1959-05-06

Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: With the leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the President of the United States, with the concurrence of the Canadian government, has appointed General Laurence S. Kuter to replace General Earle E. Partridge as commander in chief, North American air defence command, effective upon the retirement of General Partridge on July 31, General Partridge having reached by that date the statutory age limit for his rank. Air Marshal C. R. Slemon, of the Royal Canadian Air Force, will continue in the appointment of deputy commander, North American air defence command. An announcement of this change of command is being made at this time in Washington.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of us in this house are sorry to learn of General Partridge's retirement. He has been indeed a very great strength to NORAD. He is an outstanding airman and an outstanding public servant. We all wish him well in his retirement. I think at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we would like to pay tribute to Air Marshal Slemon, the deputy commander, for the long and excellent service he has given to this country and for the continued contribution he is making in this position. He is an airman's airman, and an officer of whom this country can be proud.
The airmen under NORAD are carrying on an important task under very difficult circumstances, and to them we owe our support and our appreciation. We congratulate the new commander upon his appointment. We wish him every success in this new, very difficult and demanding role. We hope the government of Canada will give him every possible support in the carrying out of his responsibilities and we would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they pay greater attention to his advice than they have paid to that of the retiring chief.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, we have all noted with interest the statement by the Minister of National
Defence relative to the retirement of the United States commander of NORAD, and the information that a Canadian still holds the position of second in command. We also wish the retiring commander a very long, happy and pleasurable retirement.
In view of the fact that the change in command, as illustrated by the statement of the Minister of National Defence, is strictly because General Partridge has now reached the retirement age in the rank he holds, we certainly hope that a full discussion in this House of Commons will be allowed, perhaps led by the Minister of National Defence, of the entire issue of NORAD because of the fact that both the retiring commander of NORAD and the Canadian who is second in command have both publicly questioned the position or the status, the responsibility and the methods of air defence of North America. [Later:1
On the orders of the day:


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was Air Marshal Slemon considered as a possible appointee to the chief job in NORAD?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would it be possible at any time for a Canadian officer to be appointed to that position?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is asking for an interpretation of arrangements which can scarcely be given off the cuff.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, with deference I suggest that I am really exploring the arrangements, not the interpretation of the arrangements.


George Randolph Pearkes: As I stated the day before yesterday, the appointments of commander and deputy commander of NORAD are by arrangement between the government of the United States and the government of Canada.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Aiken: 1.	Who were the cameraman and the film editor involved in a television news broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation showing the Leader of the Opposition applauding Premier Smallwood at the Canadian club, Ottawa, on April 8, 1959?

Starred Questions
2.	On what date was formal complaint concerning this broadcast first made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and by whom?
3.	Is the film still available?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 1 is "C.B.C. employees".
The answer to question No. 2 is "A letter containing the complaint was received on April 15, 1959, from H. E. Kidd, secretary, national Liberal federation of Canada".
The answer to the third question is "yes".


BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING REGULATIONS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the board of broadcast governors issued any regulations for broadcasting and telecasting?
2.	If so, what changes, if any, were made from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regulations which these regulations replaced insofar as political broadcasting and telecasting are concerned?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is as follows. The board of broadcast governors has issued regulations for sound radio broadcasting. These are to be the subject of representations at public hearings on May 14, and may be amended by the board following the hearings. In connection with these regulations, the board has indicated that they will apply to telecasting until such time as the board announces regulations specifically for television.
The answer to the second question is as follows. The regulations as announced by the board of broadcast governors make the following changes in the section referring to political broadcasting and telecasting. There follows a page and a half of technical definitions and changes which are of a minor nature. With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, rather than read it here I could give it to the reporter and have him insert it in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to insert at this point the answer which he has indicated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The portion of the answer referred to above follows.]
6. (1) delete "Each station shall allocate time for political broadcasts as fairly as possible among all parties or candidates desiring to purchase or obtain time for such broadcasts."
replace by
"Each station shall assign time for the broadcasting of programs, advertisements, or announcements of a partisan political character on an equitable basis to all parties and rival candidates."
(2) delete "The identity of the speaker or speakers on any political broadcast and the names of the sponsor or sponsors or the political party, if any, upon whose behalf the broadcast is made shall be anounced at the beginning and end thereof, but such announcement may, with the previous

consent of a representative of the corporation, be dispensed with in the case of a political spot or flash announcement."
substitute new subsection (2) by
"For the purposes of this regulation, 'any day that an election is held' shall be deemed to mean an ordinary polling day, not the day or days of an advance poll."
(3) delete "For the purposes of this regulation, a broadcast in respect of any by-law which is the subject of municipal balloting or any plebiscite or referendum which is the subject of national, provincial or municipal balloting is deemed to be a political broadcast."
Note. Substitute the wording of section 17 of The Broadcasting Act, 1958, for the wording of section 21 of The Canadian Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1952.


