1958-08-06

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from two members notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, as follows:
Of Arza Clair Casselman, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Grenville-Dundas, by decease.
Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the chief electoral officer to issue a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on estimates.-Mr. Smith (Calgary South).
Ninth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park) presented the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: It may be appropriate at this time to deal with the point of order which was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam which, as hon. members will recall, was raised when the hon. member for Peterborough presented to the house the seventh report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
The point of order was to the effect that this report was not in accordance with the findings of the committee, and it was suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that the Speaker should either declare the report out of order or recommit the matter to the committee. Since the point was raised yesterday I have considered the matter at some length, and have had the benefit of the assistance of the Clerk of the house.
The report of the committee was as follows:
Your committee has considered the following bill and has agreed to report it without amendment:
Bill No. S-6, an act respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.
This report was duly signed by the chairman as having been approved by the committee; moreover, it appears to meet every requirement of our practice in regard to content. It is suggested that on the face of it the report must be accepted as being in order.
The point of order is in effect an appeal to the house from a ruling of the chairman on a proceeding in a standing committee. The regularity of this course is open to question. The only known precedent in this regard arose in 1956 when the chairman of the standing committee on banking and commerce reported that his ruling had been appealed in the committee and he submitted the question to the judgment of the house. As recorded at page 6388 of Hansard for July 24, 1956, the then Speaker in part dealt with the question as follows:
I have to rule now that the appeal from the chairman's ruling should be settled in the committee on banking and commerce and not reported to this house.
Many hon. members who are here today will remember that incident. The Minister of Justice took part in the discussion and supported the view which the Speaker announced, as did a former member, Mr. Stanley Knowles, and as did Mr. Walter Harris and others. I think, in fact, all who spoke to the point of order were in agreement that the chairman's ruling in committee should not be brought to the house by way of appeal but should be settled in committee.
On the other hand, if the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam wishes to appeal to the Speaker rather than to the house it must be stated that there is no known precedent wherein the Speaker of the house has acted either as arbitrator or as judge in connection with the regularity of any proceedings in any committee of the house.
Without passing judgment on any proceedings in committee on this bill, I suggest that it would be dangerous to follow this point of order as a precedent and thus allow members to call into review any or all proceedings in standing and special committees. Such a course would inevitably involve numerous

Committee on Railways, Canals, etc. and interminable discussions which could seriously impair and impede the business of this house.
I find, therefore, that it would not be practicable for the Speaker, nor would it be competent for him, to review a ruling upon the regularity of a proceeding in a standing committee. This decision, of course, does not interfere with or deprive the house of its jurisdiction over its standing committees and their reports.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling and comments with respect to Bill No. S-6 which has just been dealt with, I think it will be quite in order for the house to deal with the question of recommitting the bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; and if I am in order in doing so at this time I should like to move that Bill No. S-6, in respect of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, be recommitted to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. The motion will be seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier).


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member draft his motion and submit it? While the hon. member is preparing this motion I should be glad to hear any hon. member who wishes to comment on the regularity of these proceedings. We are now engaged in routine proceedings under motions. The motion which is proposed by the hon. member for Skeena is one relating to a bill which has already been introduced into the house, and under standing order 41 notice of such a motion is not required.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: If I may
say so at this juncture, I think perhaps it would be useful to the house if the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Peterborough, were to explain exactly what took place. I must say that although I am a member of the committee I was unfortunately not able to be present in the house yesterday because of other work, and while the hon. member did make a statement earlier it was a brief statement of the facts, and I think it would be useful if we were given a brief resume of what has taken place.


Mr. Speaker:: Without disagreeing with the hon. gentleman, I suggest that the regular course would be to accept the motion if it is in order, as it appears to me to be, after which, the motion being debatable, an explanation could be made before the house decides whether or not to recommit the bill to the committee.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: On the question of whether or not notice should be given of this motion, standing order No. 41 reads as follows:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.
And so on. Does that not mean that in a case of this kind there should be notice given? It does seem only reasonable that notice should be given to hon. members of the intention to move a motion of this kind. After all, it is interfering with the ordinary business of the house, and it would seem unreasonable that a debate should be precipitated on a question of this sort without some notice being given.


Mr. Speaker:: Does anyone else have a comment on rule 41?


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Speaker, on this particular point of order, I believe what the minister has omitted is that if the house does not take action without the notice required under ordinary circumstances, the bill could very well reach the committee stage of the whole house and even third reading before those 48 hours had elapsed. Therefore I submit that Your Honour is perfectly right in thinking that the motion is proper at this time. Your Honour in your remarks previously indicated that it is up to the house to decide on what to do with actions that have taken place in a committee set up by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given some thought to this present matter because of the ruling which I made earlier today. I considered what control the house would have over the matter if it did wish to recommit the bill for any purpose, whether to correct an irregularity, or with instructions, or for any reason whatever. It seems to me in reading rule 41 that the motion would properly be made at this stage of the proceedings. Even though it is a debatable motion it is one of those motions about the routine business of the house which presumably would be disposed of quite expeditiously.
The rule itself requiring notice, standing order 41, as I read it, expressly excludes a notice of motion relating to bills after their introduction, or to private bills. It seems to me this is that kind of motion, and I am disposed to accept the motion and to put it to the house.

Committee on Railways, Canals, etc.
It has been moved by the hon. member for Skeena and seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam:
That Bill No. S-6, an act respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, be recommitted to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to make a comment or two with respect to our reasons for moving this motion, and in explaining it make reference to some of the material which appears in the evidence and in the minutes of the committee of Tuesday, July 29, which incidentally were attached to the report of the committee of yesterday.
I would point out to the house first that our desire to deal with it in this fashion is merely in order that the committee may deal with the question in a regular manner.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. If Your Honour says I should have raised it earlier I must accept your ruling, but I was pondering the matter. I wonder whether in accepting Your Honour's ruling that such a motion could be made without notice-the motion that is now before us-there is not still the additional question of the occasion on which it should be made. I raise the question as to whether it should be made when the bill is again being discussed in the committee of the whole house, at which time I suggest, in light of Your Honour's ruling, the hon. member could move the motion without notice.
I am wondering whether the hon. member by moving such a motion can bring forward a matter for consideration at a time when it would not normally be considered. As I understand it, bills of this nature are normally considered in the hour from five to six o'clock on Tuesday and Friday evenings. My suggestion is that the proper time and the only time the motion could be made would be when it comes up during the course of those hours.
In the light of Your Honour's ruling I accept the fact that a motion can be made without notice, but I think it could only be made at that stage, and that therefore it cannot be made here under motions, which would in effect mean that the bill was being dealt with at a time when it would not normally come before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: There may be some force to what the hon. minister has just said. This is a novel matter, as far as I know; at least I recall no precedent at the moment for this sort of motion. I think it would be open to the house to appoint the time when the motion should be dealt with. If the
house will allow me a minute I will consult the Clerk on the point just made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may be permitted to elaborate, my point is the normal proceedings and routines of the house should not be interrupted. They are appointed by the rules, and a definite time is set out at which bills of this nature come before the house. I submit that it is not, therefore, proper for a member to move at this stage a motion which would have the effect of interrupting or changing the normal procedure of the house, the normal routine of the house, when in fact he can raise it at the time the bill will be bound to come before the house again.
It is not as though he would lose his right to raise it if he does not raise it now. I am merely arguing that that is the proper time to do so; otherwise we find the routine business is interrupted and the normal business of the house is interrupted. I suggest that that is not normally permitted, and especially not permitted when the matter can be dealt with in the ordinary way at the ordinary time.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, may I have a word on the point of order that has been raised. The chairman of this committee has reported, and I think the hon. member for Kamloops will agree that in effect that report is a motion even though no formal motion is moved.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: No.


Erhart Regier: Unless immediate action is taken in opposition to that motion, then on any following day the obvious ruling of the Chair would have to be that any objection to the acceptance of this report should have been made at the time the report was accepted by the Chair and in effect adopted by the house. Therefore I feel that this is the only time the hon. member for Skeena might have made this motion. Had he made it one day or several days later he would have been advised that this report had been accepted by the house, in that there was no contrary opinion or motion at the time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I point out that the hon. member for Skeena has made a motion, and the very fact of that having been done avoids the eventuality which is worrying the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. In other words, this motion is before the house; therefore the house could not proceed to deal with the bill section by section while this motion is outstanding. I suggest that the proper time, the reasonable time, to have the motion of the hon. member for Skeena considered would be during the hour from five to six o'clock on Friday;
3144	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways, Canals, etc. otherwise the result will be that government business which has been set for today may be interfered with for the whole afternoon, and certainly the intention of the rules was that questions arising out of private bills should be considered during the time for private bills.
So long as no other proceeding can be taken in regard to this bill in the meantime, I suggest to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam his fears will be met if the motion which has been now moved by the hon. member for Skeena is put down for consideration on Friday from five to six o'clock.


Erhart Regier: So long as the motion is accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: May I offer this for the consideration of the house. As the Minister of Justice says, it is a matter that would come up with the report of the committee, but this report does not have to be adopted by the house. Under standing order 20(l)(c) the reported bill is referred to committee of the whole in due course so there is no further motion with respect to this report other than the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on this particular bill. This procedure would take place on a Tuesday or a Friday at the appropriate hour. It is not a debatable motion, and therefore could not be amended at that stage, so it would be impossible for the house to express the wish, if it wanted to do so, that this matter be recommitted to the standing committee. This is not, therefore, the answer to the problem which the hon. member who makes this motion wishes to raise.
It seems to me that if the motion were allowed to stand it would block consideration of the bill, when it came to committee in its turn, until some disposition was made of the motion. The appropriate thing, therefore, is to dispose of the motion now. I express my view that this is a procedural motion and, while it can be discussed, it certainly should not be discussed at any length. It should be resolved almost immediately, and in that way not interfere unduly with the business of the house. There are other motions that must necessarily interfere with the business of the house, as hon. members know. For example, there is a motion on privilege or for discussion of the privileges of the house. My best judgment is that this motion is in order and ought to be disposed of expeditiously.


