1958-07-22

RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a further statement with respect to the Middle East situation, particularly in connection with the United Nations security council and the discussions which are taking place there at this time.
Yesterday I was not in a position to reveal to the house the manner in which it was proposed to arrange a meeting at the heads of government level while preserving the primary responsibility of the United Nations security council. Everything that has been done in the last two or three days-and I am not restricting my remarks to that period-[DOT] has been designed to ensure that this matter shall be considered by the United Nations and that action outside of the United Nations shall not be taken.
Hon. members will have learned that Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, United Kingdom foreign secretary, announced in the House of Commons at Westminster this morning that if an extraordinary special session of the security council were convened in order to discuss Middle East questions, Prime Minister Macmillan would be willing to attend if other heads of government concerned were prepared to do likewise. As Mr. Lloyd pointed out, certain questions concerning the Middle East are already under consideration in the security council and it is only appropriate that the higher level talks now envisaged should take place in the same forum to provide for continuity.
The basis for such a meeting would, however, differ from the normal proceedings in the security council in that it would proceed by consultation rather than by resolution and would attempt to formulate binding conclusions only on the basis of mutual agreement. This would provide a flexible procedure which
would permit the consultation at heads of government level to be a continuous process in which countries not members of the security council could be invited to participate as might be appropriate. Such a special meeting could meet publicly or in restricted session. It could make its own arrangements for future meetings and would adhere to no fixed timetable or agenda.
The initiative that has been taken is, I think, the kind of novel and I trust effective proposal which the present grave situation requires, and I hope it will receive the immediate support of all the states directly concerned with the pressing problem of the Middle East.
I am gratified to note that a statement has been released by the White House agreeing that a United Nations security council meeting of the character referred to by foreign minister Lloyd is clearly within the contemplation of the United Nations charter, and that if such a meeting were generally desired the United States would join in following this orderly procedure.
Yesterday I was able to say only that I was in personal and continuous consultation with Prime Minister Macmillan and President Eisenhower concerning this matter. The house will understand, too, that my guarded reference yesterday to the fact that the United Nations security council in session seemed to offer possibilities indicated at the same time that I was in full accord with both the purpose and the manner in which this initiative was being developed by the heads of government concerned. If we display that realism which is so necessary at this time I am confident that the way will be opened to these high level talks which the urgency of the matter demands.
While these negotiations leading to high level discussions have been going on, the security council's deliberations on Lebanon and Jordan have continued. At the meeting this morning the Soviet delegate proposed amendments to the Japanese draft resolution. I placed the terms of that resolution before the house yesterday, and I will not give any portion of it on this occasion. The amendments moved by the U.S.S.R. clearly changed the character of that resolution by calling for the condemnation of the United States action in regard to Lebanon and demanding an immediate withdrawal of United States forces.

External Affairs-Middle East
In view of the stand taken this morning by the Soviet representative I am led to believe- and I hope that my prophecy in this regard is not borne out by events-that the security council's efforts to bring about a solution to the immediate problem in Lebanon and Jordan will fail.
It is unfortunate that the position taken' by the Soviet union, if it is to be expected that the attitude of the U.S.S.R. will follow the speech made by its representative, will have the result of frustrating the efforts of the security council to take additional effective action in Lebanon.
However, under the terms of the existing security council resolution of June 11 there is some hope of action which can be taken immediately regardless of the outcome today of the deliberations of the security council on the Japanese resolution. On June 11, as hon. members know, a United Nations body- UNOGIL-was provided for and is still functioning in Lebanon. The latest reports from UNOGIL make it clear that the group is now able to expand its activities as the result of increasing access to the border areas.
I think this house realizes that this government has been co-operating actively in the development of UNOGIL, and has also given its firm support to the proposal to expand the activities of UNOGIL as contemplated under the terms of the Japanese resolution.
The secretary general informed the security council last week that 65 additional observers are required for the implementation of the existing resolution. I wish now to inform the house that, as requested by the secretary general, Canada will supply immediately three of the additional observers, of course giving every attention to any further requirement of UNOGIL as events transpire. If additional action in this regard is requested, not unfavourable consideration will be given to such requests.
As I see the situation at the moment, in view of the stand now taken by the United Kingdom and the United States of America on this matter, supported by Canada, the necessity of determining what further course will be taken now rests firmly with Mr. Khrushchev. Every opportunity has been provided to discuss immediately-providing the other nations agree-in the security council and within the ambit of the United Nations and under its auspices every problem connected with the Middle East, to the end that if there is agreement a solution can be found. I think the people of Canada as a whole will wholeheartedly support the stand this government is taking in this connection, which I believe carries with it the


support of the members of the opposition in this house as well as the country as a whole.
One can but express the hope that at this time Mr. Khrushchev, if sincere in his suggestions and the ideas he advanced in his several letters, will join with the nations of the free world in that institution to which he has given his support in those letters, in which letters he has warned mankind that there must be nothing done outside of the United Nations. He now definitely has the opportunity, providing that he is sincerely desirous to act, to react favourably to the initiative of the United Kingdom and the United States to bring about discussions which everyone hopes will lead to a solution.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house do indeed support the steps that have been taken and the progress that has been made as indicated by the Prime Minister to ensure-and it is important that it should be ensured-that there will not be a wholly negative reply given to the invitation of the head of the Soviet union government addressed to the four governments and the Secretary General of the United Nations to discuss the crisis in the Middle East.
If that can be done as has been suggested, by a special meeting of the security council attended by the heads of government, that I should think would be a satisfactory and welcome development. The charter of the United Nations does make provision for that kind of meeting, and in the past the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Trygve Lie, worked quite hard to bring about a procedure by which foreign ministers and heads of government would attend security council meetings on important occasions. So this would be a fortunate development to meet a critical situation.
But, Mr. Speaker, if that particular form, a full council, were not considered to be satisfactory-and there are possible difficulties in regard to representation at the larger meeting, difficulties which I am sure occur to us at once-and if those difficulties were such that a meeting in the full council of the heads of government could not be arranged, I would certainly hope that this particular difficulty of representation would not be permitted to prevent a meeting of a somewhat different kind. Perhaps another way of doing it would be by a committee of the security council along the lines which I ventured to mention yesterday and which would certainly avoid that particular difficulty. It would retain the kind of representation which was advocated in the first proposal of the head of the Soviet government, and for that purpose would include India.

The important thing, Mr. Speaker, is not the mechanism; the important thing is to get the heads of the governments most concerned together to talk over the situation in the hope that by such discussion they might do something constructive to remove the cloud which hangs over international relations at the present time.
1 speak for our party when I tell the Prime Minister that we welcome the support the government has given to this move. We shall also support them in any move they make which will strengthen the position of the United Nations in Lebanon at the present time through strengthening the observer group there.
I was a little discouraged to read in the press this morning that the foreign minister of Lebanon had said that notwithstanding the presence of the United Nations observer group there and notwithstanding the intervention of the United States forces, intervention was still continuing undiminished across the border in the form of assistance to the rebels of that country. All this merely underlines that the sooner the powers most concerned can get together and do something to restore the political situation there the better it will be for peace not only in that area but in the whole world.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, members of this group are always very interested in reports the Prime Minister gives to the house with respect to this serious Middle East situation, and hope that his efforts to bring about a discussion will meet with the success for which we all wish.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has anything to report on the strike of the Black Ball ferry line between Vancouver island and the mainland of British Columbia?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to advise the house that I have no statement to make at this time, nor am I in a position to make a further report on the situation on the west coast except to say that the government still has this matter under very serious consideration.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the lack of shipping facilities
57071-3-159
Inquiries Of the Ministry between the mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver island is perpetrating a hardship on a substantial portion of the population of the province of British Columbia as well as its economy, will the Minister of Labour undertake to recommend to his colleagues in the cabinet that they consider the possibility of bringing such shipping facilities under the operation of a crown corporation in order that such corporation may operate the shipping facilities as a public service and may enter into negotiations with the appropriate representative organizations of the employees affected in a true spirit of collective bargaining?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the government is keeping a very close watch upon the situation at the moment, and every possible method is being considered at this time.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I revert to another strike which I am sure is receiving the attention of the minister and to which the Montreal Gazette refers this morning as being considered actively by the government by way of several alternatives. I refer to the strike on the west coast against the Canadian Pacific steamship facilities. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to make a statement with respect to that dispute.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were directed to the Canadian Pacific Steamships dispute. The Black Ball ferries dispute is being considered by the provincial government.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON REVISION OF TERMS OF UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister how soon he expects to be in a position to table the report of the royal commission on the revision of the terms of union with Newfoundland.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend last mentioned this matter I said that I hoped to be in a position to give an answer in about 10 days. That period has lapsed now. I shall make the necessary inquiries and if

Inquiries of the Ministry there is going to be unnecessary delay I shall table the report in English and table the report in French when translation and publication have taken place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the Prime Minister very much for that course, which he will recall I suggested on Friday last. I suppose the Prime Minister is aware that already this session over 50 documents have been tabled by the government in English only.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. In the light of the sudden turn in world affairs, has the department any further plans for stepping up civil defence?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As the hon. member is aware, Lieutenant General Graham has been appointed to make a complete study of the civil defence organization in Canada. Otherwise civil defence is carrying on in the usual manner.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Is the general and former chief of staff not expected to make a report that will not be completed before the end of September?


Jay Waldo Monteith: His report will be completed as soon as possible following his appointment.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on July 15 the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi asked me whether or not the royal commission on Canada's energy resources plans to hold public meetings in the Atlantic provinces and, if so, whether dates and places have been selected. As to the latter part of the question, the answer is no. With respect to whether or not meetings are to be held, the answer is that meetings will be held there later by the commission.



REQUEST FOR LARGER SHARE OF BRITISH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of reports that Britain has established a northern hemisphere quota of about four million bushels of apples, and in view of the fact that Canadian apple growers may now sell more fresh apples to Britain, will the minister inform the house what steps his department is taking to secure as large a portion as possible of this quota for Canadian apple producers?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Department of Trade and Commerce will take all appropriate steps necessary to ensure that we get the larger quota that he has mentioned.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Did the minister receive a telegram from the town council of Val d'Or protesting against the removal of the Canadian National Railways passenger trains No. 34 and No. 21 from Montreal and Quebec to northwestern Quebec to take effect August 10 next? If so, will the minister tell the house whether his department will do something to satisfy the request of the council of the town of Val d'Or?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received the telegram but I will make inquiries. If it should arrive at the department or if I see it I will refer it to the board of transport commissioners.


Armand Dumas: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether the board of transport commissioners could be authorized to hold a hearing in northwestern Quebec in respect of this extremely important matter?


George Harris Hees: I do not know how the matter stands with regard to an application before the board of transport commissioners, but I will discuss the matter with them and I feel sure they will follow the proper course.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I have sent a copy of the question ahead. Would the Minister of Public Works tell the house why surety bonds, contractor bonds or performance bonds are not accepted in lieu of accepted cheques to cover tender requirements?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this has been the practice of the department for some time, and it is considered to be a better way to carry on the business of the department. One reason we do this is that the Canadian Construction Association prefers this method to the one suggested by the hon. member.



VANCOUVER-ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADDITIONAL ELEVATOR FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Payne (Coast-Capilano):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister available any information with regard to the construction of additional elevator storage facilities to be undertaken in the near future in the area of the port of Vancouver?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question.
To meet the need for additional grain storage facilities at Vancouver harbour it has been decided to construct an addition to elevator No. 3. The addition will add 1 million bushels to the elevator's storage capacity, and the estimated cost is $900,000, of which it is estimated $200,000 will be expended in 1958. The work is scheduled for completion in 1959.
Elevator No. 3 is under lease from the national harbours board to United Grain Growers Limited, who have been tenants of this elevator since 1927. It is expected that the main contract will be let as soon as plans and specifications are completed, which it is estimated will be within three months' time, and that this addition to elevator No. 3 will be completed in about a year from now.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question arising out of the answer given by the Minister of Transport with regard to grain facilities at Vancouver.
57071-3-159J
Inquiries of the Ministry I wonder whether the minister has some similar information with respect to the same facilities at Prince Rupert?


George Harris Hees: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. Webster (St. Antoine-Wesimounl):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the publication Federal Tax News Review any connection with his department?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I am glad the hon. gentleman asked that question at this time. The magazine in question has no connection with the Department of National Revenue, with any of the employees of the department, or with any association of employees of the department. I understand that subscriptions for advertising are being solicited in the city of Montreal on the verbal statement-it is never put in writing-that this paper is somehow or another connected with the department or approved by officials of the department. I want to make it abundantly clear that this is not the case. If any such representations are made I should like to have them brought to the attention of the department or of the R.C.M.P.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question based on the discrepancy between the figures for registrations at national employment service offices, which were over 526,000 on June 19, and the dominion bureau of statistics figure of persons without jobs and seeking work, which was 320,000 on June 21. I wonder whether the minister has any way of explaining this discrepancy of over 200,000, which is more than twice as great as it was a year ago and which one would have thought would have been in the other direction.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have explained the situation to the best of my ability on a number of occasions in answer to questions that have been asked of me. However, I can say this: This is the method being followed by our national employment service offices in registering people amongst whom are those

Inquiries of the Ministry presently employed but who are seeking other employment. People who are retired are registered also, and many other categories are included in the N.E.S. figures that cannot be considered as actually out of work and seeking jobs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question. I do not think I made my point quite clear. It was the gap between the figures. A year ago the gap between those two figures was only 100,000. Now it is 200,000. It is hard to believe that this figure of 200,000 could represent persons having jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is why I wondered whether the minister had any explanation.


Michael Starr: In answer to that question I would say this, and it will probably explain the situation to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. The July 10 figure, and I think that is the one he mentioned-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the June 19 figures; the most recently published figures.


Michael Starr: I will look into the situation and see whether I can give the hon. member an explanation for that discrepancy.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister or his department received any representations from the employees' union or the Saskatchewan government seeking assistance in bringing to a speedy end the strike of employees of the Saskatchewan government transportation company, which is working a hardship on many people in Saskatchewan?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part of the question is that in my opinion this matter would come under the jurisdiction of the province, and is the responsibility of the government of that province.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I would
like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to answer a question I asked him some days ago as to whether or not it would be possible, after consultation with his colleagues, to make available to

the members of this house the important discussions which took place between the 10 provincial governments, the representatives of management and labour and the hon. gentleman on the matter of unemployment, particularly winter unemployment. In view of the fact that we will soon be discussing the minister's estimates, can he say whether or not he will make available to us the kind of background information which would make his estimates even more interesting than they are normally?


Michael Starr: The matter, Mr. Speaker, is still under active consideration.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to
direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the interest which has been shown across Canada in the subject of obscene literature, and perhaps in a particular way in the province of Quebec, and in view also of the statements-very excellent ones-which the minister has made with respect to that subject as well as the statements in the house, may I ask the minister if he intends to bring down legislation on the subject by way of amendment of the Criminal Code at this session?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having indicated to me that he wanted to raise this question. In reply I can advise him that we are studying the matter at the present time in the department, but as I have said previously here and elsewhere we do not consider that it will be possible to bring down legislation before the next session of parliament.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Hull was good enough to praise my department for the very fine publication called "This is the Arctic". I want to say that I am very grateful for this comment and for the enthusiastic reception that has been given to the document by the house. However, he quoted part of the letter I wrote him and indicated that he was translating it into English and that the translation was his own.

I have been looking at this translation and at my original letter. In view of this study I think it would be better to put some of the letter into the record as originally dictated in English. I quote:
I am sorry to say that there is no French edition of this booklet. It was originally prepared as a very modest publication for limited distribution to persons whose work took them into the Canadian far north. At that time we did not anticipate the more widespread interest in its contents which has since developed.
I think you will agree that the style of the pamphlet-full of puns-is such that it would be difficult to preserve its quality in an ordinary translation. It would really need to be rewritten in the French language from start to finish. I would be opposed to the publication of a French edition that was in any way inferior to the English version. For this reason if there were sufficient demand for the publication of the booklet in the French language, I would want to give the most careful thought to the selection of the person entrusted with its preparation.
I think, Mr. Speaker, this fuller extract from my letter will clearly indicate why the booklet in question is not presently available in the French language. It will also indicate my interest in ensuring that if and when the booklet does appear in French, it will be of the highest possible quality. It also answers the hon. member's question about the difficulty of "asking for something which is nonexistent".
I might say this is not the first time the department has published material in one language only. Since I have come into the department there have been several publications in French only, and I have brought a few with me for the hon. member to examine if he wishes to do so. I asked the department about this matter, and it was indicated to me that in about the last year we have issued some 35 publications of various kinds in the French language, and that at the present time there are 27 publications in various stages of production also in French.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. I think his translation is much better than mine, but the facts remain the same. It was done without the intention-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will come to my question. Does the minister think the French-Canadian people are not interested in going north?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the answer is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker; that at the time of publication of the booklet we were not expecting such a widespread demand for it. If the demand for the pamphlet, which incidentally costs 25 cents, is widespread then I think we will certainly make
22, 1958	2525
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act the effort to have it rewritten in the French language in order to maintain its quality.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if this is the publication which pays such glowing tribute to the work of development in the north under the previous administration?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I sent a copy of this delightful little booklet to my hon. friend, and if he had read it he would know that it makes clear to the people of Canada who intend to go to the far north that it is very pleasant up there, and that the climate is not too different from the other seven-eighths of Canada.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The answer to the question is yes.



PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Churchill for the second reading of Bill No. C-31, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
Gordon Minto Churchill: On July 16 I introduced this bill rather briefly, because it was then four minutes to six o'clock and I did not have the time to make the full explanation desirable. On page 2311 of Hansard for that date hon. members will find my introduction, which I will not repeat on this occasion, but I will bring up to date the figures relating to cash advances and the figures relating to quota deliveries.
With regard to cash advances my latest report is dated July 18, according to which the percentage refunded has reached 92.9 per cent, an indication that in the remaining days of July it is more than likely that the cash advances will be practically all repaid. Second, with regard to quota deliveries I stated on July 16 last that within a few days right across the prairies all the stations would be on 6- or 7-bushel delivery quota. Hansard has the word "years" where I used the word "days", which I corrected the following day. My prediction was correct; the wheat board now reports that of the 2,071 delivery points in the western provinces, 1,016 are on a 6-bushel quota, 1,023 are on a 7-bushel quota and there are 32 closed stations, indicating that the marketing of grain out west has gone ahead very well.
To proceed with my introduction to the amendments to this act, I have the following statement to make, and again this will be
2526	HOUSE OF
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act very brief. When the act was drafted last fall there were two or three omissions from the legislation which the proposed amendments are designed to correct. As the act now stands, a farmer who delivers malting barley is precluded from drawing an advance on his farm-stored wheat; similarly, deliveries of grain to be used for seeding purposes count against an advance. In the amendment we propose exempting deliveries of malting barley and of seed grain.
The third major amendment provides for the consolidation of cash advances from one crop year to the other. This will make it possible for a producer who has not fully repaid his cash advance through no fault of his own, which means because his quota has not been large enough to permit him to deliver or because there has been some difficulty for which he is not responsible, to obtain a further cash advance on his new crop year if desired. The two advances would then be consolidated and recorded in the permit book, and as quotas were raised the producer would repay both advances.
We do not anticipate that many producers will be affected by this provision, but we wish to guard any inconvenience to a producer who has grain to deliver and whose quota may be low. I have just pointed out that this is unlikely to affect very many people because, with two weeks to go for deliveries, cash advances have been repaid up to 92.9 per cent. Nevertheless we are introducing this amendment just to assist anyone who, through no fault of his own, might be subject to some inconvenience.
These are the main features of the bill. The cash advance system will receive a further trial during the next 12 months, and if further changes are considered necessary as a result of experience we are quite prepared to consider amendments. To date the system is working well. Elevator agents have been fully co-operative, and the wheat board has experienced no inconvenience in providing additional payments to producers.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, on reading this bill, I noticed at once that the proposed amendments are only minor ones, because it was only after certain difficulties had been experienced in applying the act that such changes were considered necessary.
Moreover, the minister has just stated that, if the changes submitted today are found inadequate, other amendments will be introduced next year.
I find it rather strange that there should be uncertainty about this bill; the government


seems to be groping somewhat, because we cannot anticipate one or two years in advance what will come out of the act.
I wonder if it might not be better to go back to the act which the Liberals had introduced in 1956, under which farmers could get advance payments on their grain through the banks.
If we consider to what extent farmers benefited from the act in recent years, i.e. in 1955-56 and 1956-57, we find that the government has spent an amount of $28 million in payments for stored grain.
I therefore suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) to consider this legislation very carefully, so that if he finds it necessary to amend it next year, he might then be in a position to suggest amendments of a permanent nature, and not cause unnecessary trouble to western farmers, who, because of frequent changes, do not know from year to year where they stand in this matter.
(Text):


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this group welcome the amendments which have been proposed. It is of interest to note that during the past year advance payments under the act have been made to 50,317 farmers in the prairie provinces amounting, in Manitoba, to an average of $607, in Saskatchewan to $759 and in Alberta to $634. While these are not great sums of money they have been appreciated, according to reports I have heard, and in addition the farmers appreciate some of the changes that are now being suggested.
We are very pleased to note that the cash advances have already been repaid to the tune of 92 per cent. The consolidation of two years cash advances was recommended a year ago, but at that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested that the house should wait and see how this developed. We are very happy that he should now see fit to include this amendment.
There is one problem I think I should mention, and that is the case of farmers who are renting land from non-resident owners. In this situation, as I understand it, there is a great deal of difficulty in getting cash advances. Should the owner of land, the absentee landlord, live, for instance, in England, the tenant would have to write to him and get his permission before he could secure a cash advance on the grain he produces on that land. In many cases farmers are finding it difficult to get such permission because the people to whom they write are not familiar with Canadian statutes and may not realize why this action

is necessary. I should like to suggest to the minister that possibly something could be done to help these farmers who are renting land so as to facilitate their obtaining cash advances in these circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Grain delivered in exchange for seed.
Mr. Hanbidge:: Before this clause is carried, may I mention that there was one matter raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming that I should like to see incorporated in the act, and that is giving the tenant the privilege of securing a cash advance on his grain without requiring him to secure the consent of his landlord. I believe that at the present time it is necessary to have forms completed by the landlord. I wonder if the bill could be left in committee until this has been checked? I should like to have this checked over before the bill is finally passed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is some urgency
about passing this bill now in order that the necessary forms may be printed and sent to the elevator agents to reach their hands before the beginning of the new crop year, which is August 1. Any further delay would be to the disadvantage of the farmers. The point which has been raised by two hon. members is not properly under discussion under this section, but if the chairman would so permit that might be considered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the observations made by the hon. member who preceded the minister will, I am sure, have to be weighed in the light of the fact that he represents a constituency which is faced with this problem, and with his legal qualifications, he has, no doubt, more than usually good reasons for pursuing this matter of the position of the tenant as opposed to the position of the landlord. Understandably the minister says it would be difficult to postpone a bill of this sort when the proposed benefits are urgently needed at the moment. I can fully appreciate the minister's attitude, but surely the point is not so much what the mechanics should be to give effect to this but whether or not the government subscribes to the desirability of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kindersley. Does the government accept in principle that proposal? If the government does, then there should be no difficulty in providing an amendment at once, because it would not cause any delay.
22, 1958	2527
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 6 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman. You have not been listening to me or you would not ask whether clause 6 will carry.


Mr. Harkness:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not blame him for not listening.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 6 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have asked the minister a question. I wonder if he is in a position to give an answer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am in a position to give an answer, Mr. Chairman, but I submit that this question should have been raised at the appropriate place. If we are going to have a general discussion on this particular problem, is it to take place on clause 6? My hon. friend is a lawyer of repute. He appreciates some of the difficulties involved in this matter. He is also a skilled parliamentarian. I suggest that clause 6 is scarcely the point at which to discuss this particular matter.	*


Robert Leith Hanbidge: What clause is the appropriate clause?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 1.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: I was always under the impression that when a bill was brought in to amend a statute or act, the whole act was open for discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is most unusual. He suggests that this is not the place to amend the act. I do not know of any more appropriate place and opportunity in the discussion than at this very stage. The hon. member for Kindersley has said he regards the suggestion made by another hon. member in this particular as important. If the minister takes the position that there is no merit in the suggestion, then he will be expressing the government's policy; but if there is merit in the suggestion surely no amount of inconvenience can stand in the way of providing the necessary kind of amendment.
That is the question that is before the committee; is this a desirable proposal in itself? If it is-and the proposal is not put forward by any hon. member of this party but by a member of the party of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a distinguished member-he can tell the committee whether or not it is possible for him to accept that amendment.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, it might be well for this committee to take a few moments to place this discussion in its proper perspective. Not all farmers are going to use this
2528	HOUSE OF
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act legislation. Certainly the percentage of farmers who are likely to fall into the category under discussion is extremely small. There is nothing to indicate what that percentage is, but offhand one might say that the total percentage of users of the legislation who are tenant farmers and who may require the facilities of this measure would be something less than 5 per cent. Certainly that applies with respect to the area I have the honour to represent.
It is worth pointing out, too, that a tenant farmer is usually one who owns land in his own right and rents additional land for the purpose of fully utilizing his equipment and adding to his gross income. This entire question of the revision of farm legislation is going to be a long term process. This provision will not be perfect when this session closes. The amendments forthcoming to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act will probably not fully meet the needs of western farmers, but-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must Remind the hon. member that we are on clause 6 of this bill, and I wish he would bring his remarks a little closer to the clause under discussion. This is not a general discussion of the farm situation.


Edwin William Brunsden: My apologies, sir. I was merely following the pattern laid by the earlier speakers with respect to this legislation. To return to the question under discussion, I would say it would be a tragedy in so far as western Canada is concerned if there was a delay of a week or two or more in order to deal with a point by way of amendment that is, after all, going to affect only a very few people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It should be clearly understood, Mr. Chairman, that there has been no suggestion by the hon. member for Kindersley and certainly not by anyone speaking for this party that there should be any delay in this legislation. The issue is simple; should there be an amendment provided now to cover tenants? That is the only issue; and if the government takes the position that there should be no amendment to cover the tenants the committee will have to deal with the government's policy in whatever way it wishes, but there need not be any delay whatsoever as far as the implementation of this legislation is concerned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is attempting to raise a straw man as usual.


George James McIlraith: Now, now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When the committee reaches the discussion of clause 6 of the bill it proceeds with it and does not revert to other


matters; but if it is the consensus of the committee that this matter should be discussed we could deal with it when we get back to the title of the bill. I have a statement here I am quite prepared to make with regard to the general problem of the renter receiving cash advances and obtaining consent of the landlord and so on, but clause 6 is hardly the place for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Agreed.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 6 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
On the title:


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the title carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On that point, Mr. Chairman, last year when the bill was being considered for drafting one of the most important points was this very one raised this afternoon, as to what to do with regard to land in which perhaps two or three people have some interest. We tried to simplify the legislation last year, and we related it to the permit book. The permit book lists the owner of the land, the renter and all people who have an interest in it.
It was found necessary, relating cash advances to the permit book, that all those who had an interest in the land must then sign the application form if a cash advance was desired. It has caused some trouble to some people where the landlord was living far away or was unfamiliar with the legislation or not agreeable to signing the application form. All of that was very carefully considered. We reached the decision last year that we could not make provision for a cash advance based on the permit book to someone who was unable to obtain the signature of another or others who were also listed in that permit book.
Then this year we went through the same process again, and the most careful consideration was given to this problem. I asked the officials both here and those of the wheat board in Winnipeg to look at this again, and I have asked several hon. members of the house to produce a satisfactory solution to this problem. No one has come up with any good solution.
Let me just place on the record the considered opinion with regard to this matter. Section 6 of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act requires joint application by all persons named in the same permit book before any advance will be made against grain deliverable under that permit book.

No distinction is made between a situation in which all or a substantial part of the land is subject to share interests by two or more persons, and the situation under which a substantial portion belongs outright to the actual producer and only part of the farm is subject to interests held by other persons. And finally, there is no means by which a tenant can compel a landlord or other interested persons to enter into a joint application.
The problems involved in joint applications, and the knowledge that they may give rise to delays, refusals to execute and so forth, were of considerable concern during the preparation of the legislation. The scheme underlying the act had, of course, recognized that grain stored on farms could not be inspected by competent persons as a condition precedent to entitlement for an advance. The time element and the number of persons required made this impossible. It also had to recognize that it would not be possible to impose some kind of requirement for segregation of the grain on which an advance was to be made, either segregation from all the grain stored by the farmer or segregation of the different portions of grain belonging to different interested persons.
The scheme also had to recognize that there are probably a multitude of ways in which an actual producer and his landlord, mortgagee or other type of producer divide their respective interests, and a multitude of forms of contract or other means as to how these shares were agreed upon or could be established or proved. It seemed an extremely difficult if not impossible task- other than by the various parties themselves confirming their private arrangement in a joint application form-to impose upon anyone to determine and satisfy himself just what were the true and accurate arrangements between the several interests in any given situation and in every situation.
Finally, partly because the permit book is the chief document to rely on to show past deliveries, and partly because it is the essential document in relation to recovery of the advance payment, the scheme had to be closely related to the permit book system. Under a scheme for cash advances against undelivered grain, however, the question of the respective shares of joint holders of a permit book becomes important and is exceedingly difficult.
This arises in three different aspects. First of all if, instead of the joint application principle now used, a joint holder was allowed to obtain an advance irrespective of the wishes, knowledge or interests of the other holders, 57071-3-160
22, 1958	2529
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act someone would have to know not only what grain there was behind his application but what his true share of that grain really was. It is difficult to see how this could be avoided, and it is difficult to know how the person making the advance could satisfy himself, without information or confirmation from the other interested persons, that the share stated by the applicant was correct.
This would be necessary for two reasons. The first is, of course, that since the advance is made and its amount is determined against grain that the applicant has and undertakes to deliver, he could only rightfully deliver his own true share, errors concerning its accuracy would greatly increase the dangers of overadvancing. Second, the total advances for any one permit book are limited by the grain to be delivered under that book. Hence if a single applicant overdraws by falsifying or misunderstanding the share of the grain to which he is entitled, the legitimate entitlement of other applicants under the same book would be reduced unless the over-all limit for any one farm unit is to be increased in such cases.
Another difficulty would arise in connection with the general lien created by section 10 of the act. At present, with the idea of joint applications the lien relates to all the grain in respect of which an advance payment is made, and in many cases this is probably coincident with most or all of the grain stored on the farm. If separate and independent applications were allowed this would, of course, require a change in the concept of the lien to cover only that share of the grain belonging to each individual applicant.
The third and perhaps the most important difficulty of all relates to the chief way in which advance payments are recovered. Under section 11 of the act, one half of the initial payment for grain delivered under a permit book is deducted and paid to the Canadian wheat board until the advance is fully recovered. This is obviously the best security that could be imposed. At present, with the requirement of joint applications, all grain delivered under the permit book is subject to this statutory deduction irrespective of whose grain is delivered. If individual advances were made in the case of joint permit books without any consent from the other holders, it would certainly be necessary to restrict this recovery provision to grain delivered by the individual recipient of the advance, and then only when he was delivering his own proper share of grain.
This would, I think, make it absolutely essential that the elevator operator receiving the grain-and the wheat board which is taking one half of the payment for itself- would need to be satisfied that the grain
2530	HOUSE OF
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act belonged to that person. If he were delivering some other holder's share I would think-[DOT] since the board in effect takes one half of it without any payment at the time of delivering -the board might be liable for conversion of another person's property.
The only practical means of meeting this problem, therefore, seems to be through a joint application signed by all parties possessing a joint interest in the grain as indicated in the individual permit books.
That, Mr. Chairman, constitutes the position we take after the most thorough consideration of this problem. When I made my introductory remarks on this bill I said that, based on another year's experience, if there are adjustments or changes that should be made we are quite prepared to do so provided they could be fitted into the general purpose of the act. As of this moment no one has produced the type of amendment which would meet this particular situation and, of course, the whole thing hinges on the question of what to do when a farmer is in default and who becomes liable. We tried to simplify the problem and related it to the permit book. So far it has worked extremely well, as the figures I gave earlier this afternoon indicate. The percentage of repayments is so close to being 100 per cent that the number of defaulters, if any, will be very limited and we will not face that problem of attempting to assess responsibility except in very few instances.
If too great a burden is placed upon a renter of land we have to get around this problem of responsibility in case of default, and I certainly am open to suggestions along that line. On the other hand, we are very close to a new crop year. We want to make it possible for advances to be made just as early as the farmers ask for them, and the only amendments which have been introduced on this occasion have dealt with the points that were chiefly under criticism during the last several months.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, since I
represent a rural riding on the prairies I also am very interested in this problem. In fact it is one of the complaints we have had about this act. The minister has said that it is working extremely well except for those who could not get the consent of the landlord. I think those are the ones we have under consideration this afternoon. Where there is a joint application, could there not be some method by which the permit book is divided in two, one part for the rented land and the other part for land owned by the applicant, so there would not have to be a jpint application?
I am quite sure, judging by the remarks of the minister, that his department is going


to look into this, and one more session will not make too much difference as far as our constituents are concerned. But it is a problem, and although it does affect very few it is something that we should amend, if not now then the next time the act comes up for amendment.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: I am sorry I have put the minister to a little trouble in connection with this matter, but there is a problem, particularly where the landlord is non-resident. I was away when the minister introduced the bill and I did not hear his remarks. Realizing that the crop year begins on August 1 and that it will be necessary to get these forms prepared, I certainly do not want to hold up the bill. But I am sure the minister will appreciate that there are cases where the tenant has to get the consent of his landlord who lives in Ontario, or somewhere else in eastern Canada or in the United States, and that this can be quite a problem. It makes it very difficult for the tenant to be able to take full advantage of the act and get these cash advances, but I certainly have no intention of holding up the minister's legislation. As the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has just pointed out, we can see how the legislation as amended works out and then at another session see that the proper amendments are made.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Just before I report the bill I should like to say that in the opinion of the chair this debate on the title has been out of order. It should have been done either on second reading or on clause 1. As the committee rather wanted to discuss the matter I did not stop hon. members, but I want to express my thoughts so that hon. members will be prepared on another occasion.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Douglas Scott Harkness: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie. Farm Assistance Act to extend

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
the benefits of the act and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration thereof.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Are we to hear from the minister?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, all members who come from constituencies in the three prairie provinces are well aware of the fact that for many years past there have been a very large number of complaints with regard to anomalies and inequities which have been apparent as far as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is concerned. Under the terms of the act as it has existed a great many of these have been inevitable. The purpose of these amendments is to remove, as far as it is possible to do so, the situations which have given rise to nearly all the complaints we have had in such large numbers in past years. It is proposed to do this by removing certain limitations in the act and a number of inequities in the method of making payment under the act.
Briefly, it is proposed to remove the six-section block limitation for areas with a low yield adjacent to eligible townships. This will have the effect of qualifying for payment, irrespective of township boundaries, any number of low yield sections in ineligible townships, provided they form a block with a side that is contiguous to an eligible township. It is also proposed to remove the six-section block limitation when excluding from payment high yield areas in eligible townships. The proposal is to exclude from payment any single section of land having a yield of 12 or more bushels, and also to exclude such sections from the computations in determining the category of payment. At present the high yield sections are included in computing the amount of award, and as a result the amount of award is not always commensurate with the yield in the payable area.
Another proposal is with regard to the minimum size of an eligible area. Up to date this has been an 18-section rectangular block. It is proposed to reduce the minimum area to be eligible for payment under the act to one third of a township, that is to a 12-section block rather than the 18 section block which has been in existence up to this time. This applies particularly to what has been known as C blocks, that is, blocks which may cover two, three or four townships.
The exclusion of certain crown lands granted after 1940 from benefits under the act is also considered discriminatory, and it is therefore proposed to repeal that section of the act so that no matter when the land 57071-3-160J
was granted by the crown it will be eligible for Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments.
A further proposal is to make flax and rape seed subject to the 1 per cent levy. Since the growers of such crops also benefit under this legislation it is felt that they, as well other farmers, should contribute to the prairie farm emergency fund. This was one of the quite apparent anomalies in the act. People growing flax and rape seed were eligible for benefits, but there was no levy imposed on their crops as there was on other crops.
Another change to be made is in the definition of "farmer" under the act. Up to date the definition of "farmer" in the act, and the way in which it was interpreted and spelled out in the regulations, provided that a man who had any other source of income or whose main source of income was as an elevator agent, school teacher or some other form of occupation and who also operated a farm was ineligible to receive any award under the act. It is proposed to change the definition of "farmer" in order to remedy that situation, and also to change the regulations. Therefore when this particular amendment is passed and the regulations are changed anyone who operates a farm, except a corporation, will be eligible to receive an award under the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would cover a tenant, I presume.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. Tenants, of course, have always been eligible. Anyone operating a farm has been eligible unless he had some other form of business. For example, a large number of elevator agents in western Canada also have quarter or half sections which they farm in the same way any other farmers does; but because they were elevator agents and had a steady source of income they were not eligible to receive payment although they had to pay into the fund. The 1 per cent levy was taken from them. These people will now become eligible. It is not proposed to make eligible corporations such as insurance companies, mortgage companies and so on which may have repossessed land as a result of a lien they had on it.
Another change has to do with flooding. Through the years there has been a considerable amount of complaint in areas where flooding takes place that it was extremely difficult for a farmer whose land was flooded to be eligible unless he was in a very widespread flood area. These complaints came from farmers who suffered from flooding, and who felt that the minimum area necessary to qualify was too large. At present there must be a flooded area of at least one sixth
2532	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act of a township or 3,840 cultivated acres before the farmers can qualify. That figure does not mean simply that much acreage, but that much cultivated acreage. It is proposed to reduce this acreage by making eligible any area consisting of six or more adjoining sections of land where at least one-third of the cultivated acreage is flooded. In other words, eligibility as far as flooding is concerned will be reduced so that if you have any block of six sections that may run along the course of a river and one-third of the cultivated land in those six sections is flooded, then those farmers will be eligible for awards under the act.
Another matter that has caused a great deal of complaint is in those areas where little wheat is grown. Under the act as it is at the present time awards have been made on the basis solely of the damage to the wheat crop. You would have cases in which there would be perhaps only 40 acres or 50 acres of wheat in a whole township of 36 sections, but nevertheless the determination of what the award should be for P.F.A. payment was made on that small amount of wheat. It is proposed to put into effect an amendment which will provide that in any eligible area in which the percentage of wheat seeded is less than 10 per cent, then the predominant crop-oats, barley or rye-may be taken as the crop to be used as the one to determine what the eligibility for award will be.
Those are the main changes in the act or the main amendments which are proposed. There are several others of lesser importance whose purpose is largely to facilitate the administration of the act and which, without the act being before hon. members, I do not think it would be profitable for me to go into at this time.
As I have already indicated, of course, In addition to these amendments it is proposed to revise the regulations established under the act so that they will be in accordance with the amendments which have been made. In some cases the regulations will be changed, although no actual change is being made in any particular section of the act, in order to liberalize the administration of the legislation.
I should just like to say one further word, Mr. Chairman. There is some urgency in getting these amendments through in view of the widespread drought conditions which exist in western Canada this year and which mean that what acreage there is in some areas will be ripening up earlier than usual. Therefore it will be necessary to start the P.F.A.A. program this year earlier than is normal. As a result, it is highly desirable


