue of this amendment. I wonder if the Minister of National Revenue would move that amendment.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Mr. McCann moves:
That resolution No. 1 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended by deleting therefrom items 390 , 390a and 390b and by substituting therefor the following;
Customs tariff-390. Castings, of iron or steel, in the rough, n.o.p.; British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 27J per cent.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Item as amended agreed to.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: We proceed to item 402g.


William Moore Benidickson: I wish to say a word
concerning item 390a.
Customs tariff-390a. Castings, of iron, nonmalleable, in the rough as from the moulds, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 27J per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, on new item number 390a the only change is the deletion of the words, "as from the moulds".
374G

Customs Tariff
The object is to bring the wording of this item into line with the wording of tariff item 390.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am of the opinion that the committee just adopted an amendment affecting items 390, 390a, and 390b.


William Moore Benidickson: When an item number is eliminated, Mr. Chairman, there is an opening in the tariff schedule for a new item of the same nomenclature and this would be a new item 390a. We are utilizing the (a) category under 390 afresh.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Mr. McCann moves:
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 390c, the enumeration of goods and the rates of duties of customs set opposite the said item and by inserting the following item, enumeration and rates of duty in schedule A:
Customs tariff-390a. Piston ring castings of iron or steel in the rough: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 27J per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 390b agreed to.
Customs tariff-402g. Welded netting, of iron or steel, coated or not, made from wire of seventeen gauge or heavier, with meshes not smaller than one-half inch by one-half inch and not larger than two inches by two inches, when for use exclusively on fur farms, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe: British preferential tariff, 121 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice the British preference there is reduced from 17 J per cent to 12J per cent. Are we perfectly free with regard to that now? Is there any question raised as to our right to increase the British preference?


William Moore Benidickson: We are free with respect to this item.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if the answer could be given in somewhat broader terms?


William Moore Benidickson: Well, Mr. Chairman, there has been an item in the tariff specially for woven netting at 20 per cent most favoured nation. Representations have been made by fur farmers that they are now using welded netting and that it should be treated in the same manner as the woven netting for use by fur farmers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-409f. Automatic stock watering devices; barn hay forks, carriage, pulleys and track; barn litter carriers and track; grain crushers; grain or hay dryers; grain or hay grinders; grain loaders; elevators (other than storage elevators); hitches and couplings; hydraulic hoists for unloading vehicles; land levellers; machines and tools for use on tractors, including blades, loaders, rippers,

rakes, and related operating and controlling gear; milk coolers; 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; 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.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I may not be correct in rising at this point and the parliamentary assistant may have referred already to the matter on which I want some information. Item 409f contains a long list of farm equipment to be admitted duty free. At the end of the item it is stated:
All other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery, n.o.p.; parts of all the foregoing.
I intended to rise on this item to refer to the position in which the chinchilla breeders of British Columbia find themselves. I have a letter from the Vancouver island branch of the chinchilla breeders in which they ask for the removal of the 25 per cent duty and the 10 per cent sales tax on wire imported for use in chinchilla cage construction. I presume from that letter that for some reason or other the chinchilla breeders are not being classed as farmers in connection with the supplies they import.


William Moore Benidickson: I believe my hon. friend is dealing with item 402g. Again what has been done is simply to put welded and woven netting on the same basis when used in connection with fur farming.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That will meet the request made by the chinchilla breeders, will it?


William Moore Benidickson: No, not if the request was for the complete elimination of the duty. If the rate was 25 per cent it referred to welded netting. The duty has been lowered on welded netting to 20 per cent so both welded and woven netting will be treated equally. There is a reduction on the welded item from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. Both types of netting will have the same tariff rate now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 409t and 409u agreed to.
Customs tariff-409v. Steel wall sections, with or without doors incorporated therein, for the construction of steel silos for storing ensilage: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: There is an amendment to the budget resolution as proposed, and I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to move this amendment.


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That resolution No. 1 of the budget resolution relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting therefrom item 409v and by substituting therefor the following:
"409v-Roofs, chutes, ladders, wall sections with or without doors incorporated therein, materials and parts; all of the foregoing, of metal, for the construction or repair of silos for storing ensilage: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 171 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Items 410t and 410w agreed to.
Customs tariff-425a. Power lawn mowers, whether or not containing the power unit: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 321 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: There is an amendment here. In the budget resolutions it was proposed that the wording of the existing item be amended to read "power lawn mowers" which is the same wording used in tariff item 425b. It was not intended that there should be any change in the rates of duty. Since the budget it has been drawn to our attention that lawn mowers designed to be drawn or pushed by tractors which were eligible for entry under the former wording of the item "lawn mowers designed for use with motive power" will not be eligible for entry under the proposed wording "power lawn mowers". The proposal now is to delete this item.


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That resolution No. 1 of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting therefrom tariff item 425a.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Customs tariff-425b. Air-cooled internal combustion engines of greater than one and one-half horse power rating, and parts thereof; parts of power lawn mowers; all the foregoing for use in the manufacture or repair of power lawn mowers: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 321 per cent.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice there is an increase in the case of the general tariff; could that be explained?