Frank Howard: It is certainly not my intention to delay the house for any length of time, but I think it would be worth while


if I were to make a few brief explanations arising out of the evidence presented along with the report in order to give to the house the events which in our opinion make the passage of this motion a necessity.
I would point out that on page 231 of the evidence with respect to this bill, as taken on Tuesday, July 29, 1958, there appears the following:


The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry? We will have a show of hands.
After the show of hands the clerk said:
Six in favour, eight against.
He indicated that clause 1 had not carried. Subsequent to that there was some doubt in the minds of members as to just what it meant, and at a later meeting a point of order was raised with respect to it. I would point out, in addition, that there is an inconsistency between the transcribed proceedings which I have just read and the minutes of the committee. You will recall I read a portion showing that the chairman had asked if clause 1 would carry and calling for a show of hands. On the show of hands it was found there were six in favour and eight against. In the minutes of the committee we find the following:
At one stage the chairman asked whether clause 1 carried. On a show of hands, the committee decided to continue the discussion.
Now I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the question posed by the chairman, as reported in the proceedings at page 231, was not, shall we have any further discussion; was not shall we consider this further, but was shall clause 1 carry. There is an inconsistency between the transcribed proceedings and the minutes themselves in that the proceedings show the chairman asking whether or not clause 1 shall carry and indicating the vote was in the negative by eight to six, whereas the minutes show that the committee decided to continue the discussion. This is another aspect of the matter that should be given consideration.
We appealed in what we thought was a reasonable fashion to the committee, stating that once the committee had taken a decision as indicated on page 231 of the proceedings not to carry clause 1, it should not then at a subsequent time have the right to reverse that decision. The committee should have reported to the house accordingly and asked that the bill be recommitted, as we are doing now in order that the proceedings may be regularized.
As you know, the committee cannot reverse its decision. I understood that in your ruling with respect to a point of order raised yesterday-I am not trying to put words in your

mouth, sir, but merely giving my understanding of what you indicated-you indicated that the regularity of the proceedings in the committee was open to question, and that is just what we are attempting to do. We are merely attempting to regularize the proceedings of the committee so that the conduct of the committee in considering this particular bill will be in accordance with the rules.
I submit that while there are certainly other matters which could be raised, and while there may be some discussion later, the only thing the house can do now is pass this motion in order that the committee may deal with the bill in accordance with the rules.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Since the committee has absolutely nothing to hide, and has been trying to be as fair as possible with the members and the company which appeared before the committee, I may say I have no objection to this bill going back to the committee. I should like to say, though, that the hon. member for Skeena, after the show of hands had been taken, moved that the committee adjourn until the minutes had been printed so they could get further information. I have nothing to fear in the committee, and if it is the wish of the house the committee could meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Were George P. LeBlanc and Alex P. Boudreau dismissed from the Cape Breton Highlands national park effective June 10, 1958?
2.	How long had each of these employees been employed by the national park?
3.	What was the reason for dismissal in each case?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingaie):: I wonder, in view of the fact the minister's estimates are called for this week, if it might be possible for him to furnish the answers to these questions before his estimates come up for consideration?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I will try, but I cannot promise to do so. I inquired about this matter two days ago, but they still had not all the information they needed.
Question stands.


CAUSEWAY CONSTRUCTION, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-ILE DES SOEURS
Mr. Cardin: 1.	By what authority and under whose responsibility was a causeway built recently between the
57071-3-199
Inquiries of the Ministry north shore of the St. Lawrence river and lie des Soeurs (lie St. Paul), Verdun?
2.	What was the cost of the said causeway and who defrayed the expenditure therefor?
3.	For what purpose was the said causeway built?
4.	Having regard to the site and to the construction of this causeway, what steps have been taken to avoid the worsening of the water pollution problem and of increasing the risks of flood due to ice drift in the city of Verdun and surrounding municipalities?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: In reply to part one, I may say that the authority for the construction of the causeway and bridge, now to be known as Champlain bridge, was contained in Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, such act providing that the work was to be under the jurisdiction, management and control of the national harbours board.
In respect of part two, a unit price contract, in the approximate amount of $273,500, has been let by the national harbours board.
Part three pertains to the purpose of the causeway. Its construction was made necessary to assist in the construction of the new bridge from Nuns' island to the south shore and in the construction of the bridge piers between Nuns' island and the city of Montreal. When it has served its temporary purpose the material will be used as permanent fill for certain portions of the bridge.
In reply to part four, I might add that large diameter pipes have been inserted so that a sufficient quantity of water will always flow and thus prevent water pollution above the causeway. The design of the causeway and the pipe installations were approved by the health authorities of the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. The top of the causeway is at elevation 40 feet, and since ice always forms above this elevation the causeway should have no effect on ice drift.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Having regard to the fact that the security council of the United Nations, of which Canada is a member, is meeting tomorrow to discuss this matter, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would give us the views of the government on the proposal to hold a special assembly of the United Nations on the Middle East as an alternative, apparently, to the small, informal, confidential summit meeting under United Nations auspices which we had hoped for and which we on this side of the house think would have been a more constructive procedure at this time for practical consideration of this important question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the government is concerned the attitude has been clearly set forth, that we felt there should be a meeting of the security council and that following opening statements on the part of members of the security council there should then be a meeting in private of the four or five powers concerned under the chairmanship or with the assistance of the secretary general.
That attitude we pressed for throughout and it received as I saw it, during the course of the recent debate on external affairs, the general approval of the house. However, Mr. Khrushchev has not fallen in line with the generally accepted view of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. In view of the reported acceptance by the United Kingdom and the United States of the suggestion now made by Mr. Khrushchev it is apparent that this will be accepted as the alternative to that which was generally acceptable up until two or three days ago by the nations in question. That being so, we can only hope that the assembly will be able to deal with the question. The first of the inscribed resolutions is that by the United States. The second will be that of the U.S.S.R. In view of the fact that the matter will be discussed in the security council, I do not think I should go further at this time to indicate what technique would be acceptable, except to say that all of us have a desire to attain that medium of discussion in the United Nations which will diminish the tensions existent in the Middle East. The United States had already asked for a special session, and now that has been re-emphasized in the Khrushchev letter. It is an alternative-and apparently the one that is going to be generally accepted-and while we would have liked to be able to secure a security council meeting, the security council being seized of this question, we feel that any discussion in that direction at this time would be purely theoretical and would be of no practical reality.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister confirm or otherwise, if he thinks it proper to do so, that the United States government had preferred a full and public meeting of the security council on this matter and did not favour a small, confidential meeting of certain members of the security council?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman, with his experience, will realize that discussions that have taken place in that direction should not be revealed. The very fact that the hon. gentleman was fair enough to couch his question in the manner he did indicates that is the answer he would have expected.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry to pursue this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I have one further supplementary question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister himself proposes to attend this special assembly session when it is held.


John George Diefenbaker: Until the question has been determined, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage in hypothetical considerations in that regard. The matter will immediately receive attention when the decision is reached.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, as he is the minister responsible for the C.B.C. Has the minister had complaints regarding a television program entitled "Death Wears Many Faces" which was broadcast on the C.B.C. television network on the evening of July 30? I have had many telephone calls and letters complaining about this program, and I am transmitting one of the letters I received to the minister. I will just read a few words and not take up the time of the house by reading it all.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is seeking information. He asked this question. I think he should leave it at that.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I want the minister to know that my people have complained about this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may send the letter over to the minister if he wants to do so, but I cannot allow him to read it.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any letters which I have received in connection with that particular program. It is possible that I have received some. As a matter of fact I get scores of letters about C.B.C. programs, commending some and criticizing others. It has been my practice to send them all over to the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for their attention. I will check my files, will also check with the C.B.C., and will answer the hon. member within a day or two or probably not until the first of next week, because I will not be in the house.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I thank the minister, and I will send him over the letter.


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The press this morning carried a report to the effect that the Canadian National Steamships have disposed of or are considering the disposal of their ships to Cuba. Recently we received a report that they were being sold to Panama. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to bring us up to date and tell us whether or not the ships have been sold, and what is the present position?


George Harris Hees: The management of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships have received a number of proposals dealing with the sale of the ships. They have been considered. I expect that this matter will be concluded shortly.


OLD AGE SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is now in a position to table the report of Dr. Clark with regard to the investigation of the old age and survivors system in the United States?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister be able to table that report so it can be discussed in this house before the conclusion of the session?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am unable to state definitely, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not the report will be tabled before the end of the session. I can only repeat what I have said on previous occasions when the same question has been asked. The report is progressing very favourably.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister asked Dr. Clark whether or not he could present his report to the minister and consequently to the house at a time which would permit discussion in this house, and also give the government an opportunity to formulate its policies in accordance with the assurance given to the people of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: When are you going away?
57071-3-199J
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Monteith (Perth): It was intimated to Dr. Clark, Mr. Speaker, that the report is
requested as soon as possible.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Could the minister tell the house why the report has been so long delayed beyond the four months' time of inquiry stated in this house earlier by the Prime Minister?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have already
answered that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was the
answer?
(Translation):


DOMINION COAL COMPANY SURPLUS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister tell the house when we may expect him to table the documents concerning the agreement entered into some time ago by the federal government and the Dominion Coal Company about surplus coal stockpiled during the year?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) for having given me notice of his question. My answer is that the information requested will be conveyed to the house in a few days.
(Text):


ROYAL VISIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any comment to make on the report appearing in the press yesterday that plans are under way for the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Canada next year?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that when Her Majesty spoke on television last October she expressed the hope that she would be present at the opening of the St. Lawrence waterway in 1959, and she said at that time she hoped to include in the discharge of that responsibility provision for a visit which would permit her to travel more widely across the country.
3148	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
The government is about to set up a special committee to look after the arrangements, but no itinerary in that regard has been submitted to Her Majesty and, at her request, none will be submitted to her before October next. I am therefore not in a position to say any more in regard to the press report except that there is the expectation that she will be here for the opening of the St. Lawrence waterway. I know that Canadians as a whole will look forward with loyal anticipation not only to her visit on this historic occasion but also to her presence in other parts of Canada. We all express the hope that she will be able to make an extensive visit when she is here in connection with the opening of the waterway.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure all members of the house and indeed all Canadians will welcome the news which the Prime Minister has been good enough to give us, that the expectations are that Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh will visit Canada next year to open the St. Lawrence seaway. I might perhaps say that this invitation was initiated by my predecessor, Mr. St. Laurent. I am sure that when Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh arrive in Canada they will receive the same kind of warm welcome which they have received in the past and which Her Majesty's sister is now receiving during her visit to this country.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mackenzie River yesterday asked a question concerning some Eskimos, and in reply at that time I said I would be able to give him some sort of answer which would be more or less official today. I now wish to advise the hon. member that the official report has been received by the department and that the deaths of the 14 Eskimos at Garry Lake during the past winter resulted from starvation and exposure.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: I
wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not the official report is the coroner's inquest report, or does it consist of an autopsy report?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This official
report is an autopsy report, and there were 14 Eskimos involved.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder if the minister
could table the autopsy report?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the moment I see no objection to so doing.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Has there been an inquest
into these deaths?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Not of the
usual character.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Not of what?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There was an
investigation but not the usual coroner's investigation such as we have in the provinces.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I apologize for not having given him notice, but I am sure members of the house want to know as soon as possible the date of a certain anticipated historic event. At page 3104 of Hansard for yesterday the minister is reported as having indicated to the house that we would hear from him on "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958". Could he inform the house when we can anticipate that oratorical treat?


Mr. Speaker:: I have never heard hon. members asked on the orders of the day when they proposed to speak and I doubt that this is a regular question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How could he anticipate an event which is described as historic?