to have this legislation completed in the house as soon as possible so that then there will be time to have the regulations amended, and then to have the necessary new forms which will be required printed and distributed so that everything will be ready to put the program into operation very soon after the end of this month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the members of the house will do all they can to accommodate the minister in passing this legislation but I am sure that he would expect us of the opposition to make what comments we believe are, in the circumstances, proper and desirable.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly. There is no idea of anything else.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. In the meantime my hon. friend's officials, of course, could anticipate the passage of this legislation by making the necessary amendments in the regulations and at least have that much work ahead of them.
The amendments which are proposed have been indicated in a general way by the minister who has spoken in the committee stage on the resolution. While these amendments in the regulations and at least have that vantages, I think the minister would agree that they are not of a fundamental kind but rather are designed to extend the legislation by simplifying some of the regulations and making it possible to be more generous and more flexible in the granting of assistance. This legislation, of course, makes its appeal to those of us who sit on this side of the house because we have had a long association with this particular measure the purpose of which I think could be described by saying that it was to assist in the rehabilitation of drought and soil drifting areas in the prairie provinces and to provide greater security and stability for agriculture generally.
The basic legislation was passed in 1935. It provided for the payment out of the federal exchequer of some $4.75 million over a five-year period. In 1937 an amendment to this basic act was drafted extending the scope of the program. Provision was made to resettle farmers on better land and poor lands were withdrawn from cultivation and placed under pasture.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That had nothing to do with it. That was under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The wrong act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I know. But nevertheless it had a basic and kindred result,

as my hon. friend so well knows. A subsequent amendment providing for this legislation, of course, dealt with many of the features in principle that are already contemplated by my hon. friend. I suppose it would be true to say that the basic purpose of this legislation is to compensate for crop failure due to drought, as my hon. friend has said. He has pictured the condition that earns it. However, it has also been used in compensation for hail and other natural hazards for which it was primarily intended. It is now suggested, I think, by those who have spent a good deal of time in studying this particular type of project that the reason why it has not proved completely satisfactory for all the purposes for which it had been applied was that it was used extensively, as I have said, for hail and other natural hazards. It may be that on this account the rigidity has been unduly severe because it is easier to define areas of drought, I suppose, than it is to define areas of hail. I suggest that the legislation before us today might be indicated somewhat by the observations made by the present Prime Minister and by the Minister of Agriculture himself. It may be that some of the suggestions that were made by the Prime Minister in 1957 are being incorporated in the present bill. In any event, we can ascertain that matter when the particulars of the bill are brought before us. However, as reported at page 1472 of Hansard of February 20, 1957, the Prime Minister said:
My suggestions as to other amendments that might be made are these. First, while the placing of indemnities on an individual farm basis may be impractical, consideration should be given, as far as possible, to the amendment of the act to provide for the payment of indemnity on a section basis.
I am not sure whether or not that is the kind of amendment that my hon. friend has spoken of in a general way. However, it will be very interesting, when we come to the bill, to see whether or not the Prime Minister's desires of 1957 when sitting on this side of the house are now incorporated in the amendment. Then as reported at 1473 of Hansard the Prime Minister said this:
The question of crop insurance is one that requires a great deal of investigation. If one reads the report of the Saskatchewan commission on rural questions and the report of the Manitoba royal commission one has some idea of the immensity of the problem and all the difficulties inherent in introducing in our country legislation analogous to that in the United States. While I realize that this parliament is now rapidly approaching its end and it is only a matter of a few weeks before it will cease to exist, even now the committee on agriculture might be convened in order to hear representations, consider recommendations and come to a general decision on this very important matter, for sooner or later it has to be faced.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act That is the matter of crop insurance. The legislation which my hon. friend has indicated and of which the house is now seized does not, of course, deal with crop insurance, and one is inclined to strongly agree with the suggestion made by the present Prime Minister when he was leader on this side of the house that this matter is one which it is becoming increasingly important to face. The Prime Minister went on to say at this time: Third, I suggest that the regulations now in existence should be revamped to a considerable extent.
He does not indicate the extent to which regulations should be amended, but it is possible that some of the amendments about which my hon. friend spoke a few moments ago are along the general lines indicated by the then member for Prince Albert, who was leader of the opposition at the time and who, at page 1473 of Hansard for February 20, 1957, continued as follows:
I believe that is necessary and I believe that if the committee on agriculture were set up even at this late date suggestions and recommendations could be made by the committee which would lay a foundation for the establishment of a crop insurance plan.
The Minister of Agriculture, who was then the member for Calgary North, said at page 1482 of Hansard for the same date:
I would hope that when the act is being amended the minister will take the opportunity to correct some of the injustices as far as payments are concerned. I refer particularly to Indians.
I do not know whether my hon. friend has the Indians in mind or not, because he did not indicate that in his main statement, but undoubtedly when we get to the bill we will have the opportunity to learn whether it has been possible for the government to bring forward legislation along the lines which the minister at that time thought desirable.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member does not mind, I might say that that is one of the things which will be dealt with in the regulations. There is nothing in the act which forbids that, but the interpretation of the matter and the way in which the regulations have been drawn prevent Indians receiving payment. There are many people, including Indians, who have not been eligible and this is one of the things with which we intend to deal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my hon. friend. Then the minister went on to say: Another group of people whom I can see no reason for excluding are those covered by section 3 of the act, subsection 3 of which reads as follows: "3. No award under this section shall be made-" And this is under paragraph (c) (i).
"(i) lands disposed of to a settler or veteran under the Soldier settlement Act, chapter 188 of the Reviser Statutes of Canada, 1927, or the Veterans' Land Act-"
2534	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
The minister continues:
Why people who hold land under the Soldier Settlement Act or under the Veterans' Land Act should be excluded from the benefits of this act I quite fail to understand. It seems to be another case of gross discrimination for which there is no excuse. I would make a very strong plea to the minister that he remove that exclusion from the benefits of this act as far as people holding land under the Veterans' Land Act are concerned. As a matter of fact the amount of land any veteran was able to get under the Veterans' Land Act was .a small farm, not sufficient to put him in farming in a very big way. They are among the very group of farmers who on the whole perhaps need the assistance or help they can get under a scheme of this kind more than do farmers generally.
There followed some interjections on which 1 do not need to dwell, but these were some of the views expressed by the minister at that time and it will be interesting to know whether it has been possible for him to carry out his recommendations. I know whether he has or has not carried out this particular recommendation he will deal with it very frankly, as is his usual practice, when we deal with the bill.
I think this is the moment to reiterate what I know has been stated by some hon. gentlemen opposite to the effect that benefits of this legislation should, of course, at some time or other and given the necessary conditions, be made applicable not only to particular sections of Canada but to all parts of the country. I am speaking now for myself and I would say that any legislation which is of benefit to one section of the country but which is capable of application in terms of benefit to all parts of the nation should be made to apply to the nation as a whole and it will be very interesting to have the minister's observations on this suggestion.
It may be that the most effective way of dealing with the matter is to respond to the request now being made, according to my information, by a growing number of people all over the country for the establishment of a nation-wide system of crop insurance. This view is one which has been expressed by my leader, who proposed a national system of crop insurance generally financed by the provincial and federal authorities with municipal assistance in respect of its administration.
It seems to me the time has now come to urge the convocation of a federal, provincial and municipal conference to discuss the possibility of such a scheme and to set experts to work preparing for it. I hesitate to suggest such a meeting between the federal and provincial governments because _ of the great difficulty we have had in getting the federal government to reconvene the meeting with the provinces in respect to fiscal matters, but it may be that we could bring about that important result by these ad hoc arrangements, one of which was provided by


the Minister of Labour the other day when municipalities, management and labour met with the departments of labour of the various provincial governments and with the federal Minister of Labour in order to discuss the important matter of unemployment.
As I said a moment ago, this matter of crop insurance seems to me to be increasingly capturing the attention of a large section of the public and in view of the heavy contributions made by the Canadian taxpayers generally to groups of Canadians of various occupations for one reason or another, it seems to me that in the matter of crop failures due to acts of God and the like, this might be regarded as a very effective way of providing the kind of assistance needed.
I do not know if the Minister of Agriculture recalls this, but I was very interested in some correspondence I had with him and a very frank telephone conversation between us on the matter of the great damage suffered by farmers in a certain section of Canada which will not be affected by this legislation. These farmers suffered the loss of millions of dollars as a result of crop damage due to very serious damage by hail stones. This was in a section of the country in the east and, based upon statements made in the election campaign of 1957 to the effect that the federal government would provide assistance for such crop failure, I had written to the Prime Minister reminding him of his promise through one of his spokesmen during that election. I pointed out the nature of the damage and the millions of dollars loss suffered by the farmers and I asked him to implement his pledge. The Prime Minister replied saying that the matter would be looked into and at the same time one member of this house who comes from my section of the country made an announcement that the matter was also being looked into by the government of the province of Ontario. We have heard nothing more of this, and the province of Ontario has not acted.
Then I confronted the Minister of Agriculture who, quite properly, pointed out that there were constitutional practices in this country and that as long as he was Minister of Agriculture the responsibility for looking after individuals should be shared in the way I have indicated-that they should be looked after first by their own municipality and then if the municipality was unable to help, by the province. Only then, in his judgment, could it be expected that assistance would be provided by the federal government. As I say, I think that is a correct statement of the constitutional practice.
But that is not what was said by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe who was the

spokesman for the government on that occasion in the town of Essex when the farmers in that area were assured that the government would come to their assistance in the event that their crops suffered as a result of storms or acts of God.
So in order that we may deal finally with situations of this sort, possibly the minister could find occasion during the discussion of this bill to indicate what the government's intentions or thoughts may be with regard to crop insurance generally. It would be a relevant matter to discuss in respect to the amendments being provided to this bill, a bill which undoubtedly has given much satisfaction and contributed considerably to the well-being of the farmers of the prairie provinces.


William Arnold Peters: We should like to thank the minister for the amendments that are to be introduced as indicated in this resolution, and we should like to take the opportunity of suggesting that some further improvements could possibly be made in this legislation.
I should on my own behalf like to suggest that the minister give consideration to extending this legislation to farmers in areas other than the prairies, because although the problems are not similar, the results are. In my area we are more apt to be troubled by rain than by lack of it, but this type of legislation would be advantageous in Ontario as well as elsewhere. In view of the rise in costs which has taken place in recent years, an increase which has affected farmers in particular, we would like to suggest that the amount of compensation be increased to $6 an acre and that the deductions be increased to as high as 3 per cent in those areas which have proved to be very high risk areas.
We appreciate the fact that the zoning has been changed, thereby eliminating the rigidity that formerly existed with regard to the large township areas, and we think that much good will accrue to farmers who are in an area on the boundary of a good area and who were in the past eliminated from the possibility of obtaining assistance under this act.


Mr. Rapp:: Speaking on this amendment I should like to say in just a few words how welcome the changes will be in my constituency. I want to deal particularly with the change pertaining to flooded areas. A few years ago many sections of my constituency were flooded and since the size of the farms, or the area, had to be very large to get any benefit from this Prairie Farm Assistance Act, it was impossible. Now since the changes are such that the size is quite a bit smaller I
Prairie Farm Assistance Act think these changes would be very well appreciated in my constituency and welcomed.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has certainly been very helpful in the past to the prairie farmers. I have a few observations to make about the advantages of that legislation, which has been of real benefit to farmers in western Canada.
This legislation was enacted to give assistance to farmers who suffered damage as a result of drought, floods and other natural causes. Eastern farmers are in favour of the measure but would like it extended to the whole of Canada.
Eastern farmers, like western farmers, suffer damage from those same causes. In fact, I remember that last year some farmers in my neighbourhood lost their entire crop as a result of a storm. Not only did they lose their crop but their farm buildings also suffered considerable damage, such as broken windows, and so on, and some of their cattle were injured. In short, after the storm they had absolutely nothing left, not even enough potatoes or vegetables for their own use. Therefore, they lost the fruit of a whole year's work and consequently were very badly off financially. It is for that reason that we would like to see that legislation extended to the whole of Canada.
Like the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), I would like to see crop insurance inserted in that legislation. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) has referred to this many times in January, February and March before farmers organizations. In fact, he said at the time that he would introduce legislation on crop insurance. Unfortunately, the house has yet to hear about it. In my opinion, the minister had an excellent opportunity to elaborate on this project when he introduced his amendment, because I believe that crop insurance would be complementary to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
We urge the minister to take this into consideration; in putting forward these recommendations, I am expressing, I believe, the views of our eastern farmers.
(Text):


Mr. Speakman:: Since the constituency I have the honour to represent is entirely agricultural and depends entirely on agriculture for the livelihood of all its constituents, I was very interested to hear the amendments proposed to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act,

Prairie Farm Assistance Act and I should like to take this opportunity to compliment the minister on a very forward looking change in this outdated act which we have been using.
The proposed amendments will, in my opinion, remove at least 95 per cent of the complaints received last year concerning the administration and use of the act. Perhaps one of the greatest complaints received last year which is now being straightened out concerned high yield acreages in eligible areas which received payments while low yield acreages in various constituencies and townships received no payments. High yield acreages in eligible areas will no longer receive payments.
Perhaps one of the most forward looking amendments is the reduction of eligible acreages which has long been a bone of contention. I commend the passage of this resolution to the committee so that it can get into operation in time for the 1958 crop season.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if he knows why crown lands granted after 1940 are excluded under the present act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the reason for that was a very firm belief on the part of my predecessor in office that for the most part these crown lands were poor lands which should not have been put into cultivation and therefore it was a wise thing not to make payments on them because it would encourage more poor land being put into cultivation which should have been left in grass.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say that was also my understanding. Of course, the act was passed, if I recall correctly, before 1940.


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1935.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman will find it was later than 1935. P.F.R.A. was 1935 and P.F.A.A. was later, but before 1940. This was not excluding any land which was occupied at that time by farmers. It was a precautionary measure with relation to future grants and it was at a time, as I am sure the minister will recall, when we still lived in the shadow of the great droughts of the thirties which I think both he and I can remember very well. It was felt that no encouragement should be given to the farming of land which because it had not been settled before 1940 was presumably in most cases marginal land in the first place.
I wonder if the minister has satisfied himself that this would not have the result of people going into areas-we all know there are a few people who would do this kind of thing-and seeding them in a sort of fashion
[Mr. Speakman.l
not for the purpose of getting a crop but for the purpose of getting a crop out of the treasury.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In actual fact most of the lands granted after 1940 were not these submarginal, dried out plots of land at all but up in the Peace river country and the more northerly areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan where the yield has generally been heavy. In addition to that there was a list of exemptions as far as those crown lands were concerned and the result of this has been that there has been a difficult administrative problem. It has cost a lot of time and effort and therefore money to show whether any particular quarter section was or was not excluded. My officials inform me that the cost of doing this is much greater than the amount of money that would be involved if we paid on everything. Also, as I say, there is a very clear indication that a severe inequity exists in that most of the lands granted after 1940 were not sub-marginal lands but land that is among the best producing land in the three prairie provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not want the minister to think I am opposing this at all and I am sure he is right about the lands that are now occupied. I wondered if the minister had satisfied himself that the result which his predecessor feared could not operate in the future and whether he thought of the possibility of saying that no crown grants made after 1958 would be eligible in order to meet that contingency or whether he thought it was not at all a serious contingency?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I do not think it is. As a matter of fact, all these sub-marginal lands now reside in the crown either in the right of Canada or in the right of the provinces. Those taken over by the provinces and the dominion are now in community pastures or something along that line for the most part. I think there is little chance that any of that land would go back into private hands and thus become eligible.
I should like to say a few words about some of the statements which have been made during the course of this debate. The hon. member for Essex East quoted some statements which the Prime Minister made and some which I made when we were in opposition. I am glad to see that he is carrying on research of that kind and I am sure it will be very profitable for him-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure you it is very difficult.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and thereby he will gain quite a wide acquaintanceship with a large number of subjects with which I am sure he did not have an opportunity to become

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
familiar whilst he had the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare on his shoulders. Among the statements the hon. member for Essex East quoted was one concerning crop insurance which is a matter that must be faced. I thoroughly agree with that. The hon. member is doubtless aware that ever since I have been Minister of Agriculture I have stated repeatedly that one of the big forward steps we must take in order to improve the general situation of agriculture in Canada is to institute a comprehensive system of crop insurance. I also think he is aware that in answer to questions in the house I have said on many occasions that an extensive study of crop insurance is being conducted in the department. It has been proceeding for some considerable time and I hope we will be able to introduce legislation in that regard in the not too distant future.
The hon. member also mentioned that perhaps a dominion-provincial conference should be held with respect to this question of crop insurance. The hon. gentleman will recall that approximately two months ago a meeting was held in Ottawa of all provincial ministers of agriculture. One of the matters discussed at that meeting was the question of crop insurance. I might say that the result of that meeting has been to complicate the situation because a number of provinces expressed no interest whatever in a system of crop insurance. I might point out that some provinces were interested, others were lukewarm and others displayed no interest at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
way it is in the matter of fiscal relations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. But what it means, as I think the hon. member is aware, is that in order to introduce an acceptable system of crop insurance it makes it very difficult to find a scheme which would be applicable in the various provinces to ensure that no province would have a complaint because too much money was being expended in another province, and so on. There is no doubt but that the extreme variability of climatic conditions across Canada makes the matter of a general dominion-wide crop insurance scheme an extraordinarily difficult problem to solve. However, as I say, we are working on it in the department and I hope that in the near future we can introduce legislation in respect of a crop insurance scheme.
Another statement made by the hon. member for Essex East which was also referred to by other hon. members was that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be extended to all parts of Canada. In that regard I would merely point out that the great difficulty is how to make the levy. How would
you collect the payment the farmer makes in connection with this? As far as the three prairie provinces are concerned it is very easy because grain is all handled through the wheat board. The levy is deducted by the wheat board and paid into the fund by the board and so it is a very simple matter to make collection of the levy but in any other part of Canada the question of collecting the levy from the farmer comparable to the 1 per cent levy collected on western grain would present very great difficulties as I think hon. members will readily appreciate. It would be an almost impossible practice to put into operation particularly as most agricultural producers in other parts of Canada derive the major portion of their livelihood through livestock or livestock products rather than through crops as is the case in western Canada.
That is one of the great difficulties as far as extending this particular scheme to other parts of the country is concerned. I do not think it would be a practical proposition. That is another reason why I think we should have a system of crop insurance.
The hon. member for Essex East also referred to certain damage that took place in an area of his own constituency. All I can say in regard to that is I do not know what statements the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe may have made prior to the 1957 election but, as the hon. member himself said, he is well aware of the fact that damage to a small area or damage to an individual has always been and must be, under our constitutional system and practice, looked upon as the responsibility of the municipality and of the province and then if it is damage of such an extensive nature that the province is not able to handle the matter, it applies to the dominion government for assistance. This was done in the case of the Red river flood at Winnipeg; it was done in the case of the Cabano fire and in various other instances, but the matter of expecting-I do not think the hon. member himself really does expect it-the dominion government to come in and pay damages of individual farmers in a small area is something that would be hopeless and impossible for us to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was pointing out the assurances that had been given and I said the Prime Minister had seemingly followed along with them but that I thought that the Minister of Agriculture had taken the correct constitutional position.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Timis-kaming made the statement that the C.C.F. also thought that the amount of the payment should be very considerably increased, up to $6 an acre. I think that is what he said

Prairie Farm Assistance Act and at the same time that they could be paid for by increasing the levy in certain areas to three per cent. Now, what that would amount to would be to convert this from a drought relief scheme, essentially, to a farm crop insurance scheme and it would be an attempt to convert it to a system of crop insurance without having any basis to go on as to what land should be on the one per cent levy, the two per cent levy, the three per cent levy, and so forth. The result, of course, would be that it would cause a great deal more dissatisfaction than the type of system we have had, with all the faults which were inherent in it. In other words, if we are to put in a system of crop insurance-which I certainly trust we shall do-it should be done in a reasonable and proper way and not by attempting to say that this particular section of the province of Saskatchewan will pay three per cent and this section will pay two per cent, and so on, because I am quite sure in those circumstances you would create nothing but dissatisfaction and difficulties.
I should like to thank some of the other hon. members for the remarks they have made in' regard to what the effect of those amendments will be. I feel quite convinced myself that when these amendments are in effect they will remove the greatest percentage of complaints which have been current in years past. I might state, which I did not before, that the cost of those various amendments is estimated to be around 20 per cent increase in the amount of money which will be paid out under the act in a normal year. In other words, sufficiently more people will be eligible who had not been eligible before so that there will be about a 20 per cent increase in the amount of payments made.