TENDERS FOR MOTEL AND CABINS, FUNDY NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Were tenders called for a concession to operate a motel and cabins on Hastings hill, Fundy national park?
2.	If so, what were the names of the persons or firms submitting tenders and what was the amount of each tender?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. In answer to the second question there is quite a long list of tenders, and information about the tenders, and I would ask permission of the house to have this part of the answer printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to have the rest of the answer printed at this point in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
lEditor's note: The portion of the answer referred to above follows.1
Bungalow cabins concession: G. A. Sommerville, E. A. Ryder, Ghislaine and J. A. Tanguay, W. S. McQuaid, F. W. & E. J. Pettis, R. J. M. Hickey, R. R. Friars, I. D. Smith, H. Stevenson The Riviera Restaurant Ltd., George E. Marks and Evelyn J. Marks, Wm. V. Spencer and Hallie I. Spencer, R. E. Davis, C. H. Snow, R. S. Humphrey and son Manager Green Gables Bungalow Court, P. E. Lister, C. H. Llewellyn, President Wandlyn Motels Limited.
Motel concession: G. A. Somerville, Wm. V. Spencer and Hallie I. Spencer, R. E. Davis, W. S. McQuaid, R. R. Friars, R. J. M. Hickey, W. H. Randall and Mrs. Anne Randall, H. Stevenson The Riviera Restaurant Ltd., George E. Marks and Evelyne J. Marks, E. A. Ryder, C. H. Snow, Ghislaine and J. A. Tanguay, R. S. Humphrey and Son Manager Green Gables Bungalow Court, J. D. Inches, P. E. Lister, C. H. Llewellyn President Wandlyn Motels Ltd.
It would be misleading to quote a simple amount on tenders of this kind without mentioning the other important factors that must be considered in the awarding of a concession. One factor that must be taken into account is the percentage of gross receipts

from the rental of accommodation returned to the crown. Equally important is the rates charged to members of the public making use of the accommodation. Other factors that must be taken into account include the previous experience of the tenderer in operating this type of accommodation, his financial capacity and evidence of his ability to operate the concession efficiently and in a manner in which the public will be well served. In addition, due consideration is given to selecting concessionaires whose permanent place of residence is close to the park and who, by reason of close proximity and more immediate interest, could be expected to give greater attention to the entire operation. The decision as to which tender is the most favourable must be taken in the light of these many important factors and not only on the basis of the percentage of gross receipts that will be paid to the department.


SHOPPING CENTRE, SHANNON PARK
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence approved the sale of land for the construction of a shopping centre at the naval housing project known as Shannon park?
2.	If so, were tenders called for the sale of this land?
3.	How many acres of land were involved?
4.	What was the total price received?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part is yes. The answer to the second part is that in May, 1954 and in February, 1955 business interests in the Halifax-Dart-mouth area were invited to bid on a shopping centre scheme whereby this land-that is, the portion of land in Shannon park-would be made available at a small rental and the buildings and operation of the business would be provided and conducted by the successful bidder. No bids were received.
In September 1958 a company came forward with a proposal to erect a shopping centre on this land. After consideration of the merits of leasing as opposed to selling this property, it was decided to recommend the sale of the land on the understanding that it would be used solely for the development of a shopping centre and that construction be commenced within one year. This sale was authorized in December, 1958.
The answer to part 3 is, 4.8 acres.
The answer to part 4 is, $8,500.
[Latent
On the orders of the day:


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence based on his answer to my question No. 72 on today's order paper. I
Orders jor Returns
do not think the minister understood the second part of the question as it was intended, so may I put the question again. When the land for the construction of a shopping centre at the naval housing project known as Shannon park was sold, were tenders called for the sale of that land?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker.