INQUIRY AS TO IMPORTATION AND STOCKPILING OF PIPE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it true that 50,000 tons of 24-inch pipe is being imported and stockpiled north of Toronto for projects not yet ready to proceed?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. The answer is that a small tonnage of large diameter pipe, including some 24-inch pipe, is now being delivered to Toronto in fulfilment of a contract entered into two years ago with suppliers in the United Kingdom.
AUGUST e, 1958



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Several weeks ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced that he would shortly be paying a visit to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation section of the pipe line. I assume he has made that visit, and I wonder if he could give us a report on the general progress in connection with labour conditions along that line?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to visit that line on Monday and Tuesday of this week, but other commitments prevented me from doing so.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $615,999,671.59 being the aggregate of
(a)	one-sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament except items 200 , 362, 409 and 513 for which the proportion is one-twelfth and items 106, 108, 111, 439, 443 and 502 for which no proportion is granted hereby:
(b)	five-twelfths of the total of the amounts of items 76, 268 and 296 of the said estimates:
(c)	one-quarter of the total amounts of items 94, 216, 359 and 497 of the said estimates:
(d)	one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 139, 161, 182, 185, 186, 197, 198, 199, 201, 203, 207, 211, 212, 270 and 394 of the said estimates:
(e)	one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items set forth in the supplementary estimates of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959 as laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except items 545, 546, 547 and 627:
(f)	one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 635 and 654 set forth in the said supplementary estimates,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959.
He said: Mr. Chairman, this is the third of the motions for interim supply during the present session. On the first motion, the committee provided supply for the months of April and May. On the second appropriation it provided supply for June and July. Supply is now about to be exhausted, and the committee is now being asked to approve a resolution which will provide the requirements of supply for the months of August and September, the ordinary two months' vote of supply.
Interim Supply
The simple fraction that is applied with respect to nearly all the items in the estimates -and there are over 650 of those items in the estimates and supplementary estimates- is two-twelfths. As to a few items, however, and they are the ones that are specifically designated in the resolution which you, Mr. Chairman, have read, there are special circumstances and an additional appropriation is being asked. The work involved in these items is of a special nature; in practically every case it is summer work and, accordingly, a larger than proportional vote is now required than is the case with respect to those items which permit of expenditures being spread evenly throughout the 12 months of the fiscal year.
In no case is the committee asked to approve any proportion in excess of eleven-twelfths of the item, and accordingly the committee retains its full opportunity to discuss any item. In this respect I give the usual undertaking that the passing of this resolution and the bill to follow will not prejudice the rights and the privileges of hon. members to criticize any item of the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights will be respected and will not be restricted or curtailed in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
Xvlr. Benidickson: Would the minister indicate those items which go up to eleven-twelfths?

* inning ir.gnnion;: mat, I think, is obvious. I gave the hon. gentleman a copy of the details of the proposed vote yesterday. If he will look at clause (a) of the resolution he will see that we are not asking for any additional vote of items 106, 108, 111, 439 443 and 502 because the committee has already provided eleven-twelfths of those votes to the case of items 200, 362, 409 and ? i-i, house has already provided ten-twelfths, and in respect to these four items we are asking only one-twelfth instead of two-twelfths of the vote.
. ^n. clause (b) of the resolution we are asking in respect of items 76, 268 and 296 for five-twelfths of the vote which would bring those items up in each case to eleven-twelfths. The three-twelfths which we are asking in clause (c) will bring item 94 up to the proportion of eleven-twelfths.
Then further with respect to clause (e) in reference to the supplementary estimates, we already have eleven-twelfths of items 545 546, 547 and 627 and accordingly no additional vote is asked with respect to those items.
Those are the items, complete, Mr. Chairman, with respect to which the committee

Interim Supply
will if the present resolution and bill are carried have voted eleven-twelfths of the item.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, on a motion of supply such as this it is my understanding that we can deal with almost any matter arising from the general estimates, which leads me to a subject which certainly is due for a little more scrutiny than it has received up to date.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member would permit me, I should like to raise a point and appeal to him. I have given an undertaking that the passing of this resolution and the bill to follow will not curtail the right of any hon. member to raise any matter that is pertinent to any item when the estimates come before the committee of supply. The purpose of giving that undertaking is to avoid duplication of debate. If it were to become the practice of the house to indulge in extended discussion of any subject on these motions for interim supply we would simply be duplicating the function of motions to resolve the house into committee of supply, or the work of the committee of supply on the items of the estimates. For many years it has been the practice of this house to pay attention to the undertaking which is given, and which I have again given today, and in that way to avoid duplication of debate.
If all hon. members chose, on motions for interim supply, to discuss any matter which occurred to them it would be impossible to obtain a vote of interim supply. We are on the point of running out of money, and we need this interim supply. I may say also that the next matter before the committee today is likewise a very urgent matter. Approval of the next measure is very urgently required, for the very same reason, with respect to Canadian National Railways. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. member, without asking him to curtail any of his rights as a member of this committee, to make his observations, whatever they may be, on the relative item of the estimates in committee of supply.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: May I ask a question at this point? Did the Minister of Finance give the usual undertaking?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh yes. Very
clearly.


Murdo William Martin: Further to the remarks of the Minister of Finance, I was one of the many millions of Canadians who heard all about the rights of parliament and how they were guaranteed; and we had an excellent example last Monday of just how they are guaranteed. On that basis I
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
think the fact that the government wants to preclude even one speech from being made at this stage is just a further example of the spirit shown here last Monday.
The point I should like to deal with is one that is of urgent importance to this country at the present time. That it is a matter of particular interest is evident by reading newspapers from coast to coast, both daily and weekly newspapers, which have devoted parts of their editorial pages and news pages to discussing the subject. I am referring, of course, to the unprecedented bond deal we have seen in recent weeks.
I should like first of all to refer to an editorial taken from the Fundy Fisherman of Wednesday July 20, 1958 which devotes a lengthy editorial to this important subject. It is entitled, "Costly, Unnecessary and Unwise" and I should like to read the first paragraph of this editorial:
The large debt refunding plan, amounting to around six and one-half billions of dollars, which has been placed before the people of Canada and is now being carried out by the federal government, should be examined most carefully by all citizens of the country. The terrific cost of this colossal refunding scheme is going to be felt by every man, woman and child throughout Canada. Not only will this cost be felt at the present time, but for the next generation to come.
Mr. Pallet!: Are you opposed to municipalities getting money?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, one of the most significant things about this plan is that it is going to be of benefit to very few but it will represent a cost to very many. I wonder if that is what the Minister of Finance wants. It is generally agreed across the country that the bonds to be converted are held by very few, in fact by as little as 10 per cent of our population. They are going to benefit to the extent of 50 per cent. But who is going to pay? Any person who suggests that this is a "something for nothing" deal is nothing short of a false prophet. There is nothing for nothing in this country. Whatever you get someone has to pay for. If you do not pay it someone else does. If it does not cost you anything it costs someone else double before you reap any benefit. The common ordinary individual in this country, the man on the street referred to by this editorial, at the present time holds about 10 per cent of the bonds that are about to be reconverted based on the best estimates the authors could obtain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Poppycock; that is utter poppycock.


Murdo William Martin: I see that the Minister of Finance is making the same contribution today that he made last night.

I should like to quote a few shining examples of his contribution to the debate last evening. At page 3136 of yesterday's Hansard the Minister of Finance interjected in the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam:
That is not true.


Mr, Fleming (Eglinlon):: You are out of
order.


Murdo William Martin: I continue:
Why not inform yourself of the facts and stick to the truth?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Surely we can have some adherence to the rules of order. The hon. member is clearly out of order. There was discussion of this matter last night on another motion entirely. That motion was carried and the matter that was raised as a grievance and the discussion of it ended. Now the hon. member is treating this matter today as though it were a continuation of yesterday's discussion. Today we have an entirely new item of business. Surely it is not to be treated as a continuation of a debate that occurred yesterday on an entirely different matter. In my submission the hon. member is completely out of order.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word on the minister's point of order. I made no reference to his remarks yesterday until such time as he made an interjection today similar to that which he made last night. It was the minister who gave rise to that aspect of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, how silly can you be?


The Deputy Chairman:: It is quite true that a matter that has been before the house and disposed of cannot be brought up again.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Surely we have not reached the point that this kind of attitude should be taken. The Minister of Finance has raised a point of order which to my mind, and with respect to you, is completely erroneous. On a matter in which supply is being discussed and we are being called upon to vote interim supply surely the hon. member can discuss a matter concerning bond conversion. I respectfully suggest he is in order.
The Depuly Chairman: I was referring to the hon. member for Timmins referring to what the minister said yesterday and I was not referring to what he is discussing now. That in my mind is quite in order except that he should not be reading what was said last night in the debate. That is the point to which I was referring.
Interim Supply


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry if I misunderstood you.


Murdo William Martin: I shall be very glad to abide by your ruling. I should like to refer again to the editorial in the Fundy Fisherman with respect to the question as to who owns the other 90 per cent of these bonds. The editorial poses the same question and answers it in this fashion:
It is estimated, and quite rightly we believe, that around 90 per cent are owned by insurance companies, chartered banks, trust companies, nonfinancial companies, savings banks, corporations and other loan companies, co-operative groups, etc.
Whether or not it was the intention to do so the fact is that to a certain extent we are penalizing 90 per cent of the people in this country for the extreme benefit of the other 10 per cent. The question that arises in my mind, of course, is why are we doing this? It seems to me that this 10 per cent of the population was quite happy with the previous rate of interest. Otherwise I do not see why those people should have acquired the bonds. If they were not satisfied with the 3 per cent previously paid why did they collect these bonds?


An hon. Member:: There was a war on.


Murdo William Martin: I heard an hon. member interject that there was a war on. I should like to remind the hon. member that the war has been over for approximately 12 or 13 years. As was pointed out on another occasion the majority of people who bought these bonds to help the war effort have since unfortunately been forced to let them go at a loss in order to make necessary purchases or investments. As I said, 90 per cent of the people of this country will receive no benefit from this conversion deal. It will mean for them nothing but an additional cost to the present costs they have. It is estimated that this additional cost will amount to nothing less than $1 million per week.
Another point that should be given close scrutiny is that no opportunity was provided to this parliament to discuss this proposed conversion deal despite the fact that perhaps two or more weeks ago prior to the announcement of the proposal the Minister of Finance had ample opportunity to take the house into his confidence with respect to the proposed plan affecting these bonds. Added to that is the fact that we have unfortunately seen demonstrated on too many occasions how extremely thin skinned the Minister of Finance is and it puts one in mind of the old story we used to read in books about the Middle East to the effect that Allah was the true Lord and Mohammed was his prophet. In this case it would appear that John is the

Interim Supply
true Lord and Donald is his prophet and no one must question either one of them.
I have another question I should like to have answered. What is going to be the effect of this deal this autumn when the regular sale of savings bonds goes into effect? Is the public to be expected to go along for the same deal they got last year or will they expect a better deal like this conversion bond proposal? I personally believe that the public, and perhaps with some justification, will expect a much better deal in the light of these recent events but the question is, will they get it?
Another matter that arises is this. How will this affect provincial debt and financing? On March 31 last it was estimated that the direct and indirect debt of provincial governments was $4,638,327,000. A one and one-half per cent rise in interest rates would mean an additional cost of $70 million a year. How is this new deal of a 50 per cent increase in interest rates going to affect provincial debts? How will it affect other matters? For example, how will it affect the financing of the South Saskatchewan dam, that project which we hope now is going to reach completion and which we have waited for with bated breath for so many years in the past? How is it going to affect the balance of the St. Lawrence seaway project? How is it going to affect present and future operations of the Canadian National Railways? How is it going to affect the educational program, which members from all sides of this house have agreed we must expand and stimulate in the years to come? How is it going to affect the hospital building projects which the various provincial hospitalization plans are going to bring about over the next few years? How indeed is it going to affect the small business program which, as the government has expressed, is even of interest to this group? They have expressed their amazement and surprise that it is of interest to this group. On many occasions this government has expressed their friendship, interest and concern for the small businessman. How is this project going to affect small businesses?
Another matter that causes me some surprise, Mr. Chairman, particularly in view of the program outlined in the last election, is that the Liberal party has not shown some interest in this matter.


George James McIlraith: They have shown very great concern.