Samuel Boulanger: When the minister spoke about crop insurance he said that it would be difficult to collect the levy in the eastern provinces because in the west the collections are made by the wheat board. In the province of Quebec I think the collections could be made by the farmers organizations. L'union catholique des cultivateurs de la province de Quebec now have life insurance and automobile insurance but they do not have crop insurance. I am pretty sure they would be interested if the minister would talk to them and I am pretty sure that they could make the collections for crop insurance in the province of Quebec.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can only point out to the hon. member, as I did before, that this is not a system of crop insurance; it is a form of drought relief essentially and is not a system of crop insurance. It is the type of thing which is applicable really only in the prairie


provinces where you do have widespread drought. As I said before, I trust that in the near future we shall have a system of crop insurance which would be applicable throughout the country.


William Limburg Houck: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to the fact that he had a conference with the other ministers of agriculture of the various provinces of the dominion. I was wondering whether the minister recalls the attitude of the minister of agriculture of the province of Ontario? When I refer to that I am speaking especially on behalf of the fruit and vegetable growers of the Niagara district, Essex, Kent and Leamington, and those other places which as the minister knows, have to depend a lot on the weather just as do the prairie farmers. In' fact, an early frost in the fall could damage at least 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the crop. I was wondering whether the Minister of Agriculture showed any interest in this type of insurance for that type of crop?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, those meetings which have been held periodically by the provincial ministers of agriculture are confidential. If I start to say what each minister of agriculture thinks in connection with crop insurance I am quite sure the hon. member would see that it would cause a great deal of difficulty and it would make it impossible to hold another conference where people would express themselves freely. For this reason I do not think it is advisable to make any statement in regard to what the ministers of agriculture of the different provinces felt in regard to this or any other matter.


Mr. Fisher:: I want to ask the minister one question. Is the difficulty in extending this sort of assistance beyond the prairies purely an administrative one or are there principles involved that get in the way of including any other parts of the country?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The chief difficulty is that there is no basis of making the levy in other parts of Canada.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In other words, it is strictly technical.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is much more than technical. As I said before, the thing is that the livelihood of most farmers outside of the prairie provinces comes really from livestock production or livestock products, dairy products, poultry and what not, and those products are marketed in scores of different ways. Therefore, it is an absolute impossibility to make any sort of fair levy, which you can make in western Canada on the grain which is produced because it is all handled by the wheat board.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Was a study not made by Professor Drummond of the Ontario Agricultural College of this very point? I wish I could remember the details of it.
I do remember seeing a reprint of it, I think it was in the "Canadian Political Science Quarterly". He acknowledged that there were these difficulties but that a formula could be arrived at. I just merely mention that for the minister's consideration.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not familiar with that, but anybody who has studied this matter will agree that the only thing that could possibly be used in most parts of the country is some type of crop insurance in which you would have a premium the same as you have in any insurance policy, and the amount of premium would vary greatly from area to area and possibly from one type of crop to another. The premium on a tobacco crop, for example, would be much greater than the premium on a hay crop, and so on.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harkness thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-40, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT


Douglas Scott Harkness: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to remove the statutory limits on the amount of compensation for cattle slaughtered pursuant to the act, except when slaughtered pursuant to area or herd disease eradication programs, in which case the limits are to be increased.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the bill to be introduced is to amend the rates of compensation for cattle ordered slaughtered as a disease control measure under the authority of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. As the act now stands, compensation is authorized at their market value for all classes of livestock except horses and cattle. In the case of cattle there is a statutory limitation on compensation at a maximum of $100 for purebred animals and $40 for grade animals.
There are two types of circumstances under which cattle may be ordered slaughtered
Animal Contagious Diseases Act and compensation paid. One has to do with spasmodic outbreaks of serious diseases which do not normally exist in Canada such as the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 1952. It is desirable that the owners of animals slaughtered in such instances should be compensated at market value. That has not been the case up to date. All cattle were compensated for at the regular rates laid down which I have just indicated.
The other circumstance under which cattle may be ordered slaughtered and compensation paid has to do with area or herd programs for the eradication of diseases which are established in Canada. Examples of that are the tuberculosis eradication program and the recently instituted one for area testing and eradication of brucellosis.
It is not considered necessary or desirable to compensate owners at full market value for cattle ordered slaughtered under such programs, but the maximum compensations now permitted by the act are felt to be inadequate under present conditions. I might say that these limits were established quite a number of years ago and since that time prices of cattle generally have increased. Therefore it is felt to be only fair and reasonable that the rates of compensation should be increased in a way somewhat commensurate with the increase in the price of cattle.


Murdo William Martin: When were the basic rates fixed?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The basic rates were fixed shortly after the first war. It just happens that at that period cattle were a relatively good price. Otherwise the rate of compensation would have been extraordinarily badly out of line with the price of cattle during recent years.
The effect of the present bill will be to permit the payment of compensation at market value for cattle ordered slaughtered in the control of spasmodic outbreaks of serious diseases and to raise the maximum compensation under the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication programs to $140 for purebred cattle and $70 for grades. I might say that the bill is a very simple one of one clause for the purpose of increasing the rates of compensation as far as cattle are concerned under the herd testing programs.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, the increase for purebred cattle is to $140. I do not know whether the minister is aware that for some few years now the price of purebred cattle has been from $400 to $1,000 for good purebred cows. I wonder whether the minister would consider increasing the amount from $140. The same holds true in the case of grade cattle. If you want to buy a reasonably

Private Bills
good cow today you have to pay $150 to $250 but under this legislation farmers will only get $70 when cows have to be slaughtered. I think the minister should consider increasing the amounts to $125 for grade cows and to $200 or $250 for purebred cows. When a farmer loses his cows he has to buy others and he is not able to replace the slaughtered cows.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harkness thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-41, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Broome for the second reading of Bill No. S-6, respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.
Frank Howard: On Friday last, Mr. Speaker, I was drawing my remarks to a close at six o'clock and I have but one or two other comments to make on this bill. The house will recall that I had just entered the phase of my discussion that dealt with the representations that had been made to those of us in the C.C.F. by the officials of this company and the admission by the officials that probably one of the main reasons why the stock rose from its original value of $10 to something in the neighbourhood of $140 was that they did not place on the market more of the original shares which they had in the treasury. The opinion was expressed that perhaps if the company, in the first instance, had allowed for the sale of more of their original 5 million shares on the market the price of the shares would not have gone as high as it did and they would not have had to come to parliament last year and again this year asking for a five-to-one split.
We have a number of questions which must be answered but unfortunately I do not think the officials of the company can answer them, for certainly those officials have no control over the movement of share prices on the market. There is no guarantee by the officials of the company that if this stock split is allowed under the present system of selling shares the general public will get an opportunity to participate in buying more shares. There is no guarantee

that these shares will not be offered privately to the same oil companies that now have the bulk of the shares in Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. There is no assurance either as to what will happen when the stock split takes place. Past records will show that when a stock split has taken place in other companies there has been a tendency for the price to go up again to what it was before the stock split took place. We have no assurance at all that this rise in price will not develop again and that the public interest will not be unprotected.
As we submitted earlier in 1951 when this company was originally incorporated and as we submit now, there is only one way in which to protect the interest of the public with respect to the operation of this particular oil pipe line and with respect to its sister organization the gas pipe line and that is to classify them as utilities and operate them under public ownership so that the public gets the fullest possible benefits from the operation of that profitable industry.
Those are my remarks, Mr. Speaker. It is true that they have been spread over three different days and that a number of questions have been raised. I am sure the bill will pass second reading. When it gets to the committee the members who are on the committee will have an opportunity of raising these questions with the officials of the company who are there. I hope that they will undertake to elicit information about these questions that have been raised and will undertake, as best they possibly can- inasmuch as the company is not publicly owned-to ensure that the interests of the general public will be protected all across the board.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. SD-154, an act for the relief of Eileen Rose Brown Porteous.-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the divorce bills this afternoon be allowed to stand until later this week. As far as I know, in none of these divorce cases has the evidence been distributed to the members of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that these divorce bills on the order paper, items Nos. 39 to 72, stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-18, to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses).
He said: First, I must express my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member who seconded my motion for second reading. I refer to the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). As outlined in the explanatory notes, the purpose of the bill is as outlined in the explanatory notes. Basically it is this. The Canada Elections Act at the moment, as hon. members know, provides that each candidate must file with the returning officer in his constituency a return setting out the sources of income for that candidate's campaign and also setting out the expenditures that are made on behalf of that candidate in respect of advertising, transportation and similar related costs in the conduct of the election. Unfortunately, though, the act at the moment does not make any provision for the declaration of income or expenditures by the central parties themselves.
We all know very well what happens. A candidate in declaring the source of his income-which I think must be properly treated as public information-can hide the true source if he has knowledge of it, or if he has not knowledge of it he can merely indicate that part of the contribution to his election campaign came from a central party headquarters, no matter which party it might be. The purpose behind the bill, as I said, is to provide that the national party headquarters, the national office of the particular political party, also be required to make a return indicating the source of their income, the amount, and whether it is in cash or whether it is as payment by some other outside group for services rendered to that particular party's operations.
I will undertake to get some statistical material as it relates to the province of British Columbia from returns filed by candidates in that province representing all of the political parties which ran candidates. We have from the province of British Columbia, of course, only two of those parties represented here in the house at the present time. It is not my desire to place on the record the source of income as declared by each individual candidate, whether or not he be elected.
One of the interesting things which was discovered as a result of this information, which incidentally is available to any member of the general public who wants to pay 20 cents in order to get it, was that with respect to the Conservative party and Liberal
Canada Elections Act
party declarations of sources of income, the major portion of the contributions to the campaign of an individual candidate was listed as coming from party headquarters. As far as the Conservatives were concerned, the figures ran in amounts such as $4,500, $10,000, $6,000, $7,000, $5,000 and so on. The major portion of contributions to the campaign of individual Conservative candidates in the province of British Columbia are listed anywhere from $4,000 up to $10,000 and the source is declared as either the Progressive Conservative party provincial headquarters or a private accounting company by the name of Field and Company in Vancouver, which was probably a bookkeeping agency hired by the Conservatives in order to keep track of the vast amount of money which they received in order to operate the last election.
The main issue is that there is no compulsion under the act for the candidate to declare the source, because he may not know where the money originated, but also that there is no compulsion on the central party to indicate where it gets these thousands and thousands of dollars with which to run a campaign. Certainly if political parties are to operate to the best interests of the general public then there must be an accounting to the general public as to the source of campaign fund contributions. If it is equitable that a candidate must declare the names of individuals or companies from whom he receives contributions and the amount of such contributions, then it is equitable that the national party itself should make a similar declaration to the general public as to the source of its income. We all know, I am sure, of the bible phrase, "Where your treasure lies there lies your heart also."
One of the unfortunate parts of the operation of elections here in Canada and even more so in the United States is that large industrial concerns and financial corporations, huge monopoly or semi-monopoly interests which want to ensure that the party forming the government will be partial to their ideas can easily and probably do make contributions in large amounts of money towards the campaign of any particular party. I am not saying because they make these contributions that any particular party will perform some sort of skulduggery to ensure that legislation passed is in the interests of the people who make such contributions, but it naturally follows that the party concerned will look upon those who contribute to it as friends and that the legislation it passes will be drafted with this in mind.
The general public, in the long run, pays for every political contribution made, whether

Canada Elections Act
it be to the Tories or to the Liberals. It is made by large business concerns but the general public in one way or another pays, in the final analysis, for all contributions made to the so-called free enterprise parties. Therefore the general public should have an accounting as to the source of such income. Without going into too much detail this is purely and simply an expansion of the principle already laid-down in the act as it applies to individual candidates. Certainly if it is just that a candidate must show to the general public the sources from which he gets his campaign contributions it is equally just that the central parties make a similar declaration.
I rather expect, Mr. Speaker, that in the ensuing moments before six o'clock some other hon. members may have some comments to make on this bill, which I do hope will be given the support of the house. We all know from past experience that public bills in the hands of private members have very little chance of speedy passage through the house; invariably discussion is still going on at six o'clock and a vote is not taken on the bill. However, as I expressed myself on another bill standing in my name, which has been dealt with and which has not yet been voted upon by this house, I am not adverse to deferring second reading of this bill and having the subject referred to the committee on privilege and elections where it could be discussed and studied in more detail than is possible in committee of the whole house.


Mr. Drysdale:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Most certainly.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I was wondering if this bill was more motivated by the amount of campaign funds supplied to the other two parties and if the hon. member perhaps felt that the lack of success of the C.C.F. party was as a result of the insufficiency of the money it received?


Frank Howard: There is no doubt that if you have-


An hon. Member:: Through the Speaker.


Frank Howard: I naturally at all times speak through you, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the question just posed there is no doubt that if, as it is reported, the Tories had spent something in the neighbourhood of $7 million to $8 million more on this last campaign, there is probably no limit to the effect on society of the man in the grey flannel suit of the huge advertising agencies, but the motivation behind this bill has nothing to do with the relative numerical position of the parties in this house. Nor has it anything to do with the

support they have received during the last election or in any preceding election. It is merely a desire to expand the principle of asking candidates or official agents for candidates to make declarations as to the source of their incomes. As I say, if it is just that the general public should have that information from candidates then it is even more just, and more sensible, that they should have similar information from the national parties themselves.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Would the hon. member permit a supplementary question?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I will permit my hon. friend all the questions he desires to ask.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: As a point of interest. I was wondering if the hon. member could state how his expenses related to those of the other candidates within his particular riding?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I cannot admit that question as being relevant to the matter under review.


Frank Howard: I would be most pleased to answer, Mr. Speaker.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Speaker, I merely
wonder if the hon. gentleman would give us the chapter and verse of his biblical quotation?


Frank Howard: I did not hear the question, I am sorry.


Edwin William Brunsden: I would like it very much if the speaker would quote the chapter and verse of the biblical quotation used?


Frank Howard: I am sure the hon. member knows full well that Mr. Speaker cannot quote things of that nature.


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, while the essential motive of the hon. member proposing it appears quite clear, I felt I would like to suggest to hon. members that the purpose and the language of the bill is very indefinite. As a matter of fact, I say that this bill in its present shape, even to accomplish the limited purpose defined by the proposer, is in such woolly and indefinite language that it would create more confusion and be subject to more varying interpretations than is the present act.
First of all, let us look at the wording of the bill. It says in clause-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to stop the hon. member discussing the principle of the bill by dealing with the details, but I would remind him that this is second reading and that it is the principle of the bill which is under discussion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for drawing my attention to that. However, on

the question of the principle of the bill, it aims at a declaration by the central committee of a party as to the sources of its revenue. I am wondering just what the hon. member means when he says "central committee". I can think of any number of central committees in a political party. Is it the national central committee? Is it provincial? Is it city-wide? Is there a regional committee? What committee does the hon. member call a central committee? Even on the basis of the limited language of the bill, there is no indication as to what is meant by "central committee" and therefore I say right away that the bill is bad for uncertainty.
Another matter that I find very difficult to comprehend is just what funds a political party must account for. Are they funds used only for the purpose of meeting electoral campaign expenses, or are they funds that are gathered in between election campaigns, and again, since this is aimed at the matter of electoral expenses, how can we determine that the funds which are obtained from varying sources in between election years are allocated to definite election expenses?
The proposer of this bill feels that all political parties, including his own, it would seem, come into an election campaign with their coffers bare, devoid of any funds, when the writ is issued; that the funds are collected, and then wholly spent. In this bill, and from the explanation given by the hon. member, the funds referred to are those used for election expenses, and here again I say that it is impossible to determine just what funds were collected-and from whom-and spent for the purpose of an election. On a second count, therefore the bill is bad for uncertainty.
A third point is that it says "a political party". Now just what does a political party consist of?


Frank Howard: John Diefenbaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it a national party, is it a regional organization, or does it consist, in the case of an independent candidate, of a committee of two or three? I know of one man who presented himself for election and he was his sole committee. Was he a political party? There is no indication anywhere in the bill that would throw any light on this point. Hon. members who have had experience in a number of political campaigns will know that when they have had to deal with independent candidates-and good independent candidates-that these, too, have had resources. If the hon. member wants a political party to disclose the sources of its funds he must also insist that independent candidates should disclose the sources of the funds used for their election. It is quite
Canada Elections Act
simple for an independent candidate to arrange his affairs in such a way that he receives his funds from, shall we call it, the John Doe committee. Is that the central committee to which the hon. member refers in his bill? Is that committee a political party? I believe I have demonstrated on this score a third point on which this bill is most indefinite and indecisive.
I do not know just what the proposer of this bill feels he is going to unearth- whether he feels that there are some grave national scandals which will emerge from it on the assumption that you know a party by its friends. I believe that it is part of our democracy that the individual, if he is so minded, can donate anything to a party if he so desires, or $5, $10, $500 or even $1,000 to a particular candidate if he wishes to support that man. The proposer of the bill is fully aware that elections cost money; they cost money in varying amounts depending on the type of constituency and the desires of the candidate as to the sort of campaign he wishes to wage. Surely if we have the right of a secret ballot, which is a way of supporting a candidate, we also have the right to secret contributions from members of the public in support of a candidate.


Frank Howard: That provision is in the bill already.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am still saying that if an individual wishes to make an anonymous contribution he can make it to a central committee within a local organization. Yet this bill if more clearly stated would force that contribution to be disclosed. On this principle anyone could be asked the question: how did you vote in the last election?