OIL AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, NORTHERN CANADA
Mr. Hardie: 1.	How many of the applications for oil and mineral development in northern Canada listed on page 3149 of Hansard are from companies or individuals now engaged in the production of oil or minerals?
2.	How many of the applicants are actively engaged in exploration for oil and minerals elsewhere?
3.	Are any of the applicants not at present engaged in the business of exploration or production? If so, which ones?
4.	Are any of the applicants acting as agents for other persons or corporations?
5.	If so, who are these applicants and for whom are they acting?
6.	How many exploratory licences have actually been issued to date; to whom, on what date and for what acreage in each case?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the first five of these questions deal with applications for oil and mineral development in northern Canada, listed on page 3149 of Hansard, and I intend to answer the first five questions together. The answer to the first five questions is as follows. These companies simply requested priority to obtain oil and gas permits when the revised oil and gas regulations are promulgated. They are not required to provide the information requested in these questions. Therefore the information is not known to us in all cases.
The answer to the sixth question is that oil and gas exploratory licences were issued to:
Dominion Explorers Limited (J. D. Bateman)
Texaco Exploration Company
David Eosen
The California Standard Company.
The licences issued do not cover a specific acreage but are designed for general geological exploration anywhere in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory, including the Arctic islands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard: 1. Have any conventions of the international labour organization not been ratified by the Canadian government?

Motion for Papers
2. If so, which conventions by number and title have not been ratified, and what is the reason in each case?



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Regier: 1.	For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958, what were the total payments by the federal government to individuals, institutions, corporations, municipalities, and government, of the province of Newfoundland?
2.	In the same year, what were the total payments made by the federal government elsewhere than in Newfoundland on behalf of this province?
3.	What is the estimated amount of revenue received in the fiscal year mentioned by the government of Canada out of the province of Newfoundland?
4.	For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958, what were the payments paid to the residents of Newfoundland by way of (a) family allowances; (b) the Old Age Security Act; (c) the Old Age Assistance Act; (d) Disabled Persons Act; (e) Blind Persons Act?
5.	At the end of that year, how many people in Newfoundland were reported as being in receipt of (a) unemployment insurance; (b) social welfare or relief?
6.	What was the estimated population of Newfoundland on March 31, 1958?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Have any postmasters and/or postmistresses, non-civil service, been dismissed from service during the period June 1, 1957, to date?
2.	If so, what are the names of those dismissed and what post offices, respectively, were affected?
3.	What were the reasons, in each case, for dismissal?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of any letter or letters exchanged since January 1, 1958 between the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland and the minister of municipal affairs of Newfoundland, regarding the appointment of federal nominees to the St, John's housing authority.
Mr. Speaker:: If the house will permit me, I would like to say something about this notice of motion. In view of the discussion which has taken place earlier about questions to and returns by ministers without portfolio, may I say that normally a motion for production of papers is directed to a minister who has responsibility for a department, and in this case, as the subject matter appears to be a housing authority, I assume it would be the Minister of Public Works. And so I asked myself whether in the circumstances any part of this motion could be within the

competence of the house and in accord with the practice in respect to the production of papers.
I considered the matter in consultation with the Clerk of the house. I could not say definitely that the notice of motion was necessarily beyond the competence of the house in all respects, and in the circumstances I felt that I should not deprive the house of the opportunity of deciding for itself whether or not it could call for the production of these papers after I had indicated to the house the considerations which had prompted me to raise the question.
Briefly they are as follows. There are two cases where the house calls for the production of documents. One is for public papers from a department of government, and the other is for communications made by the government as a whole. In this particular case the minister named in the motion has no department of government and is therefore excluded from the responsibility of producing documents from a department. On the other hand he is a privy councillor, a minister of the crown and a member of the government, and therefore in respect of acts in his official capacity as a member of the government he is presumably amenable to the jurisdiction of the house with regard to the production of documents, subject to the limitations of public policy and so on, which pass through him in that capacity.
I therefore came to the conclusion that the order, if it were issued, would have to be read as though it limited itself to communications made on behalf of the government. In other words it would have to be considered as reading this way:
-for a copy of any letter or letters exchanged since January 1, 1958, between the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland on behalf of the government and the minister of municipal affairs of Newfoundland regarding the appointment of federal nominees to the St. John's housing authority.
It would be possible to put the question as it stands with that necessary qualification being understood, but I think it would be better if I directed that the motion be amended by inserting those words before it is put to the house, as I have authority to do in accordance with the precedents as cited in Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 199.
Before making any move, however, since this is a matter of some interest, I would be happy to hear, within reason, what any hon. members wish to say. May I first give you the authorities for the views I have expressed. May, in his sixteenth edition, at page 273, indicates:
(a)	that returns may be moved relating to any public matter in which the house or the crown has jurisdiction;