Murdo William Martin: In the last campaign they advocated that one of the best ways to stimulate business was to cut taxes. I am sure all hon. members realize that this

particular project is going to increase taxes in the long run. It can have no other effect. Our taxes are going to be very seriously affected both by the record deficit of our government this year and the bond issue which is going to raise costs by another enormous amount. It is confined not only to the federal field. The federal base rate of interest is the base rate for the country, and all other operations will rise accordingly and probably to the same extent at least. It is going to affect provincial borrowings and municipal borrowings and through them it is going to affect rentals. It is going to affect the cost of groceries and our cost of living. The result is that the taxpayers and particularly the 90 per cent who are not going to benefit-possibly the 10 per cent can afford to meet those added costs-will find their costs rising. What about the 90 per cent who are not going to benefit in any way from this? They are going to be caught three ways. First, they are going to be caught by the 50 per cent increase in the federal field. Then, they will be caught at the provincial level and at the municipal level and then through their rent and groceries and all down the line.
Above all, Mr. Chairman, there is one question that has not yet been answered and I think it needs to be answered and that is, what was the need for this? We can understand the need for the $1.8 billion that was needed to refinance the bonds coming due this year. We can understand that and in fact we can commend the fact that it is to be on a 25-year basis and it will act as a deterrent to inflation; but that does not apply to the total of $6.4 billion. The only reason that we can see for that large conversion at the present time is that there must be some terrific pressure some place that forced such an unusual measure in the period of two weeks from the time that the Minister of Finance presented his budget in this house and the time that he made his unprecedented announcement.
There is another aspect also that is going to affect this country considerably. How is this going to affect the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the United States dollar? At the present time the Canadian dollar is at quite a premium over the United States dollar and it is, to put it mildly, possibly a mixed blessing. It may benefit certain sections of our country but in the main I think the majority of the people of this country feel that it is possibly as much a curse as it is a blessing. In the same editorial of the Fundy Fisherman this very point is dealt with, and I should like to quote the following extract:
However, as long as these usurious rates exist in Canada we shall continue to mortgage our birthright outside our country. Again, when American

money is borrowed in this way it has to be converted into Canadian funds, which greatly increase the demand for the latter. This continues to raise the price of Canadian money in comparison with the value of American money and, of course, places an obnoxious heavy tax upon exporters at a time when exporters should be encouraged-for imports have to be paid by exports and, at present, our imports far exceed our exports.
There is another matter on which I should like an answer from the minister. I wonder whether there is any guarantee? Is the government in any way assuring that notices are sent to all bondholders? I am sure it is not too difficult to send notices to the 10 per cent of the people who hold 90 per cent of the bonds, but what about the other 10 per cent? I realize that the government has embarked upon a terrifically expensive advertising campaign to convert those bonds. Whether that is necessary or not I do not know. I sometimes think, Mr. Chairman, it might be far cheaper if individual notices were sent to those 10 per cent of the people-


Mr. Caihsrs:: They are unknown.


Murdo William Martin: I think it could be done at far less cost than the costs that we seem to be incurring in full-page advertisements across the country, and so on.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I think I can do no better than to read from the last paragraph of the same editorial to which I referred on two or three occasions. It reads:
We have the resources, which are the foundation of prosperity, but a faulty monetary policy that is not constructive, can and will be destructive to our national and individual well being.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, we have had considerable discussion on this matter of the conversion of our bonds and we have heard many charges and very little reply by the minister to those charges. I think his remarks on this subject in previous debates and in the present debate have held in contempt the Canadian people and I suggest that if the Minister of Finance wishes to make no reply to those charges he should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erhart Regier: It is important enough.


William Arnold Peters: It might happen in other countries; I am not expecting it to happen here. I make the suggestion that I think the situation warrants it.
Certain elements of the Canadian public have been very impressed and very happy about this matter of the conversion. It has been generally understood that it is going to cost the Canadian people over a period of years a great many billions of dollars in added interest charges, which the people are going to have to pay, and you and I, the taxpayers of Canada, are certainly not going to be happy about the situation.
Interim Supply
An article which gives an indication that the Tory party has again become the Tory party, something which it has not been for six or eight months, appeared in the Leader-Post of July 15, just after this conversion was announced.


Mr. Hanbidge:: Where is that published?


William Arnold Peters: The article is written by the Canadian Press business editor. The first sentence is as follows:
Investment houses gave a roaring welcome to the government's announcement of a mammoth $6,400,000,000 refunding operation.
Certainly, they should. The majority of these bonds is held by very few people.
Mr. Pallet!: You should read the whole article, not just part of it.


William Arnold Peters: I am only referring to part of it. If the hon. member wishes to read the rest of it, I suggest he take part in this debate. There is considerably more here. This may be an opportunity for the hon. member to speak for the first time during this session.
As I say, for many years Bay street and St. James street have dictated the financial policy of Canada, and those people will be very happy about this conversion. When I say the minister is irresponsible, I am referring to the fact that less than $2 billion in bond conversion would have met the situation with which the minister was faced. I agree that some conversion was necessary at the present time, but there was no need to ask all these bondholders to convert their bonds. Some of them did buy victory bonds because they were asked to do so for patriotic reasons. They have not changed their minds. They agreed to lend that money for that length of time at that rate of interest. I submit that they are not the people who are interested in this conversion. Most of them have already converted their bonds and they were forced to sell them to banks and lending institutions for $92 or $93. They seldom got $100.
This conversion has interfered with the whole structure of the interest rate, and completely upset the law of supply and demand which, in the past, this government has said they were interested in maintaining. If they were only interested in maintaining the interest rate, then they could have converted only these $2 billion instead of the $6.5 billion that they have put up for conversion.
In my opinion, this will have a great effect on resource development in Canada. Why should someone who is looking for an investment put his money into resource development when he can put it into government bonds which will now carry a fairly high

Interim Supply
rate of interest? In my opinion, this is going to eliminate a considerable amount of the expansion capital that we have received from some of these people in the past. They will now buy long-term government bonds.
Another aspect of the matter upon which this conversion will have an effect is municipal financing. It has been said in this house that the conversion will not interfere with provincial or municipal financing, but that does not appear to be the fact. I have an article here and I venture to say that the situation outlined in it will be repeated thousands and thousands of times in municipalities across this country when they try to raise money. This article is from the Port Alberni newspaper, the Twin Cities Times, of Wednesday, July 18. It is under the heading "Council Accepts Bid for Municipal Bonds."
The announcement Monday in Ottawa of the government's new bond conversion plan has affected the price this city will obtain for its municipal building debentures. Monday night council accepted the bid of Ames & Company Limited of 98.67 per hundred for $150,000 debenture issue. The tender was received in a wire amending a previous bid of $99,138.
This is a change in the offering from something like $99,138, which was the original bid, to $98J. This occurred within a day following the announcement of the conversion. We find that municipal institutions are already in trouble with their debentures because of the government announcement. The article goes on to say:
City clerk H. D. Thain translated the amendment as a result of the policy set up in Ottawa.
These municipal building bonds carry an interest rate of 5.5 per cent and mature over a 20-year period. Here is a municipal council which within one day of the announcement of the conversion is faced with a problem in connection with its debentures, debentures which bear 5.5 per cent interest and are for a 20-year period. They rightly lay the trouble on the doorstep of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) because of the increase in interest rates which has resulted from this conversion. Why should any investment organization put their money into other investments when they can buy government bonds?
I feel this is going to have an adverse effect on municipal finances.
We only have to look at some of the municipalities on the outskirts of the city of Ottawa to realize that prior to this election they were in difficulty in trying to raise any type of municipal debenture. One of these municipalities is in very straitened financial circumstances at the moment. As a result of this conversion, many of these municipalities will have to pay at least one more per cent

in interest rates. If the government was going to make this change, why did the Minister of Finance not say so when he was campaigning throughout the country? Why did he not say that we were going to raise the interest rate on our bonds, or that we were going to convert them on this large scale? This was not done, although it must have been in his mind, because the Canadian people would not have accepted it. The Minister of Finance, therefore, has not the same respect from the people that he had when he was campaigning before this matter came up.
I suggest this situation illustrates the need for the establishment in Canada of a national investment board. The time must have arrived by now when the Canadian people should not depend on Bay street and St. James street to decide what interest rates are going to be. On a number of occasions we have seen the Canadian people buy government bonds for various purposes. They have always done that. They did it during the war, and they did not need any full-page advertisements in all the newspapers across the country to urge them to do so. These advertisements must be costing anywhere from $50 to $50,000. I think that rather than be driven into these investments by pressure, by advertisements, we should set up a board which will decide where our investments need to be made, and the type of investment for which money is available. We should not be governed by stock manipulations and by other transactions that take place on Bay street or St. James street. We should not be guided by these things in our financial program. I think, therefore, the Minister of Finance has lost touch with the Canadian people and now is the time for a new Minister of Finance. I strongly suggest it.


Frank Howard: I just want to deal with this question that has been raised as it relates probably more particularly to the province of British Columbia and more generally to provincial governments as a whole across the nation and to the effect that it will have on projects of those governments and on projects planned by various municipal governments. I do not think there is any doubt-nor can the minister dispel that doubt regardless of how he many express himself-that this will have no other effect on the interest rates of municipalities and provinces who wish to borrow money for much needed public works projects than to increase those interest rates. We all know that maybe one per cent or one and a half per cent, the figure itself, may look rather small and may not mean very much; but over a long term period of 20 years or 25 years one per cent or one and a half per cent means a terrific additional burden on the taxpayers in those provinces and

municipalities when it comes to retiring that debt and paying the interest on it. I am sure that with this increased interest rate on borrowings that provincial governments and municipalities will have to undertake-unless of course the federal government is willing to step into the field of providing a revolving fund for such projects at decent interest rates -if municipalities and provinces step into them as they had intended to do, based on projects that have been on their books for some time, it will mean an additional burden. Either that, or in the light of the increased burden that it will mean to these provinces and municipalities, in the light of the extra money they will have to find to retire the debt and to pay vastly increased interest rates, they will curtail some of the projects they had in mind. This government should know, if it does not, that any curtailment on the part of provincial governments and municipalities at this time in the field of public works will not do our economy any good. The federal government should realize that fact if they do not.
I take just one instance as an example, that of the Columbia river development project which would mean so much to the province of British Columbia in terms of low-cost hydro electric energy. A conservative estimate-and I say that with a small "c"-puts the cost of this project somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 million and well worth it, I believe, if we will enter into that project and develop it as a public power project. But a one and a half per cent increase in interest on it will mean no less than an additional-and I emphasize the word "additional"-$4J million per year in interest rates which is the burden which will have to be borne by the taxpayers out there in British Columbia.
The Minister of Finance may know that we in British Columbia have not quite reached the stage where we can afford to have a full time minister of finance. We have one who couples his duties with those of the premier. That person, well known I am sure to the Minister of Finance here, has been travelling in many parts of British Columbia recently complaining most bitterly about this bond conversion program of the federal government.


Mr. Woolliams:: Do you agree with Bennett?