Frank Howard: I voted C.C.F.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You may be an individual voter, I do not know. But I earnestly submit that the purpose of this bill does transgress the right of any individual or organization in this country to support whatever individual party or individual candidate it desires. This is part of the hemming-in rigidity and conformity which follows some of the thinking of the hon. member's party.
I know there are other difficulties. I have seen it in the last election. In the city of Edmonton there was a public nomination meeting for the three candidates of the C.C.F. party to represent the three Edmonton ridings. After the nominating meeting was held the hat was passed around and it was reported that the sum of $600-odd was collected which would be sufficient to meet the deposits of the various candidates. This appeared in the press and therefore I am not disclosing any hush-hush secret. That

Canada Elections Act
money was furnished to the candidates by a central committee. The hon. member's bill seeks to ask that central committee to divulge the source and the names of the contributors to the fund. Every one who dropped something in the hat would have to include his name with the contribution. One cannot reconcile the logic of the hon. member's bill and the regulations-


Frank Howard: I would submit there is more logic in the bill than there is in your argument.


Mr. Lamberi:: The hon. member's bill asks for a declaration or disclosure of the sources of funds by a central committee. If a central committee of a political party is asked to divulge its sources of revenue, surely to goodness when it passes the hat the C.C.F. party is in the same position as any other.
I understand that in the city of Sudbury during the last election campaign, and perhaps prior to it, there was outside the pay offices of the International Nickel Company a type of receptacle much like those used by the Salvation Army at Christmas with a sign asking men to contribute to the campaign of the C.C.F. And still this bill seeks to have divulged the sources of funds and the names of contributors.


Frank Howard: Declared as meeting collections and accepted.


Norman Platt Lambert: It is very easy to defeat what is sought to be accomplished by this bill. It would be easy to organize a meeting of contributors to a political party, gather them in a small room or hall and go about with a hat collecting cheques or bills. It is all the same. I would submit that this bill has so many loopholes, contains so many points that are vague, nebulous and not clearly defined that it could not accomplish the purpose the hon. member has in mind.
The hon. member says he wants political purity. When we speak of political purity I am reminded of a bill which was introduced in this house in 1938 by an hon. member of the other place. It was known as Bill No. 90. I understand that its popular name at that time was Power's political purity bill. According to my research it was introduced on March 28, 1938. The bill had a checkered history. It was debated on first reading and then sent to a committee. Presumably the committee had some discussion on it but at the same time they had before them another political purity bill which apparently occupied them at greater length. The committee reported that because of the contentious nature of the other bill they had before them they had not been able to consider Bill No. 90 for any length of time and

therefore could not report much progress. Parliament was prorogued and that is where Bill No. 90 died.
As a matter of fact that bill went much further in purpose than does the one before us. It sought to have the moneys received by a political party paid into a specific bank account and stipulated that payments of all kinds by a political party should only be made from that one bank account.


Frank Howard: What has that got to do with this bill?


Norman Platt Lambert: I am indicating that there have been predecessors to this particular bill. I am attempting to draw a comparison between the principles of the two bills. The hon. member might perhaps be interested in knowing something about the other bill.


Frank Howard: How do you know that I do not?


Norman Platt Lambert: It is possible. The first object of Bill No. 90 was to make traceable and provide a public record of all receipts and expenditures for political purposes. The second object was to limit expenditures which may lawfully be incurred in promoting the election of a member. Some discussion took place about the limitation of expenditures which is not germane to the discussion this afternoon. If one considers the length and complexity of Bill No. 90 one can assume that some hon. members at that time felt that the problem existed which it is suggested by the hon. member for Skeena now exists, that there is something nefarious about politics and that political activity must always be carried out in the open. And that was so, as I have indicated before. To me there is as much value and right in keeping my contributions to a political movement anonymous as there is in keeping my vote anonymous. My contribution to a political movement represents a contribution in support of the ideas I hold.
The hon. member appears to be out after corporations and people who because they have the "limited" behind their names are in the category of big bad wolves threatening our economic and social life. I would ask him this question: what about contributions that are made to his own party from that and other sources?


Frank Howard: That is what the bill covers.


Norman Platt Lambert: It might be interesting to know, admittedly, but on the other hand people might not be interested in finding out.


Frank Howard: We have consistently made them public.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to some of the statements made by the hon. gentleman who introduced Bill No. 90 as recorded in Hansard, volume II, of April 5, 1938, at page 2025. I intend to quote only briefly from his remarks. The hon. gentleman said:
I agree, and I presume this will be urged during the discussion, that we must not go beyond the lengths to which public opinion would want us to go. ... It must have the support of the public, and this particular legislation must have the support of the persons most directly interested, namely, members of parliament. Otherwise it cannot be of any effect. I am quite aware it will be urged that you cannot make people honest by act of parliament.
There is much truth in that latter statement. If my hon. friend feels that we can legislate the people into morality, then I suggest to him and to this house that this bill misses the mark very widely.
I believe I have shown in the few moments during which I have spoken, that the amendments proposed in this bill to the Canada Elections Act contain so many loopholes that they would in no way clarify the law or improve election practices but would create more confusion and give greater opportunities for abuse.
On that score, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the bill, on the brief notice we have been given, is not one which should be considered in its present form by this house. I would suggest to the hon. member that he withdraw the bill, and if he wishes to consider his purpose more closely that he sit down, along with learned counsel who may assist him, and devise provisions which would make this bill rather more definite so that we could come in and say, "all right, we think this will accomplish the purpose". Honestly, Mr. Speaker, in its present form I do not think this bill will serve the purpose of getting at the source of imagined trouble which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) thinks exists and so motivates his thinking. In all earnestness I ask him to withdraw his bill and bring it in at some other time, when we have a committee on privileges and elections. We must before long go in the matter of revision of election practices. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has something on the order paper which has to do with elections and I believe the hon. member for Skeena has another in connection with the straw vote.


Frank Howard: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then, it is one of his colleagues. We are facing here a sort of scatter-gun campaign.


Mr. Palleil:: Scatter-brain.
Canada Elections Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Somebody suggests "scatterbrain". This is a matter of taste and interpretation but I would look upon it more as a scatter-gun campaign which I do not believe will accomplish anything worth while. If there are defects in the Canada Elections Act-and I would agree with hon. members that there are defects in certain sections-then, we should sit down in committee at the appropriate time and with the advice of the appropriate officials discuss these matters in their entirety. We cannot discuss the effect of certain other aspects of election practices within the ambit of this bill. When we have the whole election act before us we shall have an opportunity perhaps to redress some of the grievances that the hon. member for Skeena believes do exist, and there may be some. On that score, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I must oppose the principle of this bill.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has covered this subject very completely, and he has set forth several suggestions that I intended to put forth myself. In the few minutes that are available I hope I will not repeat too much of what he has put forward. This subject is one which is obviously prominent in the minds of hon. members because most of us have been through two elections within the past year. This refers not only to the expenses which the member himself has incurred but to those which the party has incurred as well.
I wonder whether this bill is aimed at the contributors or at the party? Perhaps it is a little of both. I think that if it is aimed at the contributor it is an effort perhaps to pin him down. Perhaps it is well known that some contributors manage to contribute to two or more parties. Theoretically there is nothing basically wrong with that if the contributor feels that it is his duty to see that the platforms and the literature of all the parties are put forward equally, but that is the theoretical basis. I think the practical basis is -and I think this is what the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has in mind-that perhaps some of those contributors, in supporting two or more parties, are just playing it safe. I believe they are perfectly entitled to do so if they feel that this will achieve what they expect. However, this brings up the second question to which I wish to refer. If there is any suggestion that those contributions amount to something corrupt or that practices coming from them are contrary to public morals, then I would say there is something to be concerned about; but there is no suggestion-at least I heard nothing in the introduction of the bill-that there is

Canada Elections Act
corruption and therefore it is not necessary to go ahead on the basis that we must pin those people down.
I feel that any legislation which tends to limit the rights of the public to do as they like, any legislation that tends to regulate what a person may do in general terms, must be justified. This is an instance of regulating the contributions that a contributor may make to a political party in the same way, as mentioned by the hon. member for Edmonton West, as revealing his vote or finding out which party he supports. Any such legislation that restricts or regulates the rights of private individuals or corporations must have some justification and must be necessary in the public interest, before this house should see fit to carry it.
There is another matter. That concerns the definition of a political party. The bill makes no attempt to define a political party in a manner which would meet a good many of the situations which arise. We know that in this house there are three recognized political parties. I would suggest that in the case of these three parties perhaps they can be readily identified and their national headquarters can be identified; but there are many people who run in an election under a variety of party names. If one person forms his own party and runs, is he a political party or is he merely an individual? I think that he is not a political party at all. Let us suppose, that two or more people are running on a similar ticket with a similar name. Would they become a political party? I think there is a possibility that they might be. There are always a number of people who run, as far at least as their public declarations are concerned, as independents. I think we must recognize that there is no independent party, as such, and therefore all the people who call themselves independent I submit should not be recognized as a party.


Frank Howard: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


Frank Howard: I am just trying to help him along until six o'clock, that is all. Does the hon. member realize that the definition in the bill which defines a political party is taken from the provincial elections act of British Columbia and has operated for some years to define political parties without any difficulties?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Not being from British Columbia I am afraid I am not aware of that fact, or whether or not it is a fact. Nevertheless I accept the hon. member's statement that this definition is contained in the British Columbia

act, but I have no knowledge of the working of that provision or the extent to which it has been satisfactory. Furthermore, I think it probably has no particular cogency in this house.
There is one other thing I was about to mention having to do with the fact that on the ballot papers there is no indication as to political parties. I know that my hon. friends in the C.C.F. group have advocated that party affiliations be shown on the ballot papers but that is not the case now and I feel that it is not desirable. How then can we determine to which party a candidate belongs when he runs on an independent ticket or as the candidate of a party not generally recognized?
Finally, may I say that I am not raising these matters as a smokescreen behind which to hide, because I am not in favour of the bill. There are many practical problems involved and they would result in fairly broad changes in the principles we now follow in this country. Therefore I am not in favour of the bill as it now stands.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, elections cost money.


Mr. Habel:: That is what Mr. Duplessis says!


Paul Raymond Martineau: It seems that, when the time comes around for federal elections, a certain number of contributors always turn up at the right moment and provide what are referred to as "the sinews of war", and the campaign is on.
As for the bill proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I recognize that it is no doubt inspired by a certain spirit of idealism, which I cannot criticize and I therefore congratulate the hon. member for bringing about a discussion on the contribution of electoral funds. However, I do not believe that the bill will accomplish its purpose, since it purports to change, as it were, to a certain degree, human nature itself.
There is already in the Canada Elections Act a parallel to the bill now proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. I mean the report which all candidates are required to fill as regards contributions received and expenses incurred. However, in spite of all the precautions taken in the Elections Act to give a definition of numerous offences, often subject to very serious penalties, everybody

admits that the reports filled in by candidates and their official agents, as to their expenses, are not complete.
I do not say that candidates or their agents send in reports which are deliberately inaccurate, but there are a thousand and one ways of eluding that provision of the act which, for all practical purposes, becomes inoperative and, in my view, encourages a certain hypocrisy.
Hon. members also know that many expenses specifically prohibited by the Elections Act are made just the same, not by the candidates or their official agents, but by other people who take part in elections and spend money for purposes which, under the act, are illegal. We know it and I believe that if this bill goes through, the same situation would prevail. The parties would, as a matter of form, send in reports stating amounts of official contributions. However, beside this official accounting, there would be an unofficial accounting, and a large number of contributions would not be accounted for.
I also feel that we should oppose this bill for the sake of public morality. If it went through, it would indeed give many people an opportunity to violate an explicit provision of the Elections Act. That is, in my view, one of the objectionable features of this bill. There are of course many others minutely described earlier by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
I think it would be impossible in practice to apply this legislation. That is why, in spite of all the statutes that are enacted, the matter of electoral funds and expenses, not only of political parties, but of candidates, is always surrounded with mystery. Despite the inadequacy of the present system, there have been no suggestions of dishonesty or evidence of contributions made for the express purpose of illegally obtaining political advantages after the elections.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock. With the permission of the house, may I have the next order called so that the house can resolve itself into ways and means and resume in that capacity after the adjournment.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Rea in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Excise Tax Act AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide, among other things:
1.	That the sales tax on the following goods be repealed:
(a)	certain building materials, as follows:
(i)	chimneys for buildings, not including fireplaces;
(ii)	cornice, frieze, pilasters and other units or members of wood milled for use as structural or architectural building components, not including assembled or unassembled cabinets, counters, cupboards, furniture, ironing boards, work benches and similar installations;
(iii)	ash handling and fuel handling equipment for use with furnaces for the heating of buildings, when connected directly to such furnaces and installed in the same building as such furnaces;
(iv)	fuel oil tanks for use with furnaces for the heating of buildings and connected directly to such furnaces;
(v)	latch sets, master key cylinder blocks, knobs and hinges;
(vi)	hard surface plastic laminated building materials;
(vii)	underlayment material for hard surface floor coverings for permanent bonding to floors;
(viii)	articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of the foregoing.
(b)	certain goods sold to or imported by municipalities for their own use and not for resale, as follows:
(i)	culverts;
(ii)	structural aluminum for bridges;
(iii)	fire truck chassis for the permanent attachment thereon of fire fighting equipment to be used directly in fire fighting;
(iv)	fire hose including couplings and nozzles therefor;
(v)	diesel fuel oil for use in generating electricity;
(vi)	goods for use as part of sewage and drainage systems;
(vii)	articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of the foregoing.
(c)	certain agricultural, horticultural and forestry goods as follows:
(i)	stock conditioners, condiments and food supplements for addition to poultry, cattle and other stock feeds;
(ii)	goods enumerated in Customs Tariff item 417:
"Machinery and apparatus and complete parts thereof and structural iron and steel, of a class or kind not made in Canada, when imported for use exclusively in the construction or equipment of factories for the manufacture of sugar from beetroot, or for receiving sugar beets, under regulations prescribed by the minister;"
(iii)	individual tree guards and tree protectors not exceeding thirty-six inches in height;
(iv)	cut flowers;
(v)	materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of grain or seed cleaning machines and parts thereof;
(vi)	rodent poisons.
2.	That the present exemption for fruit juices which consist of at least ninety-five per cent of pure juice of the fruit be extended to fruit juices consisting of at least eighty-five per cent of the pure juice of the fruit.
[Stage Direction]
Excise Tax Act
3.	That the wording of the exemption for "bases or concentrates for making beverages other than soft drink beverages" in Schedule III be changed to read:
"Bases, not including fruit or imitation fruit bases, for making non-alcoholic food beverages; fruit bases or fruit concentrates for making beverages, when sold in containers not exceeding ten ounces and consisting of at least eighty-five per cent of pure juice of the fruit."
4.	That the wording of the exemption for "flavouring extracts" under "Foodstuffs" in Schedule III be changed to read:
"Food flavouring extracts, emulsions and powders, not including those for beverages."
5. That the exemption for desks and chairs specially designed for class room use when sold to educational institutions be extended to apply to chalkboards, desks, tables and chairs, excluding upholstered chairs, without the requirement that they be specially designed for class room use.
6. That the exemption for fire brick, plastic refractories, high temperature cement, fire clay and other refractory materials be extended by removing the present condition requiring them to be "for use exclusively in the construction or repair of a furnace, kiln or other equipment of a manufacturing establishment".
7.	That the exemption for materials consumed or expended directly in the process of manufacture or production of goods be clarified and brought into line with the exemption for fuel for lighting or heating, which excludes fuel for use in internal combustion engines.
8.	That advertising sheets, local bulletins, local circulars and similar publications be excluded from the exemption for newspapers unless they have qualified as a newspaper enjoying second-class mailing privileges.
9.	That certain goods enumerated in Customs Tariff item 848 continue to be exempt from sales tax by listing in Schedule III of the Act the following Tariff items under which these goods are being regrouped by Customs Tariff Resolutions:
399a, 399b, 399c, 848, 848a, 848b.
10.	That payments under section forty-seven of the act to the institutions for children and aged, infirm or incapacitated persons to which that section applies, be increased
(a)	by enlarging the class of such institutions eligible to receive such payments by removing the present requirement that the shelter or care provided must be permanent or semi-permanent;
(b)	by including in the payments an amount equal to the taxes paid on purchases made within two years prior to certification by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and made by or on behalf of the institution in the course of construction during that period.
11.	That the annual fee for sales and excise tax licences be abolished.
12.	That the excise tax on special editions of non-Canadian periodicals imposed by Part II of the act be repealed.
13.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution be deemed to have come into force on the eighteenth day of June nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.
Charles Edward Rea: I rather assume perhaps, as you have done in the past, although it will be one resolution, for discussion purposes we might go through it item by item. The first one is No. 1 (a). Is there any discussion on this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask you a question just so

that we will clearly understand the procedure that you have suggested. You suggest that the general discussion should be on what item?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Chairman, I do not think you are suggesting that there ought to be general discussion; but in keeping with the practice that has been followed on budget resolutions, while under this heading of Excise Tax Act there is one resolution, what you were suggesting was that we should follow the practice we followed with reference to the resolution respecting income tax and treat it as one resolution but call the paragraphs seriatim.


Charles Edward Rea: So it is clause 1, paragraph (a) which takes in from (i) to (viii). There are eight parts in it.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the hon. member for Essex East was trying to be helpful.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course he was.


Lionel Chevrier: What I was inquiring about was whether it is the intention to take the whole resolution or to take clause 1 (a) and go through it and dispose of it and then go to clause 2.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I take it that what you have called now is the whole resolution but for convenience of discussion and in order to contribute to orderly discussion you are calling the paragraph numbered 1 in the resolution.


Charles Edward Rea: Paragraph 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Finance this question. If he were discussing the question of the excise tax on automobiles, under what item would he discuss it if he were sitting on this side of the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I were sitting on that side of the house I would realize that there is nothing in this resolution with regard to the excise tax on automobiles and I would know that if I attempted to discuss that subject I would be completely out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We want to help my hon. friend.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is now engaged in tactics that are certainly not calculated to promote the swift disposal of the matter. Certainly one is entitled to discuss something that is not provided for in this particular resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Mr. Bourque:: Can the minister tell me when the time will come to discuss article (b):
Certain goods sold to or imported by municipalities for their own use and not for resale, as follows:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do it right now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps it would facilitate matters Mr. Chairman, if you would call paragraph (a) now and if there is no discussion on paragraph (a), call paragraph (b); then my hon. friend would have the opportunity of discussing the matter to which he refers.


Charles Edward Rea: Clause 1, paragraph (a) which takes in items (i) to (viii).