William Moore Benidickson: This proposed tariff item would incorporate two temporary tariff items covering engines and parts of power lawn mowers. It is a tidying-up operation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What interests me is that whereas most of the items show the same rates or a downward revision, apparently this one is upward from 30 per cent to 32J per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: You refer to rates under the general tariff only. The explanation is that we are providing the same rates for
Customs Tariff
the two amalgamated items. There are no imports in fact, though, under the little utilized general tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 428g, 437b, 442, 443, 445m and 446j agreed to.
William Moore Benidickson: As the result of a tariff board declaration dated since budget night, namely April 6 this year, tools which have been made to fit specific machines or specific attachments will no longer be classified under the item covering tools, but instead they will be classified as "parts" of such machines or attachments. This will have the effect of reducing the duty on many of these tools which are of a class made in Canada from 22J per cent to 7J per cent.
The wording of the new item makes it clear that these tools, even though they may be made for use in particular machines or particular attachments, will be dutiable at 22J per cent under the most favoured nation tariff if they are of a class made in Canada. Only with respect to such tools of a class not made in Canada will the duty be 7J per cent.


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 rates of duties of customs set opposite the said item and by inserting the following item, enumeration and rates of duty in Schedule A.
"446k-Tools, wholly or in part of iron or steel, for use in machines or in attachments or accessories therefor, including those made for use in a particular machine or in a particular attachment or accessory therefor:
(1)	Of a class or kind made in Canada: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 221 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, 71 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Items 462c, 462d, 476b, 476c and 478 agreed to.
Customs tariff-549a. Wool, not further prepared than scoured:	British preferential tariff, free;,
most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it that this covers the importation of wool in the raw. Would that be for use in manufacturing and will it be of assistance to the textile industry? Also, does it come in in any bulk?


William Moore Benidickson: Since 1950 the duty on wool in this item has been free under a temporary item and it is now proposed to make the item statutory.

Customs Tariff


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Since when has it been duty free? According to this it has been 25 per cent under the general tariff.


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend must look at the most favoured nation tariff, which is really the operating item, and he will see that it was free in the right-hand column.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am still a little puzzled. As I look straight across I find the items are free, free, free, and then 15 per cent under the British preferential, and then below it is free, free and free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-597d. Harpsichords: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 71 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Mr. Herridge:: What is the reason for the drop in this rather intriguing item? Are harpsichords imported in large numbers?


William Moore Benidickson: I understand that it is coming into use as a musical instrument to a greater degree. It is not manufactured in Canada, and it was felt that the duty should be lowered.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just as a matter of curiosity, where do they come from?


William Moore Benidickson: I understand from European countries such as France and Germany, and to some extent from England.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Were representations made for a reduction?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, that is the usual precedent to an action of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Moore Benidickson: I have two amending motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


William Moore Benidickson: We are just about finished. Item 618b introduces a new item not referred to in the printed resolutions. Because of a change in the administrative practices of the customs department which took place early this year, certain tires and tubes previously dutiable at 22J per cent under the most favoured nation tariff are now classified as parts under end use tariff items which carry rates of duty as low as 7J per cent.


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 618b, the enumeration of goods and the 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:
[Mr. Benidickson.!
618b-(1) Tires and tubes, wholly or in part of rubber, for equipment of the agricultural implements and agricultural machinery specified in tariff items 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e, 409f, 409h, 409j, 4091, and the tractors provided for in tariff item 409m .	.	. British preferential tariff, free; most
favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(2) Tires and tubes, wholly or in part of rubber . . . British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, is there an understanding that we are going to go overtime tonight? We want to be in on it if there is. It is now four minutes after six.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I think we only have two or perhaps three items left and, unless there is going to be a debate on them, I would appreciate it if we could deal with them tonight.
Item 696f agreed to.


William Moore Benidickson: There is another addition to be made here and it will be numbered item 695c. The Minister of Finance has received some representations that we should facilitate the opportunity to import sculptures of importance and value in a somewhat similar way that we have enabled paintings to be brought into the country. Individual items must first of all receive endorsation as to their quality and desirability from the director of the national gallery.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 695c?


William Moore Benidickson: This provides a new item. It is also an additional item to those printed in the resolution.


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That resolution No. 1 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended by inserting therein the following item, enumeration of goods and rates of duty:
695c-Original sculptures, or replicas made therefrom, when certified by the director of the national gallery of Canada as being of a cultural character: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item 700 agreed to.
Resolution No. 1 as amended agreed to.
William Moore Benidickson: With respect to resolution No. 2, I think I can satisfy the house very quickly that this requires simple amendments of the French text. The first item is tariff item 328a. This merely rearranges the French words to read in the same sequence as in English. The English text is "parts, unfinished, for the manufacture of spectacles and eyeglass frames". The words were not put in that

sense and order in the French text and it is proposed to make the French text identical with the English in the arrangement of the words.
With respect to items 386h and 389d it is an obvious matter of a misprint, and I will give examples. For instance, the French spell-ling of one word is wrong in item 386h and in item 389 the figure should be -4 instead of -04. With respect to resolution No. 3, in the French version it now reads "or" and it should read "and" as in the English version.
Resolutions Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Resolution No. 3 amends schedule C to the French version by striking out item 1215 and by inserting something else. That has not been explained.


William Moore Benidickson: I have provided the explanation.
Business of the House


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was one step behind you.
Resolutions Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the branch line C.N.R. bill first and then the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. Green:: Can the minister tell the house what the business will be on Friday?


Walter Edward Harris: We will have estimates. We will continue with agriculture if the items are not all carried tomorrow, and after that we will probably take transport. However, I will inform my hon. friends about that.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Brown (Brantford): At the recent meeting of the dominion council of health, did the Minister of National Health and Welfare discuss with the provincial representatives present the federal proposal on hospital insurance?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
As the dominion council of health is largely made up of technical officers of the federal and provincial health departments it is not in a position to deal with matters of policy that are under study by the governments concerned. However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare did take advantage of the opportunity presented by the recent meeting of the dominion council of health to indicate to the provincial representatives present the importance which the government attached to the recent federal proposal respecting hospital insurance and laboratory and radiological diagnostic services.

Thursday, May 10, 1956