Frank Howard: About his complaints, and the attitude of this federal government?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


Frank Howard: Yes; I do. This is one of the very few things I agree with him about. I will tell you something that our provincial government does that I do not agree with
Interim Supply
and I am sure this government does not agree with. In the process of the part time minister of finance that we have there travelling through the province complaining about this question or the effect this bond conversion program will have on the affairs of the province and relating the structure of that province's debt to the people of British Columbia he is not giving a correct picture. We know that Premier Bennett in his capacity of minister of finance is a great artist at juggling books, at keeping two sets of books in order to be able to present a fairly rosy picture to the general public there. From the attitude or approach of the present Minister of Finance for Canada I think he is probably taking lessons from finance minister Bennett in juggling books and in not giving to the general public a true account of the effect this bond conversion program or victory loan conversion program will have on the future economy of this country.
In British Columbia we are supposed to be able to retire all our debt completely within the next two years so that we shall be a debt-free province. Of course all of us who are from British Columbia know that that is not the truth. We know the approach of keeping two sets of books by our provincial government. We hope that this federal government is not going to enter into that sort of an arrangement in an effort to hide the true picture from the people of Canada. The dominion bureau of statistics of this government of Canada establishes the correct picture to the general public so far as the debt of the provinces are concerned and that we have two kinds of debt. We have a direct debt and we have an indirect debt. Regardless of how much some people may try to say that the indirect debt does not count and is not a true reflection of the indebtedness of the province, I submit that the situation is no different than that within a family if the wife goes to the store and buys a refrigerator on time, charges up as an indebtedness to that store may be $200 or $300 for the balance of payments on the refrigerator and then for the husband to turn around and say, "Oh, that is an indirect debt; I am not responsible for it". We all know full well who is going to pay for that refrigerator just as we all know of this indebtedness that is kept on separate sets of books, who is going to pay for that. British Columbia's direct and indirect debt totals more than $450 million at this time. That is a terrific indebtedness for one province to carry.
I notice, Mr. Chairman, that you are looking at me occasionally and wondering whether I am not wandering far afield in dealing with

Interim Supply
that question of debt by the province of British Columbia. But I submit that I must do that in order to draw the relationship between the effect that this bond conversion program of the federal government will have on the province of British Columbia and on the bond projects that they had in mind. I submit that I must establish the complete and true picture of the total debt of that province in order to compare and to relate what the effect will be if we proceed and attempt to borrow money on the market inasmuch as we are already heavily in debt. That is all I am attempting to do in establishing that.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I was going to ask the hon. member whether the premier of British Columbia did not say the day before yesterday that next year he expected that his public debt would be paid off.


Frank Howard: Far be it for me to try to explain what the premier of British Columbia means, but that is precisely the point I am making. We have two types of debt. We have the debt kept on one set of books which is classified by the premier of that province as direct debt. Then we have debt on the other set of books which he classifies as indirect debt. The reference to retiring the debt relates only to one small amount in one set of books which is indicated in the dominion bureau of statistics publication entitled, "Financial Statistics of Provincial Governments for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958,, funded debt, direct and indirect." It is indicated in that publication the difference in British Columbia between the direct debt and the indirect debt and shows that the direct net funded debt after deducting the sinking fund amounts is $86,482,000 and that the indirect funded debt, after deducting sinking fund amounts is a total of $382,161,000.
I submit that Premier Bennett's comments as they related to retiring the debt completely applied only to that portion which is classified as direct debt and did not apply to this second set of books that he keeps out there.
We then have in British Columbia a province heavily in debt to begin with, a province which I think has hopes of expanding into public works projects, a province which will have to borrow additional money for those projects and will set them up on the second set of books so that the general public does not really know what is going on. However, the people who lend them the money, the finance houses and bond dealers, know what is the debt position so far as British Columbia is concerned and they also know the ability of the people of that province to pay. Looking at the tremendous debt we have at the present time in that province, direct and

indirect, and comparing it with the added interest rate which will occur out of this bond conversion program, the province and the municipalities of that province are going to have a great deal of difficulty in borrowing the money they need in order to proceed with the projects they have had on their books for some time.
A 1J per cent increase in the interest rate, which is a very, very conservative estimate, will mean an additional $7 million per year in interest rates to that province and I submit that to be entering into this program will be placing an additional tax burden on the people. There are, of course, other ways of dealing with the finances of this nation but I am sure my friend the Minister of Finance will want to consider only the tried and true methods of his party and of the previous government and will not wish to get into other methods of dealing with the finances of Canada but will do nothing but lay an additional tax burden upon our people.


An hon. Member:: We have heard all that
before.


Frank Howard: Yes, you have heard it all
before and you will hear it again. If you are sick and tired of hearing it already I am sure the people about whom I am talking like to know that you are getting sick and tired of listening to the fact that they are going to have to pay more taxes because of the ineptitude of this government.


Mr. Palleii:: You are the past master of
ineptitudes.


Frank Howard: I say to the Minister of
Finance, do not enter into the field of juggling the books in the way we have witnessed in the province of British Columbia; do not hide the facts from the public; make a clean breast of it and tell the public what will be the effect of this conversion program on the general public of Canada, in particular on the provinces and municipalities.


Erhart Regier: I hesitated for a moment because I thought the Minister of Finance would surely have something to say by now. I cannot, however, let his interim supply resolution go through without making some further effort to elicit a little information from him.
I can assure the minister that the recommendation made to him by the hon. member for Timiskaming that he answer some of these very, very serious charges which have been made should be seriously considered or that the minister should leave his office. As the minister knows, the implications of what he has been engaged in since the introduction of his budget into this house are

of such significance that they will affect every individual Canadian and I must ask the minister at this time a number of questions.
Firstly, why was this announcement not made part of his budget presented to the house on June 17 last? I am sure that the minister should have had, even if he did not have, some thoughts on what was the rating of the Canadian government on the money markets of this country and of the world when he made his address in presenting his budget. Why was nothing said and no inkling given that a major portion, if not the major portion of our entire national public debt was going to be refinanced? If he had done this on June 17 this House of Commons would have been given a clear eight days in which to consider all the implications of the announcement but, no, nothing was said at the time of the budget. There was rather a simple announcement made without warning which caught the members of the opposition completely off guard because it was so unheard of and so unprecedented. They reserved their judgment at the time, at least my house leader did, when he said that he would first have to look at the terms of the announcement. I ask the minister how much money is the government going to spend? This very much relates to the present interim supply bill.
I would also like to know how much is the publicity in connection with this conversion deal going to cost the Canadian taxpayers? The minister has not explained, either at the time of or since the announcement, why he has chosen to offer non-callable bonds at an exceptionally high rate of interest rather than callable bonds. What assurance has the minister that eight or nine months hence money rates will not be exceedingly low and that we will not be tied, with respect to roughly half our national public debt, to this exorbitant 4i per cent interest rate? Why did he make it a non-callable deal? Why has the minister no answer? He was very lavish yesterday in using such terms as "Rubbish" and "Rot", and I do not know what was the rest of it. What is the percentage of these bonds which are held by individuals as individuals? The minister has not given any indication of that.
The effect of this deal on public enterprises in the dominion has been indicated by several members who have already spoken. The implications on even such a relatively small undertaking, finance-wise, as the South Saskatchewan river dam, is that the minister by his announcement has added to the annual carrying charge of the cost of that dam no less than $3 million, which is going to put
Interim Supply
a very heavy burden indeed upon a population of less than one million in the province of Saskatchewan.
If the minister was really in difficulty, and I am the first to admit that maybe he had no other way out-maybe he was forced to adopt this method-why then did he not take the people of Canada into his confidence and appeal to them rather than kowtow to the dictates of the money lenders in this country? We have won wars before and have emerged from those wars in a better financial position than when the wars began simply because the government of the day appealed to the people in the national interest. If the Minister of Finance had really found that he was being dictated to or that any attempt of that kind was being made, why did he not resort to an appeal to the people of Canada to help him out? I am sure the people would have responded equally well to an appeal to help this government win the peace as they have on several occasions responded to appeals to help their governments win wars.


An hon. Member:: What is he doing now?


Erhart Regier: No, the Minister of Finance did not appeal to the people of Canada to help him out of the difficulty in which he found himself. He saw fit to kowtow to the dictates of the money lenders of this nation. The Minister of Finance is attempting to brush all this off as irresponsible. May I refer him to the Financial Post of July 19 last? In it there is an article which says that the $6.4 billion conversion loan which the government announced could, first of all, start a new round of inflation. I pointed this out last night. Secondly, it could raise borrowing costs for everybody, and I mentioned that this is what is happening right now. Third, it could weaken bond and stock prices. I agree that has already happened, and that it is going to happen during the weeks and months ahead. Fourthly, says this article, it will strengthen our dollar, making imports cheaper and exports less profitable.
This is at the hands of the government which was going to overcome our unfavourable trade balance. They have, by this one action alone, taken a very significant move toward raising the premium on the Canadian dollar, thereby encouraging imports into Canada, adding to unemployment in Canada and reducing our exports. The fifth point put forward in this article claims it will bring about higher taxes, and there is no doubt at all about that, because all our levels of government must pay higher rates of interest. There is only one source of this interest money; it will have to be found by raising

Interim Supply
the taxation levels of the Canadian people. The concluding paragraph of this article states:
The terms of this new conversion loan make it unlikely that Canadians will receive any tax reductions in the near future.
To show further that we are not alone, the hon. member for Skeena has already indicated that the premier of British Columbia is out on a campaign and has soundly and roundly condemned this action by the Minister of Finance in his bond conversion plan.
I have here a Canadian Press dispatch from Saskatoon which appeared in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald of July 19 indicating what the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan has to say about it. He says:
AH benefits of the scheme will go to the banks and investment houses which hold most of the old victory bonds.
The report continues:
Mr. Fines said the higher interest rates the federal government promised on its new bonds in return for the old ones will force up capital interest costs throughout the country.
Well, that is happening right at this moment. I have quotations here from various other financial analysts in the dominion, but 1 do not think I need place them all on record. I am sure the Minister of Finance has been watching them from day to day.
The minister has several times attempted to indicate on the orders of the day that his bond conversion plan is not going to cause a rise in interest rates. If this is the case, and if this is not a handout may I ask him this: why was it that on the morning after his announcement Canadian government bonds rose on the stock market by a fantastic amount? I have one excerpt here, in particular, which indicates what I mean. I understand from this particular article that some Canadian government bonds rose as much as $4.50 on a $100 bond. This very clearly shows that the minister's valuation of what the new interest rate ought to be was not realistic; in other words, that it was a handout, otherwise folks would not have been prepared to pay $4.50 more on the morning after the minister's announcement than they would have been prepared to pay the day before.
Again in the Financial Post of July 19 is further support for the contention I am putting forward. It says:
Just before the announcement was made of the Canada conversion loan, Canada 31 per cent bonds due October X, 1979, were selling to yield 3.88 per cent. A United States treasury bond of comparable interest and maturity yielded 3.26 per cent.
Note that our bonds were already yielding .62 per cent more than United States bonds. Then it goes on to say:
Tuesday, the Canada 3J's of '79 went to 3.92 per cent yield.