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that the proper place to discuss the particular matter I have in mind, along with others, particularly at this moment, namely the failure of the Minister of Finance to provide for some reduction if not the elimination of the excise tax on automobiles would be at this very stage in our proceedings and I propose to do that unless the Minister of Finance, who seems to be concerned about our procedure, can offer some valid explanation as to why I should not do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend knows that the place where he can raise that subject for discussion, and where indeed he did raise it, was in the budget debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, we did that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; he did so there. Quite so. It was proper to do so there. That was the place for my hon. friend to raise objection to the omission from the budget proposals of something he thought should have been there provided. We are now on the resolution respecting the amendments to the Excise Tax Act. There is in this amendment nothing that says anything about the excise tax on automobiles.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is my point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What my hon. friend is proposing to do is to start another budget debate and, with great respect, Mr. Chairman, I submit that is completely out of order in this committee of ways and means when we are dealing with these resolutions. You have the rule binding in committee that the discussion must be relevant to the item before the committee; and there is nothing in this resolution that says anything about the excise tax on automobiles. This matter has been discussed before, Mr. Chairman. The same point arose when the first
Excise Tax Act
of the budget resolutions was called in committee of ways and means. The same issue arose there and the chairman corrected some hon. gentlemen who sought to engage in another budget debate. If my hon. friend were right, Mr. Chairman, it would mean that every time you called the budget resolution with respect to the amendment of one of the taxing acts anybody would be quite in order in starting another budget debate over what he considers to be the shortcomings of the budget with reference to proposals affecting that particular act. We have before us a resolution that deals with a number of specific proposals for amendment of the Excise Tax Act. In my respectful submission discussion must be relevant to the terms of the resolution before us; and according to the orderly procedure that has been settled in these cases it must, in my submission, be relevant to the particular section of the resolution that is immediately before the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I speak again to the point of order, Mr. Chairman? I think there can be no question as to my right to discuss this matter on this resolution. The authority for so doing lies, of course, in the practice of this house and the rules of this house. The resolution states:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide, among other things:
My hon. friend makes a number of points. One of them was that the opportunity for engaging in this discussion resides in the budget itself. My hon. friend will recall that during the budget debate I took advantage to make reference to this matter, along with other matters. But there can be no question of the right of an hon. member in discussing a particular act to suggest in the course of remarks that he may choose to make that the measure is faulty in that it does not include items which the member may feel should have been included. That is precisely my position now. That is also the position which my dear and hon. friend took on May 18, 1954. If he will look at Hansard-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You had better see whether he took it successfully or not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will deal with that matter when I deal with the substance of what I have to say. If my hon. friend will look at Hansard for 1953-54 at page 4815 he will find that the minister of finance then

Excise Tax Act
presented the motion dealing with the amendments that he had in mind with regard to the Excise Tax Act. We find this:



[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide, among other things:
My hon. friend used the same resolution on that occasion as that which is being used tonight, and which has always been, as I am seeking to do. Then after the resolution was introduced there followed a preliminary statement by the minister of finance. Then, as found at 4817 of Hansard, my hon. friend began to discuss his amendment to the Excise Tax Act and in the second paragraph on the left hand side of the page he said this:
The matter I should like to mention, sir, is not to be found in the resolution as such. My purpose is to express regret that no action has been taken by the Minister of Finance in regard to the matter.
Then he referred to the matter which he specifically had in mind, namely the exemptions from sales and excise taxes. My friend spoke at some considerable length-no, I am wrong, on that occasion he was to the point- but the fact is that he did resort to the precise procedure which I am now following and that, Mr. Chairman, is certainly an excellent and highly authoritative precedent for the action I am taking.
An hon. Member:: Was there a ruling on it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No objection was taken for the simple reason that there could be no exception taken except by one who for some reason or other was anxious to pass, surreptitiously and too quickly the measure he was asking us to approve.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now that my hon. friend has spoken to the point of order, may I challenge his statement that the course he now proposes to follow is in keeping with the practice of the house. The fact is that two years ago this issue arose just as it is arising now and that was the occasion for a ruling by the Chairman, who was deputy speaker at the time, and which is to be found in Hansard for April 3, 1957. The house was then in committee of ways and means on a resolution respecting an amendment to the Income Tax Act, which resolution was preceded by similar words as is the present resolution, namely:
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide, amongst other things:
And then followed some nine paragraphs setting forth detailed proposals for amendments to the Income Tax Act. The hon. member for Greenwood, as financial critic of
[Mr. Martin (Essex East),
the opposition, began to make certain remarks of a somewhat general nature concerning the Income Tax Act and the failure of the budget to make provision for relief from the burden of that act. He was challenged by the then minister of finance who said in effect that the hon. member was making another budget speech and then on the second page of the discussion the chairman intervened. At page 3022 of Hansard of April 3, 1957, this is what the chairman said:
Order. May I intervene here to say that I believe to some extent we are repeating what would more appropriately be said in the budget debate. I have not interrupted the hon. member up to this point because I thought he was laying a groundwork for discussion of this resolution but I must point out to the hon. member that we are now discussing the resolution with regard to income tax which is very confined and set out in numbered paragraphs. I do not believe that a general speech of this kind is in order.
If I allow latitude to the hon. gentleman I of course must allow latitude to other hon. members to reply and we are in committee governed by the strict rule of relevancy. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the proposals which are set out in this particular resolution.
What could be more clear than that, Mr. Chairman? A specific ruling two years ago by the chairman of the committee, who was then the deputy speaker, the late Mr. Robinson, and who said on that occasion that the hon. member who was speaking must confine his remarks to the proposals set out in that particular resolution.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is a sound and binding ruling which completely meets the point raised by my hon. friend. It is not only, as was mentioned by the chairman on that occasion, that if the latitude sought by my hon. friend is accorded to him it must also be accorded to all hon. members of this house, but there is also the point that the Excise Tax Act deals with hundreds upon hundreds of commodities and chattels and if discussion is permitted on anything in that act then we might as well reconcile ourselves to being here for months. If my friend, the hon. member now discusses something not contained in the budget resolution-and the words "automobiles" or "motor vehicles" are not to be found in this budget resolution-then he or any other hon. member of this house is perfectly in order in discussing any one of the hundreds of items to be found in the schedules to the Excise Tax Act.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the ruling made in April, 1957 is sound and binding and completely precludes my hon. friend from following the course he has indicated he wishes to pursue.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, may I
speak on the point of order. My hon. friend,

the Minister of Finance, who has just spoken, in past years has invariably taken advantage of his privilege to speak on this stage of the discussion of the budget resolutions. I think it was in 1956 that he himself was given a privilege in this house to the full extent of 40 minutes-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


William Moore Benidickson: -to discuss why, in a
resolution relating to the Excise Tax Act, the government had not seen fit to deal with the Carter commission. In addition, this particular problem arose on July 10 of this session and you, Mr. Chairman, said, when as it happens I spoke on that occasion, that I should make no general observations about the budget but that I was perfectly at liberty to refer to things in and things which should be in the resolution before the committee. That is recorded at page 2113 of Hansard of July 10 of this year.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might be
heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. With reference to the argument of the Minister of Finance, I would like to draw your attention to the speech made by the hon. member for Greenwood as recorded at page 3021 of Hansard for April 3, 1957, where he said:
I wish to make one general observation about the minister's budget.
Then follows a lengthy argument about the budget; not about income tax at all, but about the budget, and throughout the whole of this discussion it continues in this vein. That was the point on which the chairman was ruling, and I would like to read the following paragraph to illustrate my point:
The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond complained when speaking in the debate that I had failed to appreciate the various functions a modern budget can perform-
That is the sort of remark made by the hon. member at that time; it was a general budget speech that was being delivered and the objection was taken to that very point. The ruling was that the hon. member's remarks must be confined to the resolution and in this respect I would draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the rule itself, Rule No. 59 (2):
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
The item under consideration is that it is expedient that the committee pass judgment on the wisdom of introducing a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act, that is to say, whether or not an item should be introduced to amend that act. Perhaps it should not be introduced because it is going to be defective
Excise Tax Act
because it does not deal with articles that should be dealt with and I submit for these reasons it is quite clear that any discussions limited to excise tax items which should be or should not be in the amendment are relevant.


Mr. Crestohl:: If it is intended that the debate should be limited strictly to those items listed in the resolution that means that there is no meaning whatsoever in the words "among other things" I think the minister should at least inform the house what is meant by the words "to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide, among other things." I think those words are superfluous if the debate is to be restricted only to what is listed in the resolution, and I respectfully submit that the words "among other things" open the door wide for us to debate any matter which has to do with the Excise Tax Act. We have had one such experience quite recently in connection with the Dominion Succession Duty Act, with regard to one very brief paragraph. But we have received a bill containing close to 60 sections, and I respectfully submit we should be able to debate under this heading anything which we can possibly visualize as being brought in under the act, and this would be provided for by the phrase "among other things."
Then, too, if the minister should say that we cannot now go into these matters because he interprets it as being another budget debate, I would suggest that in the budget debate speeches are limited to 40 minutes, and inside those 40 minutes an hon. member is expected to cover four different budget resolutions. I submit that to debate four different resolutions a member of the house should have the opportunity to debate each one for the full length of time.


Charles Edward Rea: I must ask the hon.
member to speak about the point of order.


Leon David Crestohl: I am talking about the point of order. I am suggesting we should be given the full period of time in which to talk about each one of these resolutions, because we do not have that facility in the general debate on the budget.


Charles Edward Rea: It is, of course, up to the Chair to follow the regulations set out here, and with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Ottawa West, standing order No. 59 does say in section (2):
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Now this is an amending act, and when you amend an act it does not open up the discussion of the full act. All hon. members

Excise Tax Act
realize that. The Chair wants to be as generous as possible, of course, in order to help the thing go through, but we cannot let this grow into a debate on the entire Excise Tax Act, and therefore I will have to ask members to limit their general remarks to items that appear in this amendment. There is no other way, and that is the ruling of the Chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With the greatest possible respect, Mr. Chairman, if I may refer to one observation you made in your ruling, this is not an act or a bill, but a resolution asking us whether it is expedient that a bill be introduced and surely what we are debating here is the acceptance of what is to be put before us or some different course, otherwise there would be no point whatever in having a resolution. I would, of course, agree with the view taken by Your Honour if this was a bill under discussion, but there is no bill before us, and no act being amended as yet. What we are discussing is whether there should be a bill.


Charles Edward Rea: I realize this is a resolution-


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of your ruling, and the importance of this question, may I suggest that Your Honour, who always does his best to devote painstaking care to these matters, may want to give further consideration to the point which has been raised. The Minister of Finance, commenting on what I said, really did not touch the point-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order. The ruling has been made. Surely, Mr. Chairman, you have made your ruling and it is not open to the hon. gentleman to argue the point.


Charles Edward Rea: I think the hon. member for Essex East realizes that the Chair has made its ruling and that the matter is disposed of unless anyone wishes to take it further.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I regret I will have to appeal your ruling.


An hon. Member:: Get the flag.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea) resumed the chair, and the acting chairman of the committee (Mr. McGee) made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, in committee of ways and means,
when the committee was considering a resolution to amend the Excise Tax Act, the chairman ruled that, in accordance with standing order 59 (2), the debate must be relevant to and confined to the provisions of the proposed resolution, whereupon Mr. Martin (Essex East) appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea) put the question as follows:
[The Deputy Chairman.]
The question is an appeal to the house from the
ruling of the chairman of the committee of ways and means, as follows:
"In committee of ways and means when the committee was considering a resolution to amend the Excise Tax Act, the chairman ruled that in accordance with standing order 59 (2) the debate must be relevant to and confined to the provisions of the proposed resolution, whereupon Mr. Martin (Essex East) appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair."


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: This is not debatable.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard not on the point-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: There is no right to be heard.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes there is.


Some hon. Members:: Closure again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When the Speaker is on his feet no one has the floor.


Charles Edward Rea: We are on clause 1, items from (a)(i) to (viii).


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; we are on the
general discussion. I have a submission to make. We are now dealing with the general resolution. Mr. Chairman, I move that the resolution be amended by adding thereto a subparagraph in the following wording:
That the excise tax on motor vehicles be repealed.
Mr. Chairman, I am now ready to speak to the proposition which I have put forward.
57071-3-161
Excise Tax Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, would you please put the motion? Would you read it, please?


Charles Edward Rea: It is moved by Mr. Martin (Essex East):
14. That the excise tax on motor vehicles he repealed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that amendment is so clearly out of order that I find it difficult to speak with restraint-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -when it is put forward by a member who has been in the house now for nearly 20 years and yet puts forward an amendment as completely and clearly out of order as that one.


Lionel Chevrier: Why don't you speak to the point of order?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Every member knows perfectly well that no such amendment may be moved, except by a member of the government, as it affects the balance of ways and means and consequently, like all the resolutions contained in the budget, requires the royal recommendation. This matter does not even require discussion. It is so palpably and obviously an attempt to circumvent the rules of the house for what is thought to be a political advantage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal with the last observation made by the Minister of Finance. He knows perfectly well that there is a duty on those of us on this side of the house to do what we think is in the interests of the nation and of our constituents. I could well ask you, Mr. Chairman, to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw what he said but I am not going to. The hon. gentleman said that he spoke in reply to my proposal with restraint.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not in reply; I was speaking on the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Many of us had occasion within the last few minutes to give careful consideration to the desirability of restraint with regard to procedural matters that have taken place in a most unusual way in this house tonight.


William Moore Benidickson: We did not ask for a flag.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -before my hon. friend tears any more of the rules of the house to shreds and tatters it might be well

Excise Tax Act
to remind him that it is completely out of order to reflect on the vote of any hon. member of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You cannot raise a point of order on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, of course, dismisses the right of an hon. member to take the course I have taken by using a series of adjectives, none of which, of course, was based in any way upon the rules of the house. My hon. friend did not refer Your Honour to any rule of the house. He simply said that it was so obvious that my motion was out of order that it required no comment except the whole series of characteristic adjestives that flowed from the lips of my hon. friend. I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, 1958, No. 265 on page 221, which is in these words:
No member other than a minister of the crown may introduce a bill for the reduction of duties. The government must take full responsibility for the taxation levied to provide the revenue. But the house-
I would call these words to Your Honour's attention.
____enjoys complete freedom to make every representation possible to the government with regard to the manner in which the ministers discharge this responsibility.
I will make no comment about the implications of that with respect to the right of those of us on this side or in any quarter of the house to discuss the taxation policy of the government, but I would call Your Honour's attention particularly to the final sentence.
This duty the members may perform by moving amendments to reduce the taxes proposed by the administration.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. On the
question of whether or not this motion is in order, in the opinion of the chair it is not relevant and therefore is not in order. There is nothing in this amendment about automobiles.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, whenever the untrained seals have completed their noisemaking-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With the greatest possible respect to the chair, surely the excise tax, [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).l
the one now under consideration, is the tax which does in fact impose this impost on motor cars and surely, therefore, it is a mistake on Your Honour's part, quite an honest one, I feel-


An hon. Member:: It has been disposed of.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to suggest that this does not come within the ambit of the act which the minister is now proposing to have amended.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, you have made your ruling and the hon. gentleman is simply seeking to argue over a ruling that has already been made.


Charles Edward Rea: May I point out to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that what he says is certainly relevant to the Excise Tax Act but it is not relevant to this resolution which has to do with certain amendments to the act. The chair has made its ruling and certain courses are open to hon. members. Shall we continue the discussion on clause 1?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I accept Your Honour's ruling without any question or reservation whatsoever. I should like, therefore, to address myself to the motion now before the house. The motion is that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and I say, sir, that it is not expedient to introduce this totally inadequate measure which is being proposed by the Minister of Finance. I say that the most obvious of the inadequacies which make it most inexpedient for us to be asked to do this is the total failure of the government to do anything about the excise tax on motor cars which is imposed under this act.


Charles Edward Rea: I know that the hon. member was in the house, knows what has transpired and is aware of the ruling of the chair. We cannot make this discussion an automobile runway through the house at the moment and I must ask the hon. member to address himself to the resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall endeavour to comply with the increasing limitations and restrictions imposed by this government, which went to the country to restore the rights of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and which is now exhibiting what it meant by restoring the rights of parliament. Surely what British parliamentary history was about was the right of the House of Commons to decide what imposts should be imposed upon the people. Here

we have a Minister of Finance with the arrogance to say that what he says is expedient we have got to accept as expedient without any question, that we cannot discuss whether he has chosen the right way or the wrong way to do this, that we simply have to rubber stamp this limited, inadequate list of things totally at variance with what the minister promised from one end of the country to the other in two general elections. In other words, sir, the word "expedient" in any dictionary that I have ever looked at, if it means anything, means "advisable".
This course is advisable or it is not advisable. Surely it is impossible to discuss that matter without discussing alternatives. As I say, it seems to me that since the most important perhaps of any of the imposts in the public mind imposed under this tax-and one which, incidentally, the government promised either to take off or substantially reduce

is not comprehended within this resolution, it makes a mockery of parliament, of our procedure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and of our whole parliamentary procedure if we are to be gagged and circumscribed in this fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must ask the hon. member to come back to this resolution of the amendment and not to wander away from it quite as much as he has done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he thinks that the public will be satisfied and will consider it an expedient thing to do to remove the sales tax on chimneys instead of removing it on motor cars, particularly as this tax is not even being removed on all chimneys but only on chimneys not in fireplaces.


An hon. Member:: What about rat poison?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I ask the minister whether he thinks that the public is going to be satisfied-the public to which he made these sonorous promises in those booming organ tones with which we are so familiar- to have the tax taken off cornices, friezes, and pilasters and other units or members of wood milled for use as structural or architectural building components, not including assembled or unassembled cabinets, cupboards, furniture, ironing boards, work benches and similar installations. If the minister thinks that this kind of puny reduction is going to satisfy the people who were promised that the excise tax on motor cars was going to be taken off, he is very much mistaken.
57071-3-161}
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Ricard:: This is just a start.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Moreover, if the minister thinks that ash handling-


An hon. Member:: What is going on now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I forbear to make the obvious reference to ash handling, Mr. Chairman. If the minister thinks that the removal of the sales tax on ash handling and fuel handling equipment-I suppose the fuel handling equipment is to lift coal that is no longer being mined in Nova Scotia-will satisfy the public. If the minister thinks that the public will think this is as good as taking the tax off motor cars, I think the minister had better not go back to the public again for a while.


An hon. Member:: You should know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then, of course, perhaps he has come a little bit nearer to what would be expected when he proposes to take the tax off fuel oil tanks for use with furnaces for the heating of buildings and connected directly to such furnaces. But now here is one that will certainly give a thrill to the average man who expected the cost of motor cars to be reduced. This is something that is going to give him a thrill when he finds that the sales tax is going to be taken off latch sets, master key cylinder blocks, knobs and hinges.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Is there anything about bubble gum?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then, Mr. Chairman, we come to something that I think will have an almost universal appeal from cape Bonavista right to Estevan point. The tax is to be taken off hard surface plastic laminated building materials. I have no doubt that it is a very good thing to take the tax off these things. I have no objection to it whatsoever. But I suggest that it is a rather inadequate substitute for what before the election-and particularly before the election a year ago-the public were told they could expect from hon. gentlemen who are now sitting on the treasury benches.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What about bubble gum?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then we have another one. The tax is to be taken off underlayment material for hard surface floor coverings for permanent bonding to floors. Of course, the sex appeal of that is evident to every hon. member and it will no doubt have a tremendous appeal to the people of Canada. Then finally we have this one:
(viii) Articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of the foregoing.

Excise Tax Act
I do not know what is used in the manufacture of the foregoing, and I imagine that matter is going to present certain difficulties to the tax gatherers.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that the municipalities are going to be grateful for this very small, miserable pittance that is to be offered to them compared with the total removal of the sales tax on purchases by municipalities which hon. gentlemen promised when they were on this side of the house.