(b)	that these documents may be obtained from all public offices and from corporations, bodies, or offices constituted for public purposes, by acts of parliament or otherwise; and
(c)	that the papers and correspondence sought from government departments should be of a public and official character and not private or confidential.
Campion, to the same effect, in his Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, third edition, says:
Returns are of two kinds, either to an order of the house, or to an address to the crown. This distinction, which corresponds to the constitutional origin of the departments, is still rigorously observed. It amounts to this-that information which is wanted from a department which originally grew out of the royal prerogative, such as a department of a secretary of state, is prayed for by an humble address to the crown, whereas information required from a financial department or from a department constituted under statute is demanded by an order of the house.
There is one further reference. In his book Parliament, Its History, Constitution and Practice, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, former clerk of the British house of commons, explains at page 114 that the asking of questions is not the only mode by which the house can obtain information from or through the government, and he then adds:
It can, on the motion of any member, obtain returns supplying such information on matters of public importance as is obtainable through departments of the government.
I might also point out that Beauchesne in his fourth edition under citation 209 has something to say on the subject. What I proposed to suggest to the house was to insert those words and allow the house to decide whether these documents should be produced.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the insertion of the words "on behalf of the government" is concerned I would suggest that in essence this really should not restrict the motion, because the letters in question that have been referred to publicly were written to a minister of the crown of the province of Newfoundland. Since they were written by a federal cabinet minister to a provincial cabinet minister about federal appointees to a housing authority, the housing authority itself having been the subject of an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland, I would say this is definitely a public matter and this is an official communication and therefore should be produced.
You have said that motions such as this are ordinarily directed to the minister who has authority over the department concerned. I would point out to Your Honour that there have been a number of motions passed in this house on previous occasions when we have had ministers without portfolio. The
Motion for Papers
motions have been passed in general terms and I would suggest in such terms as to make it necessary to divulge the kind of correspondence to which this motion is directed.
I would refer Your Honour to a motion moved on May 11, 1931, when in fact there were ministers without portfolio. It reads:
A copy of all petitions, resolutions, recommendations, letters, telegrams, documents, reports, as well as an epitome of all verbal representations addressed or communicated to the prime minister, the minister of agriculture, or any other minister, recommending the pegging of wheat or grain prices from any farmers' organizations, pool selling agency or unit thereof, municipality, board of trade, service club, community association and individual or collection of individuals, from the North Battleford federal constituency since July 28 last, and the respective replies thereto.
A second motion of a similar character was moved and passed on July 20, 1931, and reads as follows:
A copy of all letters, telegrams and representations made by any person, party or organization in Canada to any minister of the crown in connection with the duty on potatoes coming into Canada and their valuation for duty purposes; also a copy of all orders in council passed in connection with same, since August, 1930.
In the return that was produced each minister, including ministers without portfolio, had been canvassed as to whether or not they had any correspondence in this field.


Mr. Diefenbaker;: Would the hon. member permit a question? Who were the ministers without portfolio?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sorry, but I do not have that information. However, there were ministers without portfolio at that time.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Were there any at that time?


Hazen Robert Argue: Another motion falling in the same category was moved and passed on March 13, 1939. It reads:
A copy of all correspondence, papers, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any member of the government and any member of the Winnipeg grain exchange with respect to the wheat board's operating and selling policy and the distribution of the board's business among members of the Winnipeg grain exchange.
A fourth motion, more up to date, was moved on July 28, 1958. It reads:
A copy of all correspondence exchanged since June 21, 1957, between any member of the provincial governments and any member of the federal government concerning the federal-provincial taxsharing agreements.
I would submit that since these motions have been moved and passed, and since a cabinet minister is a member of the government-I do not think there is any question about that-this motion is proper. Even if

Motion for Papers
the words are added to the motion as suggested, the papers to which this motion refers, if they are in the category outlined in the press report, should be produced.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think it unnecessary to hear two representations from the same group.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, there is just one very brief observation I wish to make about the ruling, with which I completely agree, I may say. There are communications which are addressed to ministers from time to time about general matters of public policy and general matters affecting the government as a whole rather than a particular department. It would seem to me that the ruling Your Honour has made would apply equally to such communications if they were asked for, even though the prime responsibility for that particular aspect of policy, on its administrative side, might fall within the purview of a particular minister.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that you will not hear two speakers from the same party?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to muzzle anyone, but the leader of the group with which the hon. member is connected has expressed his views and I take it that he does not dissent from what I have said, except possibly that he feels the motion is correct as it stands without inserting the additional words. Does the hon. member have another point of view to express?