The minister's action has had yet other influences. It is going to encourage more foreign investment in Canada, especially United States investment, and that is going to accentuate the problem that this Conservative party said it was going to meet if it was given a chance to form a government. Raising interest rates and thereby extending an open invitation to more foreign capital with its effect on our high cost economy and the valuation of the Canadian dollar is certainly not one of the the ways to meet this problem. I also submit that this action of the government has seriously affected the desire of Canadians to invest in Canadian enterprise insamuch as it has lessened the value of Canadian investment in Canadian industry. There always has to remain a fairly comfortable margin between the yield on stocks and the yield on government bonds. If the government guarantees for a 25-year period a return of 4J per cent the minister cannot expect Canadians to be very interested in investing their money in Canadian industrial enterprises which may earn only a very little more than that guaranteed 4J per cent. I feel the minister has done serious harm to the future industrial expansion of the Canadian economy by the action he has taken.
The steps he has taken have had a depressing effect on the Canadian stock market. For instance, to consider one particular case, the British Columbia public utilities commission was recently authorized a 9 per cent increase-I believe that was the figure-on the tariff that might be charged for hydro power in British Columbia. In normal circumstances this would have caused shares in British Columbia Power to have risen immediately on the market. They would normally have risen quite substantially. However, almost simultaneous with the announcement that they were able to collect 9 per cent more for their power came the announcement by the Minister of Finance with regard to this almost unheard of guaranteed interest rate on federal government bonds, and as a result there was no noticeable difference whatsoever in the price of the shares of the British Columbia power corporation.
All the crocodile tears which the minister used to shed while in opposition on behalf of municipal government are now to be seen for what they are. How he threw out his chest the other day at the time of the budget when he announced that his amendments to the excise tax act were going to relieve municipalities to the extent of $5 million. In my estimation he has by this move added a burden of $45 million to the shoulders of

the municipalities, and I am being conservative in that calculation, allowing for only a rise of only 1J per cent in the charges the municipalities will have to pay on their debts.
The Minister of Finance said last night that my statements were extremely harmful and mischievous. I can assure the minister that I am fully aware of the fact that he has already successfully converted over half of the bonds he wishes to convert and I am not advising individual Canadian citizens to hang on to their victory bonds. I know these bonds are being called in and any Canadian who holds his bonds beyond the beginning of September ceases to receive interest on them. The minister should know that all hon. members in this house are advising all Canadians who hold victory bonds to take advantage of this offer and I believe that any Canadian who has a victory bond will accept that advice not wanting to lose any interest earnings.
If the minister thinks this is rubbish, to use the word he employed in referring to my remarks last evening, I can assure him that the provincial debt of the province of British Columbia is so high that the extra $7 million we shall have to pay on our public debt is not going to be lightly taken. That money is sufficient to buy annually for us 350 additional new class rooms and a new 350-bed hospital. These are things on which we would much rather be spending our tax money than on higher interest rates. I fail to see how the minister thinks he can get away with labelling the statement of these facts as utterly ridiculous, harmful, mischievous, rubbish and so on.
Even if the Minister of Finance does not yet understand the significance of the bond conversion deal the Minister of Public Works does. A few days ago I asked the Minister of Public Works, whereas interest rates under the National Housing Act are allied to interest rates on long-term government bonds, if the Minister of Public Works would assure the house and the country that there would be no immediate increase in interest rates chargeable under the National Housing Act. The Minister of Public Works knew immediately what I was talking about. He did not see fit to label it as rubbish. He assured us that the government was not considering allowing any increase in interest rates on individual homes purchased under the act. There are many institutions of government engaged in the business of lending money to the Canadian people including Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Canadian Farm Loan Board to name but two and there are countless other ways
Interim Supply
in which the Canadian people can take advantage of government guaranteed loans. All of these loans by law of the land are attached and allied to the interest rates on long-term government borrowing. I wish the Minister of Finance would assure the house that as long as there is a Conservative government in office the interest rates charged by these various government agencies will not be raised thus placing an additional burden on the average Canadian citizen.
I feel that the Minister of Finance was most unwise in not announcing this deal at the time of the budget. I do not yet understand why he did not do so at that time and unless the minister explains this we can come to only one conclusion. When the minister announces to the people of Canada he is going to borrow $3,400 million and only a few weeks later tells us he is now borrowing $6,400 million, he was converting bonds that were not to mature for several years and the only conclusion we can come to is that when he went to Montreal and Toronto and attempted to borrow $3,400 million he was told what he had to do and that was that he would have to pay off those institutions that had helped the Conservative party in the past.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak briefly on this resolution. The minister has indicated it is an urgent one and I certainly am not going to hold it up because I believe it is of a pressing nature and that this matter should be passed without delay. However, in view of the matters that have been raised by my hon. friends to the extreme right of us and to the immediate left of the Speaker which are of great importance to us on this side of the house, I think I should say at this stage that we do not propose to discuss it now other than to reiterate what has already been said by some of our members that the matter is of extreme importance.
We believe that the discussion of this subject relating to the reconversion of bonds should take place on another occasion and we also believe that there is more than one occasion upon which the subject can be discussed. There are other reasons, too, why I do not propose to debate the question now. I simply wanted to put our position on the record so that it may be known that as soon as another opportunity arises, perhaps during the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Finance, we do propose to enter into a discussion of this matter.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the resolution carry?

Ways and Means


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of suggestions and criticisms presented this afternoon to the Minister of Finance with respect to this matter. I wonder if this would not be an appropriate time for the minister to make some comment on them because in my opinion they were certainly far-reaching enough not to be accepted silently.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the resolution carry?


Frank Howard: I take it that the minister would then accept the criticisms as being valid?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Rea in the chair.

['I have received some very high compliments from very high sources on this bill in the last few days.\nProgress reported.']
Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, the sum of $615,999,671.59 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-46, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1959.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, the sum of $615,999,671.59 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.']
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time? Now, by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of the bill.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, by this bill the House of Commons is being asked to provide a very large sum of money to provide for the public service of Canada for approximately the next two months. It is the historic right of the house at every stage in voting supply and appropriating public money to air grievances and to seek redress of injustices. Within the last two weeks the official opposition in committee of supply have attempted to secure certain information concerning the injustices being carried out by the government against certain Canadian citizens. The injustices to which I refer are exemplified in the action of the government in the Walter Mitchell case. So that there will be no doubt in anyone's mind as to
[The Deputy Chairman.]
what I propose to raise I may tell the house that I know nothing about the Mitchell case other than what appears on the records of the official debates of this house.
What I am concerned with here is not primarily the question as to whether or not Mr. Mitchell should have been dismissed. I do not propose to rehash that subject. But what I am concerned with at this stage and what I should like to bring to the attention of the house again, Mr. Speaker, is the injustice done to any man who is accused of having committed a crime by a minister of the crown without being given an opportunity to be heard before any impartial tribunal whatever and without the minister who accused the citizen of having committed the crime producing any evidence to the house to support the criminal charges that he has made against the citizen.
It is simply a case of the minister being accuser, private tribunal and the person making the conviction without a hearing, without adducing any evidence to the house and without applying any of the elementary principles of justice which we so appreciate in this country and which were inherited from the mother country. I could elaborate at some length on the principles involved, about a man being found guilty and convicted without trial, about a man being accused and convicted without the charges against him being told to him. One could elaborate a great deal on that but at this stage of the bill when the minister, I know, is anxious to have the bill dealt with quickly, I will not digress because I have enough appreciation of the minister's knowledge as a practising lawyer to know that he understands those principles even while I am criticizing him and the government sharply for not having adhered to them.
It seems to me that surely the Canadian parliament has not come to a point in its existence where we can be asked to vote supply to a government which will so violate those elementary principles of justice as is inherent in the stand taken by the Minister of Agriculture in the particular case to which I referred earlier. Under our system, since we have collective responsibility of the ministry, the whole government must stand convicted by that action of the Minister of Agriculture.
Now, Mr. Speaker, without saying more, having put the matter before the house, I intend to do what we have the right to do under the rules, namely move an amendment to the motion for second reading which would, if accepted by the house, have the effect of delaying the passage of this bill until justice has been provided for. We have no desire, as I said earlier, to rehash and

revise the detailed debate on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture which took place a few days ago, but we are desirous to insist that justice be done to citizens and that a minister of the crown can no longer accuse and convict persons of criminal offences without trial. The accusations of the minister concerned were accusations that this citizen had committed criminal offences. I would like to get the verdict of the house on this question. I therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget):
That this bill be not read a second time until the government has disclosed to the house the precise nature of the accusations and the evidence and has undertaken to make provision for an impartial hearing in cases of public servants accused by it of criminal offences for which they have not been tried or convicted in a court of justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member any authority for an amendment of this kind which is unconnected with the bill?


George James McIlraith: I think I can refer you briefly to the citation used the other night on the excise tax bill, namely citation 382 in the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. I would remind Your Honour that this is a supply motion voting supply for all the government's administration and the amendment states a grievance dealing precisely with the action of the government and merely delays supply until the government makes provision for the removal of an injustice.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed to say a word, Mr. Speaker, there is a broad principle in this connection that there should be no supply granted to Her Majesty without redress, and this is the occasion upon which our redress can be obtained. The amendment which is being moved is similar in character to that which was moved on July 30 last to the Excise Tax Act, which amendment was declared in order by Your Honour. The authority for this amendment is based on citation 382, as already indicated by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). This citation reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution: or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
This is exactly what this amendment seeks in connection with the bill which is now before the house, that the bill should not now be read a second time until the government has disclosed the details of certain
Ways and Means
accusations and the evidence in connection with those accusations. The amendment goes on in that vein which, I submit to you with deference, sir, is entirely within the four corners of this citation. As a matter of fact,
I think the citation here is much broader than the scope of the amendment and for that reason it would seem to me it is quite in order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is unnecessary for me to repeat to you the argument I made on the occasion to which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has just referred, namely July 30. I submit to you that most of the arguments which I directed to showing the amendment on that occasion was out of order apply here as well. It is not open to me to take issue with the ruling you made on that occasion. I say, with great respect, that I did not share your opinion on that occasion, but that is not the point now. The point is that the grounds I argued on that occasion as to relevancy it seems to me have equal application here if you do not consider yourself bound by the ruling you made on July 30, on which the discussion is to be found on pages 2864 and following of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: This bill, as hon. members are aware, is for the granting to Her Majesty of certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1959. We are on second reading of that bill, and it is a debate on the principle of the bill. The circumstances surrounding this proposed amendment are quite different from those which surrounded the amendment to which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has referred. On that occasion there was a motion for second reading of a bill to amend the Excise Tax Act, and the principle which it has sought to declare by the amendment related to the subject matter of the bill. But today, I am asked to accept an amendment which, it is true, declares a principle but it is quite unrelated to the bill.
The bill is one for granting money. The principle declared in the amendment has to do with the treatment of public servants. Unless, as the hon. member for Ottawa West said, grievances which may be presented and should be dealt with before the house grants supply, can be purged at any stage of the proceedings for supply, I would think that this amendment is out of order. I am testing the amendment on the basis of the normal principles that apply to an amendment on second reading, notwithstanding that it is a money bill. If there is any different consideration that applies in the case of a money