Mr.   Hicard@: They did much better than you have done.
Pickersgill: This is another example of what happens when people talk before they think-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is happening now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and promise before they understand. Then, Mr. Chairman, we have this one:
(c) certain agricultural, horticultural and forestry goods as follows:
(i)	stock conditioners, condiments and food supplements for addition to poultry, cattle and other stock feeds:


An hon. Member:: Very funny.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not funny at all. It is undoubtedly a very good, small, insignificant tax reduction-


An hon. Member:: Like yourself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -for which a few people will be quite grateful. But it is certainly not what the people expected when they voted to have the tax taken off motor cars. Then we have this one:
(ii)	goods enumerated in Customs Tariff item 417:
"Machinery and apparatus and complete parts
thereof and structural iron and steel, of a class or kind not made in Canada, when imported for use exclusively in the construction or equipment of factories for the manufacture of sugar from beetroot, or for receiving sugar beets, under regulations prescribed by the minister;"
I have no doubt my friend the hon. member for Essex East will be happy to vote for this small bit of relief for the people in his part of the country, but it is not something that is going to have a universal appeal. I have a feeling that the people in the counties of Kent and Essex would have preferred to have the tax taken off motor cars even if they had to go on paying the sales tax on this machinery and apparatus not made in Canada.
Then we have this one, and of course it will appeal to all lovers of trees all over the country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, as some hon. gentleman suggests it will appeal to more than lovers of trees. We have:
IMr. Pickersgill.]
(iii) individual tree guards and tree protectors not exceeding thirty-six inches in height;
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why not 37 inches?


Mr. Kucherepa:: Why don't you check it yourself?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder why the minister took 36 inches? I think that matter can be left to the public imagination.


An hon. Member:: We will leave it to yours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then of course we have: "cut flowers". I am surprised that it appears the flowers may be of any colour and not merely blue ones. Once again it seems to me that this is reminiscent of other days which were sad days.


An hon. Member:: Liberal days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This will not bring a thrill to the hearts of the ordinary people of Canada who hoped and expected and believed that if they voted for the Minister of Finance and his friends they would have the price of motor vehicles in Canada reduced.


William Moore Benidickson: Also shoes and clothing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then we have materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of grain or seed feeding machines and parts thereof, but I will leave this for the hon. member for Assiniboia to discuss at the appropriate time.


John William Kucherepa: He is not here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I suppose he is in the same place as your leader.


An hon. Member:: And yours.


An hon. Member:: They know all about the next one!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You had better call on the C.C.F. to help you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe I caught the remark of an hon. member opposite to the effect that I ought to know all about the next one. I do not know that I would be particularly proud to be a member of a government the symbol of whose budget is the reduction of the tax on rat poison.


An hon. Member:: And bubble gum in your time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am only too happy to leave the Minister of Finance to his own rat poison. These are apparently all the repeals. Then we have the second section which is certainly the kind of section that a person who wanted to buy a motor vehicle at a lower price than he is now paying would find more than adequate as compensation for his disappointment.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: What did your government do?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, good heavens, Mr. Chairman; good heavens.


John William Kucherepa: That staggers you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are in this house to debate the ambit of this resolution and the hon. member, the aspirant for the position of parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, now proposes to debate the record of the previous government. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, in raising such an issue he is out of order.
I suggest, furthermore, that it is doubtful that this second section will provide the compensation, the heart balm the minister apparently thinks it is going to provide, especially in respect of the exemption of fruit juices, which consist of at least 95 per cent of pure juice of the fruit, which exemption is to be extended to fruit juices consisting of at least 85 per cent of the pure juice of the fruit.


John William Kucherepa: Go drink some orange juice, Jack.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Tory government is not satisfied merely to water down its promises but now it is going to water down our fruit juices. However, here we have something which has perhaps a little more appeal if my first glance has not deceived me, and it may be that after all there is something hidden in this amendment which will be a compensation to the people of Canada. Here it is:
That the wording of the exemption for "bases or concentrates for making beverages other than soft drink beverages-
Apparently we cannot have cheaper motor cars but we can make beverages other than soft drinks and can console ourselves in that way, but I must say I find it an odd provision for the present Minister of Finance to be putting into the law.
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member had better read the whole section.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is to be changed to read:
Bases, not including fruit or imitation fruit bases, for making non-alcoholic-
Once again a disappointment-


John William Kucherepa: Are you disappointed,
Jack?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It reads:
Bases, not including fruit or imitation fruit bases, for making non-alcoholic food beverages;-


An hon. Member:: You talk as though you had been into it.
Excise Tax Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is speaking out of his own vast experience and so would no doubt be able to tell. It continues:
-fruit bases or fruit concentrates for making beverages, when sold in containers not exceeding ten ounces and consisting of at least 85 per cent of the pure juice of the fruit.
I do not know whether it should be pure fruit juice or pure juices of the fruit. No doubt that is a distinction, as the hon. member for Kootenay West would say, without a difference.
Next we come to paragraph 4, which seems to me will hardly compensate the present aspirants to motor vehicle ownership for not having the tax taken off which the Minister of Finance promised when he was on this side of the house. When such people read that instead of this tax reduction which they expected what they are going to have is an exemption on flavouring extracts-as a matter of fact there seems to be a lot of flavouring in this resolution-in foodstuffs under schedule III, which is to be changed to read:
Food flavouring extracts, emulsions and powders, not including those for beverages.
I think he is likely to be slightly disappointed. The popular appeal of that particular tax reduction will be obvious, and I use the favourite word of the Minister of Finance, to all who read, but I must say I do not know myself what it means.


An hon. Member:: That is understandable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then we come to another section which I admit is a concession of a very sensible nature. This is that desks and chairs designed for classroom use do not have to have a particular design. I realize I have taken a certain amount of the committee's time but I think perhaps if I had been allowed to express myself in the way I originally wished to do I could have said what I had to say much more briefly. Since I am forced to be strictly relevant to the motion before the committee, however, it does somewhat delay my progress. I must say the puritanical note in this particular section does rather astonish me.


William Moore Benidickson: Upholstery!


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whether the Minister of Finance has himself always had a hard seat I do not know but why children should be denied upholstery if the school boards want to provide it for them I cannot understand.


William Moore Benidickson: Or the whole school, for that matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The next paragraph, I think, must have been very close to the minister's heart because it seems to deal with

Excise Tax Act
refractory materials, and I could well understand why the minister would want to remove the tax on refractory materials because there are no materials which the minister handles better than those and in my experience there is nothing much more refractory than the most conciliatory of the minister's speeches, and those which are less conciliatory are even harder. Then we come to materials consumed or expended directly in the process of manufacture or production of goods which are to be clarified and brought into line with the exemption for fuel for lighting or heating, which excludes fuel for use in internal combustion engines. I have no doubt the minister will explain that it is a good thing-


William Moore Benidickson: This is going to cost the taxpayers more money.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -since he will not take the tax off motor cars, to make sure that he keeps it on the fuel that is used in the motor vehicles. Apparently that is the only object of this section of the resolution if it has any meaning at all.
And now we come to something that is not hard to understand from this government. Advertising sheets, local bulletins, local circulars and similar publications are to be excluded from the exemption for newspapers unless they have qualified as newspapers enjoying second-class mailing privileges. Evidently, the only kind of advertising that is to be free of taxation in this country is the advertising of hon. gentlemen opposite.
In the next section it is provided that certain goods enumerated in item No. 848 continue to be exempt from sales tax by listing in schedule III of the act the following tariff items under which these goods are being regrouped by customs tariff resolutions No. 399a and so on. I will not take the time of the committee by reading that. Again, it seems to me that this may have a useful and limited purpose, but that is very far indeed from what we were led to expect would be done in the first budget brought down by the Minister of Finance after all the promises we have heard in two succeeding elections. It seems to me that the rest of the provisions of this section have no real meaning at all so far as the general public is concerned.


An hon. Member:: There are 13 of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend suggests 13. Item 13 says:
That any enactment founded upon this resolution he deemed to have come into force on the 18th day of June, 1958.

I thank the hon. member for Cartier for having reminded me of a day that will go down in Canadian history as a day of dupes.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, coming from a constituency where the people are mostly workers and farmers I wish to say that what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has been saying tonight is just harmful tc our people. Those exemptions that are listed here will benefit the small people and it is unfortunate that a former member of the late government should be able to stand up here and complain because our present government, the Conservative party, is bringing some help to the small people. I do not intend to speak very much, and those fellows who hate the province of Quebec and who take every opportunity to run down their own province should shut up.


Charles Edward Rea: I would ask the hon. member to refer to the items in the amendment, and he should not be interrupted.


Mr. Robichaud:: Give us some more natural gas.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would you tell that gentleman from Nova Scotia who knows nothing about the province of Quebec to shut his mouth while we are talking?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he withdraw that last remark.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Particularly as all Nova Scotia members are Tories.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, the man is from New Brunswick and not from Nova Scotia, so-[DOT]


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken used words which are offensive and which are against the rules of this house when he said that an hon. member should shut his mouth. Those words are unparliamentary, and they should be withdrawn.
The next point is that the hon. member referred to hon. members from Nova Scotia, and most of the members from Nova Scotia, in fact all of them, are on the other side of the house. Your Honour asked the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot to withdraw and I think, on those two grounds, that he should not only withdraw but amend the offensive words he used when he asked the hon. member to shut his mouth.


Charles Edward Rea: I asked the hon. member to withdraw his remarks and I understood that he had, in fact, withdrawn them.


Some hon. Members:: No.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Could I ask the member to remain quiet?


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Charles Edward Rea: Did you withdraw those words?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: With respect to your order, sir, I will. I am not surprised to see the hon. member for Laurier coming to the rescue of his friend over there because the hon. member for Laurier came to my constituency, and the very fact that he did so-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must ask the hon. member to keep his remarks directed to the item under discussion or I will be forced to ask him to sit down.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: With all respect to your judgment I will only rise again and say that I feel sorry that the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate should think that he has to get up and feel sorry because the Conservative government brought in some measures to help the small people. Thank you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, with the
usual sense of responsibility and high regard for parliamentary procedures and constitutional practice which is shown in this house by members of this group on all occasions, I wish to deal with one or two matters in this budget resolution which concern some of my constituents.
I wish to deal first of all with an item which is of serious concern to the small mining and lumbering companies in my constituency and, I presume, in many other areas.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if the hon. member would wait until we reach that item because there is an amendment on it which, I believe, will deal with the point I have in mind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the minister responded to the entreaties of the companies in question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can tell the hon. member that there is an amendment to be introduced when we reach this particular item. I think I know the point he has in mind, and if we can proceed with this in order I think he will be satisfied.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Very well, Mr. Chairman, that is so heartening that I will sit down forthwith.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a question to ask the minister. I wonder if the minister could explain to the committee if item 1 (a)(v) where it mentions latch sets, master key cylinder blocks, knobs and hinges includes the latch sets, master key cylinder blocks, and
Excise Tax Act
hinges, which are used on certain machines which I cannot discuss at this time but they are machines on wheels propelled by a motor.


Mr. McGee:: How clever.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I can hardly restrain myself at the mirth that the hon. gentleman has invited the committee to indulge in, but putting aside that natural temptation perhaps I should say to my hon. friend that this new amendment will round out the present exemption for locks and lock sets.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On what?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On anything; even my hon. friend.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You wish he had one, eh?


Charles Edward Rea: Section 1(a) clauses
(I)	to (VIII); does anyone wish to discuss anything in that section?


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, having in mind the different items the Minister of Finance mentioned-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


William Hector McMillan: -in connection with the elimination of sales tax for everything purchased by-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


William Hector McMillan: -school boards and municipal councils, I wonder if (b) (III) would apply to them. It relates to fire truck chassis for the permanent attachment thereon of fire fighting equipment to be used directly in fire fighting.


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


William Hector McMillan: Municipalities have to buy chassis for dump trucks, for general use trucks, for garbage trucks and equipment of that nature. I was just wondering if I will be permitted to use the word "truck" which, is after all, an automobile. I also wondered if it is allowable to refer to chassis for police cars, for instance. The municipalities buy a great many cars for police and other services. I am wondering just whether or not we will be allowed to discuss cars under this particular item. Certainly if the Minister of Finance wanted to do something for the municipalities he could have helped them by eliminating the sales tax on the particular trucks and cars to which I have referred that municipalities use in their municipal services.
Some of the small municipalities might require a chassis for a fire truck only once in 10 or 15 years but they must be purchasing general purpose trucks every year or two. If the minister sincerely wanted to assist the municipalities he could have done

Excise Tax Act
so by removing the sales tax on these trucks and cars that are purchased by municipalities.


Charles Edward Rea: Is there any other discussion on section 1 (a), clauses (I) to (VIII)? The hon. member for Welland referred to section 1 (b). If there is no more discussion on (a) we could proceed to (b).


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, as I recall it there has never been any ruling to the effect that when you have a resolution such as the one before us it must be dealt with seriatim until the general discussion is concluded. It is one resolution and invariably in the past we have gone to subsections only with the unanimous consent of the house or committee.


Charles Edward Rea: That is what the Chair was asking, if there was any more discussion on those points.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the items covered in this particular section all apply very aptly to conditions which we are experiencing in Canada today. Earlier during the course of this session we passed legislation to increase the homebuilding program in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder how the hon. member for Rosthern can relate a speech on housing to any of the particular items in this part of the resolution.


Charles Edward Rea: I should like to ask the hon. member for Rosthern how he intends to do that?
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, I think it is perfectly obvious in the items set forth.


Charles Edward Rea: I again ask the hon. member for Rosthern what he proposes doing.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, thanks very much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One rule for both sides of the house; that is all we ask.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of items that directly affect the building of new housing and the repair of old housing. As I look down the list I see reference to chimneys for buildings. If I were building a house today I should be very glad to note the removal of sales tax on chimneys. There is also provision for the removal of sales tax on assembled or unassembled cabinets, counters, cupboards, furniture, ironing boards, work benches and similar installations. These represent a big reduction in the cost of these articles that 
go into the building of a home and this will also benefit the young and old homebuilder alike.
In the next section there is reference to ash handling and fuel handling equipment for use with furnaces for the heating of buildings when connected directly to such furnaces and installed in the same building as such furnaces. Even the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will realize that the person installing a furnace in a building will receive a considerable saving in respect of the sales tax.


Mr. Rouleau:: How much?


Edward Nasserden: If a home builder instals an oil burner as most people do today he will require a fuel tank and because fuel tanks are referred to here he will benefit through the removal of the sales tax on this item. When you build a house-despite what has been said by hon. gentlemen in the opposition during the course of this debate- you have to instal a door with a lock and hinges. Here, too, the homebuilder will have a saving in the sales tax on these items. Reference is also made to hard surface plastic laminated building materials and the sales tax has been removed on these items. There is not an hon. member in this house tonight who does not know that those who are building homes today are using more plastic and laminated materials than were ever used in years gone by. The use of these modern building materials is increasing and I commend the minister for removing the sales tax on these items.
I want to assure the minister, those on the treasury benches and hon. members of the house as well that in a constituency such as mine where many of the people are engaged in the building trade and many are improving the existing housing the people there appreciate the savings they will make in respect of these items.
Section 1 (b) deals with various things the municipalities are using in the vast development program that is taking place in all parts of Canada today. The municipalities are seeking to provide the essential services to the people who are crowding into the urban centres.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He is making the minister's speech.


Edward Nasserden: The removal of the sales tax on such items as culverts, structural aluminum for bridges, fire truck chassis for firefighting equipment, fire hose including couplings and nozzles, diesel fuel oil for use in generating electricity and goods for use

as part of sewage and drainage systems will be of vast assistance to the municipality in terms of savings.
We come now to section 1 (c) which refers to certain agricultural, horiticultural and forestry goods.
Stock conditioners and food supplements used by livestock raisers and other people are things that enter into the cost of production on every farm in Canada, particularly on the livestock farms. As a farmer who has carried on livestock raising in years gone by, I know that the removal of the sales tax on these particular items will certainly be welcomed by the particular people who will have occasion to make those savings.
There is an item here having to do with cut flowers and hon. members, particularly hon. members of the opposition, have been tossing a lot of words around about cut flowers. This is all part of the same kind of program that is giving young people in this country a little bit of savings in this budget that they need to help them in their work. I certainly think the members of the opposition would not want us to raise the sales tax on cut flowers. I have not heard them say that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about rat poison?
Mr. Pallet!: What about bubble gum?


William Moore Benidickson: What about boots and shoes?


Edward Nasserden: Rat poison, as hon. members know, is a very important part of the control program of rats which take a tremendous toll in this country. It is amazing to think that a government of this country would have put a sales tax on rat poison, and yet that is the kind of government we had for 22 years.
We heard quite a lot about the exemption for fruit juices. We know what the result of this particular clause in the legislation will be. It will mean that the producers of fruits in this country will have a little better market for their fruit products and as a result they will have a little better income. From that point of view I do not think any member of the opposition will go out electioneering and say that they want to put a sales tax on fruit juices.
We now come to the exemption on desks and chairs. I am not going to say very much about it. I think all of us should agree that so far as desks and other classroom equipment are concerned we can be thankful that we have a government that recognizes that education is as important as this government believes it is and which was not
57071-3-162
Excise Tax Act
recognized by a government that was in power for so many years.
One of the interesting clauses is clause 6 which reads:
That the exemption for fire brick, plastic refractories, high temperature cement, fire clay and other refractory materials be extended by removing the present condition requiring them to be "for use exclusively in the construction or repair of a furnace, kiln or other equipment of a manufacturing establishment".
This will have a tremendous impact on the over-all building trades in this country. It will bring about a saving to almost every person engaged in the building of houses who uses these particular materials.
Something was said about advertising. I thought for a minute that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would seize on the second-class mailing privileges. We did not hear him say anything about that. All I want to say is that the action of the government will promote the distribution of this material without sales tax. Clause 11 reads:
That the annual fee for sales and excise tax licences be abolished.
I understand that the fee was $2 and that it was paid by those who collected the excise taxes for the government. That was the way it used to be under a Liberal administration. Under the present administration the people who collect the tax will not have to take out a licence to collect it. I do not think I need to say anything more about that. There might be some item that we would like to see included.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward Nasserden: I wish to thank hon. members of the opposition for their applause; I really appreciate it because I know they are going to have a hard time to applaud what they have said in the house tonight when they go out on the hustings in the next election campaign.


Mr. Denis:: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether the hon. member for Ros-thern who has just resumed his seat is his unofficial or unchosen parliamentary assistant?


Romuald Bourque: In the Montreal Star of June 2, 1958, there appeared the following news item:
Civic Fight Urged for New Tax Split Victoria, B.C., June 2-Canadian municipalities' coffers have become appalling reminders of old Mother Hubbard's cupboard, Mayor Lloyd D. Jackson of Hamilton, Ontario, today warned the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities convention.
"They may not be as bare but they have nevertheless been pretty well stripped by the federal and provincial governments," the outgoing president pointed out at the opening meeting of the three-day convention.
Asks "Lost" Revenues

Excise Tax Act
"All we want is the return of the equitable share of revenues we formerly enjoyed and lost out to the two governments, but without any strings attached. We want our autonomy more than ever so that we can properly do the job-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,-


Charles Edward Rea: I am afraid I will have to remind the hon. member that we are not on dominion-provincial relations; we are on an amendment to the Excise Tax Act.


Romuald Bourque: Mr. Chairman, if I may say so respectfully, sir, the tax exemption has to do with both the provincial and the federal governments and I was coming to that. I was building up my case to come to that. It is related to tax exemption.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not related to that at all.


Romuald Bourque: I respectfully submit it is.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member can come to it without taking so long to build up his case.