Harold Edward Winch: No, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to what has been said by the hon. member for Assiniboia, my thought is that with these words limiting the order of the house for the production of documents passing through the hands of the Minister without Portfolio to those which passed through his hands on behalf of the government, it is quite clear that private papers should not be called for by the house. The Minister without Portfolio, or any minister for that matter, can and does have private communications which would not fall within the purview of the motion. Perhaps in the past these things have been understood, but in view of the interest that has been taken in this matter in connection with oral questions I thought it should be clear that the house is not asking the minister to produce private papers, and that is the answer to what the hon. member says. Therefore I will put the motion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interpretation you place on your own interpretation the motion is accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Argue, seconded by Mr. Herridge, moves:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General praying that he will cause to be laid before the house a copy of any letter or letters exchanged since January 1, 1958 between the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland on behalf of the government and the minister of municipal affairs of Newfoundland, regarding the appointment of federal nominees to the St. John's housing authority.
I do not know whether the leader of the house would like to suggest a limitation.


Mr. Brooks:: I should like this motion to stand until the Minister of Public Works is here. He is not directly interested but he is interested indirectly.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the mover of the motion prepared to let it stand until the Minister of Public Works is here?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to waiting for the minister to return. I do not see what it has to do with the question, because after some discussion the house is now in agreement, but I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk reminds me that I have put the question with the amendment which I have directed to be made, and it will appear in that form on the order paper when it comes up again.
Motion stands.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now able to report to the house on the result of the negotiations which took place between his officers and those of the United States concerning the subject of pilotage on the great lakes?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I cannot give any further report than I did when I returned from Washington. Very satisfactory consultations took place between the officers mentioned, but I have nothing further of a definite nature to report at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that Vice Admiral Richmond, the commandant of the coastguard, stated before the committee on marine and fisheries of the House of Representatives that consultations had taken place

on Monday and Tuesday, April 20 and 21 -that is after the minister was there-attended by representatives of the Canadian government, and that the discussions had proved abortive?


George Harris Hees: 1 am not aware of that statement. I am advised by my officials who were at the meeting that although Vice Admiral Richmond still maintained somewhat the position he had formerly, in our belief satisfactory progress was made.


Lionel Chevrier: The discussion appears in public document K-107 of April 22.



DOMINION COAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the numerous and recent representations originating from all parts of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia asking the government to revise its unfavourable decision on the Dosco application for a loan for a coal wash plant, can the minister advise the house if this request is at present being reconsidered with a view to giving a more favourable decision in the very near future?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The Dominion Coal Company has not yet presented its revised submission for a coal wash plant that would be of a more realistic size and cost.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I regret not having been able to give him notice until a few minutes before the house opened. Is the minister in a position to report to the house on whether he has received an opinion from Mr. F. O. Meighen, Q.C., regarding possible prosecution of the B.C. Sugar Refining Company? If so, what was that opinion and what legal action is contemplated?


Hon. E. D. Fulfon (Minister of Justice):: received the hon. gentleman's notice just before coming into the house, and in reply I should like to advise him that, as he is aware, it is not the custom to inform the
Inquiries of the Ministry house in detail of legal opinions received from counsel. In this case, however, I had already informed the house, in answer to earlier questions, that the matter had been referred to counsel with instructions for prosecution, and I think I can go so far as to say that Mr. Meighen is preparing the case accordingly.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon,. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):	May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister table the documents recording the arrangements covering individual loans of over $1 million, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition some time ago?
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have no recollection of the particular request to which the hon. gentleman refers. Will he indicate what it is?


Lionel Chevrier: These are loans reported to the Bank of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, this goes back some time. This matter has been under consideration. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition requested a report to the house on the individual loans. He put this question some weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, and asked whether a newspaper report indicating that the inspector general of banks was calling upon the chartered banks for certain returns indicated a departure from past practice in this respect. My answer was that it was not a departure from past practice, and that the matter was under discussion.
The matter has been discussed between the inspector general of banks and some of the banks in the meantime. There was no change made at that time in the existing practice. I pointed out that the newspaper article was erroneous.