Ways and Means
bill, and which would change my view, I should like to have the authorities now before I come to a final conclusion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it has been an historical principle of British and Canadian constitutional practice that supply should not be granted until redress has been given or at least requested in connection with any incidents that may be brought before the house. In this bill we are asked by Her Majesty's ministers to grant supply. We are suggesting that the conduct of Her Majesty's ministers in respect of the matter of this amendment has been such that we should not grant supply until this conduct has been corrected. This is a hallowed provision of our constitution that grievances should be corrected before supply is granted. We are basing our amendment on that provision that there should be no supply granted without redress as well as on the rule cited by my hon. friend. We are asking for redress in connection with the conduct of Her Majesty's ministers, and we think that this matter should be decided before supply is granted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has missed the point. Certainly, when the government asks the house to vote supply it is within the right of any hon. member to air a grievance; that is an undoubted and established right of a member of the house. This right has been exercised by the hon. member for Ottawa West this afternoon. However, that is a very different matter from moving an amendment to the second reading of a supply bill. I believe that is the point the Leader of the Opposition has completely missed. Grievances may be aired, but there is nothing, in my respectful submission, that takes a motion of this kind out of the ordinary rules by which the validity of an amendment to second reading of the bill should be tested. There is nothing in that respect to put this type of bill in a different class from any other bill.
The rules in regard to those amendments that may be offered to motions for second reading of a bill are well known, and the grounds are very narrow, Mr. Speaker. Unless this particular motion can comply with these well established rules, then this amendment can derive no higher virtue because of the fact it is related to a grievance. The airing of grievances is a very different matter from the moving of amendments to a motion for the second reading of a bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I just add one word on the point raised by the Minister of Finance? It does seem to me the minister is,

of course, right that the grievance of one member should not stop supply. What we are asking to do here is something which it is impossible to do in committee of supply. We are simply seeking the verdict of the house on this grievance. This would seem to be the only stage at which we could do that. It would also seem that this motion is declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress.
We are expressing our view, not that the bill should not pass but that it should not pass at this stage. Its progress should be delayed, just as we asked the other day, until a verdict of the house has been taken on the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa West. There would not appear to have been any other stage at which the sense of the house could be taken, and that is what my leader referred to when he referred to the airing of grievances. If the house will not support the hon. member for Ottawa West, then the government gets its supply.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for assisting me in connection with this rather interesting proposition which the hon. member for Ottawa West has raised. It is quite true it is an historic privilege of the house to present its grievances and complaints against the conduct of the government, and ask for redress, before granting funds. But there is ample opportunity for doing so. In fact, we have a rule which provides for six motions to go into committee of supply which are precisely devoted to the airing of grievances. I have not been given any authority which would warrant me accepting the proposition that the rule of relevancy is different for second reading of a money bill than it is on any other bill.
I consider this amendment to be irrelevant and consequently rule it out of order. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I believe at this time it is possible to raise general grievances and since the schedule covers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I set the hon. member right. We are on the second reading of the bill and it is relevant only to deal with the principle of the bill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I shall be only too pleased to raise the grievance when we go into committee.


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


[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 4 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
On schedule C:
['Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?']
Douglas Mason Fisher: Under schedule C we have an item for legislation in the House of Commons. The item gives me an opportunity to make some remarks upon the suggestions that were raised in the House of Commons the other day by the Prime Minister in relation to prospective changes in what might be called the make-up of the chamber. I just wanted at this time to express some of the difficulties I think these changes will create. For one thing, if we turn the chamber into one like the British have with benches, there will need to be a great reduction in the size of this chamber; that is if we are going to keep it in relation to the British example. I should like all members of all parties, before they become too enthusiastic about this idea of the Prime Minister, to think about the relative discomfort of the benches. Any of you who have been in Westminster and have observed the activities in the British House of Commons will recognize that their attendance in the House of Commons is no better than ours, if as good; that it is only on major debates that you get a crowd; that ordinarily there is a mere handful in the house. Despite all the reverence that many people feel toward the mother of parliaments, I would suggest that in many ways they do a rather different kind of work than is done by the members of the House of Commons in this particular country.
Furthermore, one of the marked differences between the British House of Commons and the Canadian House of Commons stems from their whole parliamentary set-up. The next step which the Prime Minister may be suggesting is to cut us out from any offices because in Britain they do not happen to have offices. About the only thing a British member of parliament has is a little locker to hang his hat in. If he wants to interview any constituents, he does so out in the corridors, in the lobbies or in the public rooms. You can let this love for British tradition and British set-up take us a little too far. I should not like to suggest by these criticisms of the British system as they relate to Canada that I think their system is wrong. I think it is fine for them. It suits their particular kind of country which has a unitary form of government that is highly centralized, and in which the centre of the government is so close to the people in terms of distance and time. But I would suggest that in our country our terms are very much different.
Ways and Means
But on the main point of the Prime Minister with regard to introducing benches, I should like to point out again that benches are very uncomfortable and they lead to the display, as any of you who have watched proceedings in the British House of Commons will know, of a great deal of masculine leg. I would suggest it is much more undignified than what we Canadians are used to. I feel that we are very strong on dignity and decorum. If any of you have ever seen the exposed lower legs of Winston Churchill or some of the other gentlemen, you would recognize that it is not an aesthetic display at all. I do not feel that we need to go that far in order to do what the Prime Minister wants to achieve, that is to shorten the debates in this House of Commons. It was delightful of the Prime Minister, to suggest that the debates needed shortening, to admit that he was himself guilty of being prolix at times, but I do feel that before this idea gets very far at all, every one of us from a non-partisan point of view should go over it very carefully.
I would make this suggestion. It might apply to many of you and certainly would apply to myself. I would be uncomfortable in speaking if I did not know that I had something to lean on, something to prop myself up against. If I were exposed in a much smaller amphitheatre, more like a bull ring and closer to the swirl of battle, it might often mean that we would be closer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in a much reduced ring, and that with our rather different temperaments and different ideas of sportsmanship and gamesmanship from those which the British have it might lead to fisticuffs or something like that if we went too far in altering the chamber. So I just wanted to make the point that I think this is one change or suggested change or trial balloon in connection with the House of Commons that every member wants to be very careful about considering.
There is one other point that I wanted to make under schedule C. It has to do with mines and technical surveys, surveys and mapping branch. We were given assurance by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) last year, when his estimates were before the house, that every effort was made to see that there was not any overlapping between the provincial efforts in the geological mapping field and the federal efforts. Yet is was just several weeks ago that Mr. Rickaby, who is an official of the Ontario provincial government devoted to work in this field, came out with the statement that the crying need in this particular field was federal leadership to wipe

Ways and Means
out what he called overlapping and a complete failure to get a plan. Mr. Rickaby made the same point as did Mr. Brown who works for Spartan Air Services before the Senate land use committee, that we have no plans at all for mapping our geological resources, not in a way that compares with what the Russians have already done. Both those gentlemen talked in terms of two and three decades behind the Russians. In the light of the minister's statement last year that there was not any overlapping and that there was consultation, I feel that this is one problem in connection with this particular department in connection with which we need a new approach and at which we need a new look.
One of the difficulties in connection with a geological survey, a land use survey or a forest aerial survey is that there is a great deal of overlapping. One of the most interesting developments in connection with the work is that now photographic interpretation experts can look at aerial photographs and not only draw conclusions about the stands of forests that may be there but from the stands of forests and the vegetation picture they can come to very definite conclusions about the type of soil and the whole environment. Because of this interrelationship of the geological aspect, the mineral aspect, the soil aspect and the forest aspect which fit in; and because our Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is supporting by subsidy provincial efforts in this photographic field as far as forestry is concerned; and because each one of the provinces is undertaking geological surveys and aerial mapping and because our federal Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is doing that, it seems to me that we should have what Mr. Rickaby called for, namely a meeting of the minds involved and some attempt to give us a co-ordinated program that would finally lead to the kind of survey giving us the kind of information which we need for land use in Canada and which we do not have at the present time.
It seems to me that this kind of concrete program should have formed one prominent corner of the vision or, as the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) would call it, the mosaic. In any event a corner of the mosaic should, I think, be a co-ordinated program related to mapping and geological survey work. This, in my opinion, would be most worth-while.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures in the year 1958 not exceeding $330,623,000 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1959; to authorize the national company to issue securities to provide amounts required for the authorized expenditures; to provide that, except as expressly provided, the aggregate principal amount of securities outstanding at any time shall not exceed $307,493,000; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $307,493,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the national system.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this resolution contemplates the introduction of a bill which is of an annual nature. As the house is aware, the Canadian National Railways borrow from the government to meet their financial requirements; they borrow to meet their capital budget requirements and in those years when they have need of financial assistance, to meet their operating budget they also borrow for that purpose from the government.
The capital budget is reviewed and passed on by the government as a matter of course, but all of these budgetary requirements of the Canadian National Railways, indeed all their affairs, are submitted to the house and for many years it has been the practice of the house to appoint a special committee to review the operations and the financial affairs of the Canadian National Railways system. It is an annual accounting to parliament. It is the equivalent in the procedures attaching to corporations that are not of a public nature to the annual shareholders' meeting.
At this session such a committee was appointed and it held meetings, lengthy meetings, on July 14 and 15 last. The president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, and other officials of the Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, and Trans-Canada Air Lines were present with representatives of the auditors of the system. They gave their testimony and answered questions covering the whole broad field of the operations of the associated companies. In

the course of those proceedings the committee also reviewed the budget of the company.
This bill follows, in accordance with the annual practice of the house, that review, that accounting from the company before the special committee. The bill itself, in accordance with the annual practice in such matters, covers the financial requirements of the company for the current calendar year of 1958. The fiscal year of the company is the calendar year, but because of the arrangement with respect to the sittings of parliament it is necessary in these bills also to make provision in advance for the estimated financial needs of the Canadian National system for the first six months of the following calendar year. Accordingly, this bill makes provision not only for the financial requirements for the year 1958 but also for the first six months of the calendar year 1959 of the Canadian National system.
The bill, as is indicated in this resolution, provides for authorizations, guarantees and loans; it also provides, although this is not part of the resolution, for the appointment of the auditors of the company.
As I indicated earlier this afternoon, there is very great urgency attached to this bill, and if it meets with the approval of the house, without asking any hon. member to curtail any of his rights, we hope that this house may be prepared to facilitate the passage of the measure through all stages today. That suggestion was put before the house last night by the leader of the house.
The reason is simply that because of the fact that the session is so much later than usual this year the bill is coming before the house somewhat later than normal according to the calendar, although it is well up in the business of the session in terms of the sessional calendar. It could not have been brought forward, of course, until the committee had completed its review of the needs of the Canadian National system for the funds which this bill will permit the Minister of Finance to loan to the company. It is extremely urgent at the present time-extremely urgent-that this bill be passed through all stages in both houses and receive royal assent not later than the first day of next week unless the company is to be compelled to resort to bank borrowing. This would not be desirable and I think the house will realize the urgency of the situation which I have endeavoured to put before the committee at this time.
The bill simply takes the usual form; it is a bill well established in form and purpose and the procedure followed with respect to the review and the consideration of the provisions of the budget by the special committee established by the house for that purpose is
Canadian National Railways the established procedure. I trust that having regard to the fact that the need is urgent, that the procedure followed is a time honoured procedure, and that the form of the bill is the well established form of a bill that is annual, the committee will see fit to give it speedy passage.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on this resolution will be brief. I agree with the first part of the minister's remarks, that this resolution precedes an annual bill to refinance the operations of the Canadian National Railways. It is true that following the usual practice after the establishment of the committee on railways and shipping in the House of Commons, that committee does hear evidence about the operations of the railway, and members of that committee are given the opportunity of considering, discussing and examining the witnesses who come before it.
However, I will point out to the committee that this is only one of the opportunities hon. members have of discussing matters concerning the Canadian National Railways. There are many other opportunities, and I am sure that those members on this side of the house who will wish to take advantage of those opportunities will propose not to do so on this occasion, and that is the reason why I find myself in complete disagreement with the minister in so far as the last part of his remarks are concerned.
Before I come to that, there are on this resolution, a number of things which I believe can usefully be discussed; the financial condition of the railway, the position in which it finds itself concerning the volume of traffic, the freight, which is declining to a marked and _ sharp degree, as was told us by the president of the railway during the hearings of the committee, the lay-offs of certain employees in the various shops from one part of the country to the other, pensions-as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River so well points out-an increase in which had been promised by the government when it was in opposition and during two election campaigns and so on. I might add that the Minister of Transport said the other day the government was still giving consideration to this matter, but no action has been taken.
I do not want to delay the passage of this resolution by discussing these matters, but I do want to object strenuously to this resolution and the bill which follows going through all stages at this time. We on this side of the house are going to protest that, and I will tell the hon. gentleman why.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course, that could only be done by unanimous consent. The suggestion was made last night by the

Canadian National Railways leader of the house, but if the non. gentleman is not willing, all we can hope to do today is to have the resolution reported and concurred in.