Romuald Bourque: The tax exemption paragraph is a significant paragraph and that is what I was building up to, Mr. Chairman. The article goes on:
We want our autonomy more than ever-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you to bring the hon. gentleman to order. We are not discussing municipal autonomy; we are discussing an amendment to the Excise Tax Act which, among other things, has the effect of relieving municipalities from the excise tax on certain things they purchase. This has nothing to do with the subject the hon. member is quoting from and I suggest we come down to the business that is before the committee. This evening we have had a demonstration of slapstick comedy and everything else. I suggest we now come down to the business of the house which we were elected by the people of Canada to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More dictatorship.


Romuald Bourque: I am not slapsticking or doing anything that the minister suggests. If he does slapsticking or whatever he calls it that is his affair. I am strictly trying to bring my point to the question of tax exemption for the municipalities. I think I have the right, Mr. Chairman, to make the point when we are dealing with a tax exemption clause.
I should like to read now, Mr. Chairman, from the submission to the government of Canada on behalf of the municipal government of Canada:
The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities . . . acts as the spokesman of the municipal governments with respect to matters of interprovincial and national concern.

The federation, over recurrent years, has come before the dominion government-


Charles Edward Rea: I am going to have to ask the hon. member to discuss the items before us.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think you are well aware that the speaker is mayor of one of our important municipalities and I have every reason to believe that he is building up to the taxes which are imposed on municipalities which he hopes would be reduced, such as the items we have before us in this resolution.


Charles Edward Rea: I realize the hon. member is trying to build up a case on that matter and I appreciate it very much but I do hope that the hon. member will cooperate with the Chair and please direct his attention to the subject matter of this resolution to amend the Excise Tax Act.


Romuald Bourque: May I submit again since there are three levels of government, namely the federal, provincial and municipal, that the taxes which the municipalities have to pay are relative to what I am saying, as are tax exemptions also. I am leading up to that by quoting from an authority, the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. Taxation is related to tax exemption, Mr. Chairman, and that is exactly what I am alluding to now.
The federation, over recurrent years, has come before the dominion government for the purpose of presenting resolutions passed at its annual conference and ... to place before the cabinet the point of view of municipal governments with respect to... municipal problems which . . . fall within the scope of the dominion government's jurisdiction. Many of these matters are of a financial nature. Others have to do with trends and developments which... are of vital interest to the government of Canada.
In earlier submissions to the dominion government, the federation outlined in considerable detail the background problems, particularly the financial problem, which have plagued municipal governments ever since pre-war depression years . . . The central fact which emerges is that whether it is depression, war or prosperity, municipal revenue resources are both tenuous and vulnerable. In periods of deflation-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I must rise again. Your ruling is simply being defied by the hon. member. We are not dealing here at all with the question of municipal revenues. We are simply dealing with the problem of amending the Excise Tax Act in certain respects and in one particular with respect to certain purchases made by municipalities. This has nothing to do with municipal revenues and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call upon the hon. member to adhere to the rulings of the chair instead of defying them as he is now.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member is leading up to the point that a sales tax is imposed upon municipalities which makes it more difficult for them to carry on their financing, and I am sure that he is simply indicating that this has universal appeal to all municipalities in the country. He will come to the point of the reduction in sales tax with respect to goods purchased by municipalities.


Charles Edward Rea: I will have to ask the hon. member to come to the point right away. I have allowed him a lot of leeway in building up to it but I now ask him to co-operate as much as possible with the chair and come to the point.


Romuald Bourque: The case has been very well put by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and as this is nothing but closure I will sit down.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution does not relate to the revenue of municipalities but it does relate to the removal of the excise tax on municipal purchases. In the list there is structural aluminum for bridges. I wonder whether the minister is aware that bridges constructed in municipalities are constructed with steel. Steel is largely used for the construction of bridges. I think there is an important omission there. I should like to have the minister's opinion and ask him whether he will not change his mind to include steel for the construction of bridges.
I also wish to express regret in the same way as has been done by my colleague that there is no provision in the resolution to abolish the excise tax on motor vehicles used by municipalities. It has been pointed out that municipalities use trucks in different departments performing various works and also motor cars for police departments. These are important purchases. The provision in the resolution takes care of a few items and the changes are welcome indeed. They are a help but they do not go far enough. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Finance will consider this matter and will bring in an amendment to include the purchase of such things as trucks and automobiles for police departments. These are important purchases involving the spending of a lot of money by municipalities.
There are other items purchased by municipalities which I think should be included in the resolution but which are entirely overlooked. Culverts are included as well as goods for use as part of sewage and drainage systems but I do not see anything here to cover the piping used by waterworks departments. There are other very important omissions that should be considered and I hope
57071-3-162J
Excise Tax Act
that the minister will give consideration to the matter. We appreciate the little that has been done but I think a lot more can be done on behalf of the poor, hard pressed municipalities.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that here the government is doing something to aid the municipalities that the former government was not prepared to do. My hon. friend speaks about structural steel for bridges. Evidently he is not aware that it is already exempt.


Lionel Chevrier: 'By the former government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are doing
something here to remove the discrimination left by the former government against structural aluminum for bridges.


George James McIlraith: Because it was not used at that time. Don't you know that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would expect that kind of remark from the hon. member for Ottawa West-


George James McIlraith: It is a fact.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -who cannot help saying these things. We do not hold it against him. He cannot help it. The fact is that there is substantial benefit in this resolution so far as the municipalities are concerned.


William Moore Benidickson: How much in dollars?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend has been told frequently already that there is over $5 million of tax relief here but he has forgotten so often that I suppose it is permissible to remind him again.


William Moore Benidickson: Are you referring to this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The purpose of this clause with respect to municipalities is to bring direct tax relief to them and the particular items selected for exemption here in the case of purchases by municipalities for their own use are items in every case for which there is justification for the exemption that we are recommending. We believe they are workable from the administrative point of view and they are sound in principle.


George James McIlraith: On the item of structural aluminum for bridges, I want to point out to the committee that the reason it is now in the resolution is that it is a new use for aluminum developed in the last few years. The principle has always been that structural steel and metal for the building of bridges have been exempt in the case of purchases by municipalities. The minister has been quite inadequate in giving the reason for this
2564	HOUSE OF
Business of the House change. Structural aluminum is a new material developed for this use and therefore this change is in accordance with the principle established by the previous government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman has answered himself when he says it has been in use in the last few years.


William Moore Benidickson: May I just say that the minister himself advocated full exemption for municipalities and school boards in the past and I simply refer him to his own words on page 4375 of Hansard for June 2, 1955.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Which the hon. gentleman and all of his party opposed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And which you are not doing.


William Moore Benidickson: This is a $1 million affair for 1958-59.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting government leader what the business is for tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the first item to be taken up tomorrow will be the bill arising out of the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture on today's order paper respecting the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The second one will be the item appearing as No. 11 on today's order paper, the bill arising out of the resolution.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt at this point? Does the acting house leader mean item 12? He refers to the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I refer to the bill that was introduced today following approval of the resolution that appears as No. 12 on today's order paper. The second will be the bill that was introduced arising out of the passing of the resolution which is No. 11 on today's order paper, namely the bill respecting the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. Following those two bills, the house will turn to the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether he can give any indication of what the business will be on the following day, namely Thursday?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not yet.


Lionel Chevrier: May I remind the acting house leader that we on this side of the house expect a debate on external affairs on that day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The reminder is not necessary really, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend is aware of what has been said in the house in recent days on that subject not only with regard to a possible debate but also with regard to other aspects of current international events.


Lionel Chevrier: That is true, Mr. Speaker. But on the other hand, because of the discussion which took place then, I think we on this side of the house were led to believe that a debate on external affairs would take place on that day and I hope it will be possible for the government to have such a discussion then.


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

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	Have any representations or requests been made to the government since June 1, 1957, asking for subventions for shipping on the coast of British Columbia?
2.	If so, (a) from whom and upon what date was each representation made; (b) what subvention was asked in each case; (c) which routes was it asked that the subvention apply to; (d) what was the disposition in each case?
3.	What subventions exist on the British Columbia coast at the present time?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	(i) (a) Union Steamships Limited, July 2, 1957; (b) $510,891 per annum subsequently increased to $631,783 during later negotiations; (c) I. (A) Vancouver, Ocean Falls, Butedale, Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Stewart, Ford's Cove, Alice Arm, Kincolith, Port Simpson; fortnightly-year round; (B) Vancouver, Ocean Falls, Butedale, Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Masset, Port Clements and Shannon Bay; fortnightly-year round.
II.	Vancouver, Englewood, Alert Bay, Port McNeil, Sointula, Port Hardy, Namu, Ocean Falls, South Bentinck Arm, Bella Coola; weekly-year round.
III.	Vancouver, False Bay, Englewood, Beaver cove, Alert Bay, Port McNeil, Sointula, Port Hardy, Sullivan Bay, Simoon Sound, Minstrel Island; weekly-year round.
IV.	Vancouver, Mansons Landing, Englewood, Alert Bay, Sointula, Port Hardy, Smiths Inlet Canneries, Duncanby Landing, Goose Bay Cannery, Wadhams (for R.I.C. and Kildala Canneries) Beaver Cannery, Namu, Bella Bella Cannery, New Bella Bella, Klemtu, Butedale and Kitimat; for period April 1 to September 30, 1957.
(d) Consequent upon failure of negotiations Union Steamships Limited withdrew from service in early January 1958 and subsidy was paid pro rata on the basis of $325,000 per annum as provided in the main estimates, 1957-58.
(ii)	(a) In December 1957 negotiations were initiated with the Canadian Pacific Railway to maintain part of the services formerly operated by Union Steamships Limited; (b) the subvention requested for the remainder of the fiscal year was $82,400; (c) Vancouver to Stewart, calling at Alert Bay, Ocean Falls, Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Stewart, Alice Arm, Kincolith and Port Simpson with calls at
Questions
Klemtu and Butedale, if traffic warranted; (d) service as in (c) from January 7 to March 31, 1958, for a subvention of $82,400, and from April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959, for a subvention of $194,500.
(iii)	(a) Canadian Pacific Railway, December 19, 1957; (b) $100,000 per annum; (c) Vancouver and the west coast of Vancouver island; (d) Service as in (c) from April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959, for a subvention of $100,000.
(iv)	(a) Union Steamships Limited, January 21, 1958; (b) one year at $200,000 or five years at $150,000 per annum; (c) Vancouver to Bella Coola, calling at Campbell River, Beaver Cove, Alert Bay, Port McNeil, Sointula, Port Hardy, twice weekly; one voyage per week being extended to Namu, Ocean Falls and Bella Coola; (d) Application refused.
(v)	(a) Northland Navigation Company Ltd. February 20, 1958; (b) $50,000 for one year; (c) Vancouver to Butedale, calling at Englewood, Sointula, Bella Coola, Ocean Falls, Campbell Island, Klemtu and Butedale; (d) service as in (c) from July 1, 1958, to June 30, 1959, for a subvention of $50,000. Actual commencement not now anticipated until mid-August.
(vi)	(a) Widsten Marine Services Limited, March 14, 1958; (b) $24,000 per annum; (c) feeder service: Bella Coola to Ocean Falls, South Bentinck to Ocean Falls, Bella Bella to Ocean Falls; (d) further information requested. No reply received.
(vii)	(a) Union Steamships Limited, June 27, 1958; (b) $2,700 per trip for duration of C.P.R. strike; (c) present Canadian Pacific Railway northern route between Prince Rupert and Stewart; (d) no decision yet.
3.	The annual subventions now existing are:
(a)	Vancouver and northern B.C. ports: subvention to Canadian Pacific Railway, $194,500;
(b)	Vancouver and west coast of Vancouver island: subvention to Canadian Pacific Railway, $100,000; (c) Vancouver, Bella Coola and Butedale: subvention agreed for Northland Navigation Company Limited, $50,000 upon commencement of service.


AIRPORT SURVEYS, THETFORD MINES, QUE.
Mr. Roberge: 1.	Have technical surveys been made in the Thetford Mines district, county of Megantic, relating to the eventual construction of an airport?
2.	If so, on what dates were the first and last surveys made?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.	.
2.	January, 1955.

Questions


WHEAT BOARD SELLING AGENTS
Mr. Argue: 1.	What are the names of the grain firms and brokers which have acted as selling agents for the Canadian wheat board for the crop years 1955-56 and 1956-57 respectively?
2.	What was the total quantity of wheat sold by each of these grain firms and brokers on behalf of the Canadian wheat board in each of the above crop years?
3.	What was the total commission paid to each of these firms by the Canadian wheat board in each crop year above for the sale of wheat?
4.	Which of these firms, if any, have made sales of wheat to China on behalf of the Canadian wheat board in each of the above crop years, and what was the quantity of wheat sold in each case?
5.	In what city does each of these firms have its head office?
6.	What is the method of determining what grain firms or brokers will act as selling agents for the Canadian wheat board?
7.	Does the Canadian wheat board allow its selling agent to act on behalf of another company or to transfer its contract with the Canadian wheat board to another company?
8.	If so, (a) were any firms acting on behalf of the Canadian wheat board involved in such arrangements during either of the crop years 1955-56 and 1956-57; (b) what were the names of the firms or brokers so involved, for what firm did they act, or to what firm had they transferred their contracts?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	1955-56 crop year-
Name of Company and Head Office:
The Agro Company of Canada, Limited, Montreal.
Bunge Corporation, Limited, Winnipeg.
Burrard Terminals, Limited, Vancouver.
The Canada Grain Export Company, Limited, Vancouver.
The Canadian Consolidated Grain Company Ltd., Winnipeg.
Cargill Grain Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
Continental Grain Company (Canada) Limited, Winnipeg.
Co-Operative Wholesale Society Limited, Vancouver.
East Asiatic Company (B.C.) Limited, Vancouver.
Federal Grain Limited, Winnipeg.
Folliott Grain Limited, Winnipeg.
Gauer Grain Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
The Grain Growers Export Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
Hall Bryah Limited, Vancouver.
Inter-Oceanic Commodities Limited, Winnipeg.
Lake of the Woods Milling Company, Limited, Montreal.
Leval and Company Incorporated, Winnipeg.
James McAnsh Limited, Vancouver.
McCabe Grain Company Limited, Winnipeg.
Maple Leaf Milling Company Limited, Toronto.
Milroy Grain Company, Limited, Vancouver.
National Grain Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
The Norris Grain Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
Northern Sales Limited, Winnipeg. Northern Sales (B.C.) Limited, Vancouver. The Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Limited, Montreal.
Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, Winnipeg. Pethick Grain Limited, Winnipeg.
K. A. Powell (Canada) Limited, Winnipeg. K. A. Powell (Pacific) Limited, Vancouver. Ralli Brothers Limited, Winnipeg.
Range Grain Company, Limited, Winnipeg. James Richardson and Sons, Limited, Winnipeg.
Robin Hood Flour Mills Limited, Moose-Jaw.
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Regina. Scottish Co-Operative Wholesale Soc. Limited, Winnipeg.
Searle Grain Company, Limited,			Winnipeg.
Smith Vincent Winnipeg.	&	Company,	Limited,K. B. Stoddart Winnipeg.	&	Company,	Limited,
Toronto Elevators Limited, Toronto.
1956-1957 crop year-
The Agro Company of Canada Limited, Montreal.
Bunge Corporation Limited, Winnipeg.
Burrard Terminals Limited, Vancouver.
The Canada Grain Export Company Limited, Vancouver.
The Canadian Consolidated Grain Company Ltd., Winnipeg.
Cargill Grain Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
Continental Grain Company (Canada) Limited, Winnipeg.
Co-Operative Wholesale Society Limited, Vancouver.
The East Asiatic Company (B.C.) Limited, Vancouver.
Federal Grain Limited, Winnipeg.
Folliott Grain Limited, Winnipeg.
Gauer Grain Company Limited, Winnipeg.
The Grain Growers Export Company Limited, Winnipeg.
Hall Bryan Limited, Vancouver.
Lake of the Woods Milling Company, Limited, Montreal.
Leval and Company Incorporated, Winnipeg.
McCabe Grain Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
Maple Leaf Milling Company, Limited, Toronto.
Milroy Grain Company Limited, Vancouver.
National Grain Company Limited, Winnipeg.
The Norris Grain Company Limited, Winnipeg.

Northern Sales Limited, Winnipeg.
Northern Sales (B.C.) Limited, Vancouver.
North Atlantic Grain Company, Winnipeg.
The Ogilvie Flour Mills Company, Limited, Montreal.
Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, Winnipeg. Pethick Grain Limited, Winnipeg.
K. A. Powell (Canada) Limited, Winnipeg.
K. A. Powell (Pacific) Limited, Vancouver.
Ralli Brothers Limited, Winnipeg.
Range Grain Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
James Richardson & Sons Limited, Winnipeg.
Robin Hood Flour Mills Limited, Moose-Jaw.
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Regina.
Scottish Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd., Winnipeg.
Searle Grain Company Limited, Winnipeg.
Smith Vincent & Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
K. B. Stoddart & Company, Limited, Winnipeg.
Toronto Elevators Limited, Toronto.
Tricerri Grain Corporation, Winnipeg.
(2)	It is not the policy of the board to disclose the competitive position of shippers and exporters in their capacity as agents of the board.
(3)	The Canadian wheat board does not pay any commission to its selling agent. The agent may include a commission which becomes a part of his selling price and is paid by the purchaser.
(4)	No agents made sales of wheat to China on behalf of the Canadian wheat board during the crop years 1955-56 and 1956-57.
(5)	See paragraph 1 above.
(6)	The Canadian wheat board classifies its agents as to eastern agents and western
Questions
agents. All eastern agents must have an office in Winnipeg and all western agents an office in Vancouver.
In addition to the above requirement, the Canadian wheat board, before granting an agency agreement, requires that: (a) The company is in good financial standing and is registered to do business in Canada; (b) eastern agents are members of the Winnipeg grain exchange and lake shippers clearance association and that western agents are members of the Vancouver grain exchange.
7.	The Canadian wheat board does not permit an agent to transfer a contract that it has entered into with the board to another agent. An agent who has entered into a contract with the board may recall the wheat to another agent but the board looks to and holds the originating agent responsible for fulfilment of the contract.
8.	See paragraph 7 above, and also, the Canadian wheat board does not have information in respect to wheat that may have been sold by one agent to another during the crop years 1955-56 and 1956-57.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Mr. White: 1.	How many persons were employed in the civil service of Canada on January 1, (a) 1956; (b) 1957; (c) 1958?
2.	What is the estimated increase for the year 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1. (a), (b) and (c)
Employees in departmental branches, services and corporations (not including agency and proprietary corporations listed in parts C and D of the Financial Administration Act)
Prevailing Ships' officers	Casuals
End of month	Salaried rate	and crews Total and others iDecember,	1955	
142,934	24,070	2,239	169,243	13,079December,	1956	
145,815	23,729	2,220	171,764	12,307November,	1957	2	
151,758	24,904	2,547	179,209	12,338
(,) Employees whose positions are not established by treasury board. <2>
Latest available.
2.	Latest information available is for November 1957.


MARGARINE AND OTHER SPREADS STATISTICS
Mr. Deschatelets: 1. Are records kept by the dominion bureau of statistics as to the number of pounds of margarine or similar spreads sold in the different provinces?
2. If so, how many pounds of margarine or similar spreads were sold in the province of Quebec, during the period from June 1, 1957 to June 1, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	No, records kept are for production only.
2.	Answered by No. 1 above.

Wednesday, July 23, 1958


RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES
[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.