Lionel Chevrier: We are not willing, and I think the Minsiter of Finance should know why we are not willing. We are not willing because if this committee had been established at the time it should have been established it would not have been necessary to ask for the passage of this bill through all its various stages at this time. What I mean is this- and I say it with all respect to the Minister of Transport-I believe that on at least three occasions he told the president of the C.N.R. that a meeting would take place on such and such a date. The meeting never took place, perhaps because of reasons over which the Minister of Transport had no control or, perhaps, for reasons over which the government had no control. But certainly if that meeting had taken place at the proper time when it was first called these matters could have been given consideration and the bill would have gone through long before this day. That is one of the reasons why we on this side cannot consent to the passage of the bill through all its stages today.
Then, again, there is a very important reason, namely that some, nay many, of the activities and operations of the Canadian National Railway are likely to be discussed at the bill stage, so I do not want to present the appearance of trying to hold up the resolution. That is not my purpose. I realize that after the operations of the C.N.R. have been discussed in committee it is right that the annual bill should be passed thereafter, but on the other hand the advantage and the privilege of members of parliament are such that when any of the stages of a bill come before the house it is up to them to determine whether or not they will take part in the discussion. For that reason we on this side do not propose to allow the bill to go through all its stages at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. gentleman agreeable that the resolution should pass today so that we can have the bill distributed tonight?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there will be any objection to that from this side.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In connection with this resolution, one of the reasons we intended to discuss this matter was because of the evidence which was presented by Mr. Gordon before the committee, evidence which raised serious questions especially in connection with labour and, in particular, in relation to a statement that when central traffic control

was established there was the possibility that the running trades would be reduced even further.
I think everyone in the House of Commons is aware of the difficulties which exist at the present time with regard to dispensing with the services of firemen on diesels. With the prospects of central traffic control it seems to me we are rushing very quickly into an extremely difficult labour problem, and we have a responsibility here to discuss this question and face up to it. It is about time the House of Commons gave some leadership rather than that it should again be presented with the spectacle of the Minister of Labour hopping around, I would say in a not too dignified fashion, in an attempt to avert a nationwide strike-efforts which would end up, in their final phase, in the Prime Minister's room. If any hon. members thought that the brotherhood of railway firemen have put up an effective fight and have raised a lot of issues-irrespective of whatever view one happens to take

I can assure hon. members that the brotherhood of railway trainmen is an even stronger and more formidable organization. What Mr. Gordon hinted at in his report spells labour trouble of as intensive a kind as we have had in Canada during the last few decades and for that reason the whole subject merits a great deal of discussion at the next stage of these proceedings.


Mr. Tucker:: In Newfoundland we appreciate what the C.N.T. is doing to improve the telegraph service, and I should like to see the budget of the C.N.T. increased in order that it may further speed up and modernize the system.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-47, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1958, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


ESTATE TAX ACT
Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-37, respecting the taxation of estates.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.

On clause 1-Short title.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the minister would outline to the committee the changes that have been made as a result of the committee discussions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should not have thought that this was the point at which to attempt an outline of the various amendments that the committee on banking and commerce has proposed in the bill. There were actually about half a dozen of such amendments scattered throughout the bill. I can, if the committee wishes, indicate the amendments that were made. They are individual amendments to individual clauses of the bill and do not conform to any particular general pattern. Perhaps I could place the proposed changes on the record for the assistance of hon. members although I trust that hon. members have availed themselves of the opportunity of reviewing the proceedings before the banking and commerce committee which have now been printed and available for some days. The changes proposed by way of amendment are as follows:
1.	Strike out line 35 on page 10 and substitute the following:
"the War Veterans* Allowance Act or section 64, 78 or 112"
2.	Strike out line 19 on page 16 and substitute the following:
"38, be determined as provided in that section."
3.	Strike out lines 39 and 40 on page 17 and substitute the following:
"(5) The minister may at any time assess tax, interest or penalties under this part or notify in writing any person by whom any return is filed that no amount is payable as tax under this part in respect of the death of the deceased, and may"
4.	Strike out lines 1 to 6 on page 18 and substitute the following:
"(b) within four years from
(i)	the date of an original assessment or notification that no amount is payable as tax under this part in respect of the death of the deceased, or
(ii)	the date any property is disposed of under a disposition or agreement described in paragraph (1) of subsection (1) of section 3,
in any other case,
reassess or make additional assessments, or assess tax, interest or penalties under this part, as the circumstances require."
5.	Strike out lines 19 to 21 on page 27 and substitute the following:
"that belonged at that time to the deceased shall, unless it is established that the deceased and such one or more other persons were persons dealing with each other at arm's length, be determined for the purposes of this part as though each such share so belonging to the deceased formed part of a group of shares"
6.	Strike out lines 21 to 24 on page 32 and substitute the following:
"effected on the life of the deceased or payable under an annuity contract in respect of the death of the deceased, and any policy of insurance or annuity contract in which the deceased had an interest shall be deemed to be situated in the place"
7.	Strike out line 39 on page 43 and substitute the following:
Estate Tax Act
"(b) prescribing the nature of the evidence required to establish facts"
In addition, in reprinting Bill No. C-37 as passed by the House of Commons, a comma should be added after the word "guardian" in line 13 on page 46.
Those are the amendments that are recommended by the committee on banking and commerce. I should like to pay tribute to the committee for the very thorough work of review they did on this bill. The committee had extended sittings on the bill and did a very thorough, competent, and workmanlike legislative service in relation to the entire bill.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, as the minutes of the committee on banking and commerce will indicate, I took rather strong exception to what I thought was a too fast process in proceeding with the discussion of this bill without adequate knowledge among the people in the country who were concerned about the issues involved. I believe that as events developed my contention was not improper because only after we were concluding our deliberations did we receive from the outside public representations on the new bill, Bill No. C-37, that developed from Bill No. 248 which was so commendably presented to the public by the minister at the last session of the House of Commons.
I wish to say to the minister that my views as expressed as a member of the parliamentary committee on banking and commerce are all the more confirmed when I realize that last week if the minister felt that this had priority among his budget legislation he could have put it at the top of the list. He did not do so. He told the committee that this was a matter of urgent necessity. He said it was something that would have to go to the other house where public hearings were likely to take place and his excuse was that there was extreme urgency. I just remind hon. members of this committee that two or three weeks have gone by now and in the interim I have seen nothing that confirms the view of the minister about the urgency of debate on this particular subject in the parliamentary committee.
I protested the committee sitting a day or two after the presentation of the bill; I said that we were hasty. I protested that a great number of serious-thinking people across this land who had given time and thought to the former draft of the bill, Bill No. 248 of the 1958 session, did not know that we were seriously as a House of Commons considering the new draft. I attempted to make the point that while the Minister of Finance had said that he and his officials had looked over this situation very carefully at great length and had pondered it and were satisfied that this

Estate Tax Act
was in the public interest, there were manifest amendments between Bill No. 248 which was presented and the bill we have now and I suggested that this indicated that public attitudes on a matter of this kind were worthy of consideration and should be welcomed.
Despite all those protests we hurried into a discussion in committee stage in the banking and commerce committee of the bill which was referred to the committee by the House of Commons. I still regret that situation. I think that so many suggestions could have been suggested to the minister after first reading was given to Bill No. 248 that he should have had equal respect for the opportunity of the public to look fit and perhaps criticize his revised version which we now have before us. I know that this bill will go before the Senate committee. I just hope that they will not be so stultified in their thinking that they will refrain from listening to the people from outside who might tell us something about it.
The minister knows that those associated with him at the moment are the same people that I took great pride in having had some association with in the recent past. It is instinctive in my thinking that sometimes it is possible that simplification on the part of those drafting a bill means simplification for them and not necessarily for the general public.
This is the first session of a new parliament. Large numbers of the members of the banking and commerce committee had never before attended a meeting such as we were attending. I want to say that it gave me a great deal of delight and a thrill indeed to find that after-but this was too abrupt, too quick-certain presentations were made in this committee the new members of the House of Commons realized that they had a great opportunity on an occasion such as that to amend a bill such as the one we have before us now if, in their opinion, it was not necessarily in the public interest. I admire very sincerely the attitude taken by some of the members of the banking and commerce committee who had never sat on a committee of this kind before. They heard certain representations from reputable bodies which could not be quoted directly but had to be quoted by a member of the committee for the record in criticism of the view of the administration that simplification is of the essence. I admired particularly the attitude of some of the new members of the House of Commons when they recognized that under the new bill we have not got a definite discharge of liability for
an executor. They rallied to the cause; they persuaded the minister that the bill was not perfect.
Mr. Fleming [Eglinfon): I think my hon. friend will be fair enough to say that the minister was quite prepared to accept amendments, and did accept actually seven amendments, and offered some of them himself, by way of improvement of the bill.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, that is perfectly true, Mr. Chairman, but it just confirms my point when I say that this bill was advanced to the committee stage in unseemly haste.
I want to say that the public at large was not aware that this was under discussion. At least even some members of the committee had not the opportunity to have criticisms of the new bill, although they had, of course, criticisms of the bill introduced in January.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will my hon. friend answer this question? What member of the committee did not have opportunity to criticize this bill in any way he chose?


George James McIlraith: Six o'clock.


William Moore Benidickson: My point is this. If the minister looks at the evidence of the banking and commerce committee,-this is just guesswork-if he looks at the representations that doubtless he has received in the last few days, as I have, he will find that many people did not know that the House of Commons was sitting in the committee stage to consider this bill and did not know anything about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have received some very high compliments from very high sources on this bill in the last few days.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader whether there is any change in the announcement of the business last night? Perhaps I should ask the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Public Works and I were having a conference.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall commence with the second reading of the bill to provide for the capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railway Company; then, we shall take the estimates of the departments of justice, secretary of state and legislation.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
AUGUST e, 1958	3169
Question

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

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has the government received petitions signed by postal patrons of Baie Ste. Anne, New Brunswick,
requesting that no change be made in the postmastership of that office?
2.	If so, what are the names of the person or persons who submitted the petitions?
3.	Has the government taken any action in connection with the postmastership of this post office?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes.
2.	Harry T. Carroll, Baie Ste. Anne.
3.	Yes-the appointment of Mrs. Rita Theriault has been authorized.
57071-3-200

Thursday, Augusi 7, 1958