Lionel Chevrier: I have not Hansard before me, but was there not some indication by the minister that he would give to the house the arrangement made between the banks and the Bank of Canada covering these loans?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a matter of arrangement between the chartered banks and the Bank of Canada. This matter arose in the course of the discharge of his duties by the inspector general of banks. Under the act he has a right to call upon the chartered banks for certain returns, and the

Inquiries of the Ministry returns that were referred to in this connection were the returns that he was asking the chartered banks to make.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister not indicate to the Leader of the Opposition-like the hon. member for Laurier I have not looked up Hansard-that he would table the record of the arrangement, perhaps "procedure" would be a better description, that the inspector general of banks has laid down for the banks?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. gentleman refers to some suggestion that was made about a change in the existing arrangement. If there was, I was asked if that would be reported to the house. In this regard the inspector general of banks is simply discharging the duties and exercising the powers conferred upon him by the Bank Act. Returns are made to his office from time to time by the chartered banks. There has been a discussion as to the form of these returns, but there are no new arrangements that could be reported to the house.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to direct a question
to the Minister of Transport, notice of which was sent to his office early this morning. Has there been a diversion of Canadian National Railways vessels from the port of North Sydney within the past 10 days? This question concerns vessels which normally carry freight from North Sydney to Newfoundland. If there has been, why?
Has the Canadian National any plans to use any other port in preference to the port of North Sydney, now or at any time in the foreseeable future?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The management of Canadian National Railways advise that throughout the past winter, and also in previous years, due to ice conditions there has been certain use made of the port of Mul-grave. Currently there are two small charter ships operating between this port and Ar-gentia in order to clean up an accumulation of cars which built up during the period when there were ice difficulties. The management states that North Sydney is the regular port of handling for Newfoundland traffic.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF CONFERENCE ON FISCAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish
to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of Premier Frost's announcement that within the next two months a dominion-provincial conference will be held to initiate a study of Canada's entire tax structure, can the minister advise the house if a definite date has been set for this conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was not aware that Premier
Frost had made any announcement on this subject. The matter of arranging a date for a conference between provincial treasurers and ministers of finance and the federal Minister of Finance has been under discussion for some time. As a matter of fact we have been endeavouring to arrange a date. Now, the date has not been finally arranged, but I wrote a letter yesterday to the provincial treasurers and provincial ministers of finance proposing that the meeting should be held in Ottawa commencing on July 6. I have a copy of the letters here and I could read from one or table them, as the house may wish.


Harold Edward Winch: Why does the announcement
come from Premier Frost instead of from you?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as I am
aware there has been no announcement made by anyone, because the date has not been settled yet. I wrote the letters yesterday to propose a date. I presume the letters have arrived in the hands of some if not all of the provincial treasurers by now.


Mr. Speaker:: Would it be satisfactory if
the minister tabled the letter?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Does the Minister of Finance expect to preside at this meeting?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the ordinary
course, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance of Canada would probably be expected to preside at this meeting of ministers from the federal and provincial governments.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Finance regarding the federal-provincial conference. Has it been brought to the minister's attention that the announcement of a forthcoming federal-provincial conference was contained in Premier Frost's election manifesto issued yesterday?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, whatever statement was issued by Mr. Frost yesterday did not and could not contain any reference to this particular date for the conference. The date has been a matter of discussion. We have been trying to arrange this matter with the provinces in order to find a date that was mutually convenient. It has been known to this house and to every member of this house and known throughout the country for some time that there was to be such a conference.
There is nothing new about the intention to hold a conference. That intention was announced in this house early in the present session. We have been directing our efforts to the arrangement of a suitable date, and such discussions as we have been able to hold have culminated in the letter I wrote yesterday proposing July 6 as the date for the commencement of the conference. It is expected that the ministers will be meeting for probably the first two days of that week and that then the officials, the continuing committee, will meet for the balance of the week. That is the proposal. We are now awaiting the response from the various provincial treasurers and ministers of finance to this proposed date.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL  REPORTED TRAFFIC JAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Knowles (Norfolk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if his department is considering any changes to the Welland ship canal section of the seaway which, according to today's Globe and Mail, is causing a major traffic jam?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the heavy concentration of upbound shipping off Port Weller, where some 37 vessels are waiting to enter the Welland ship canal, is largely the result of the unusual number of ships on hand for the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway.
There have been a series of unrelated and diverse delays on the Welland canal, involving both inland and ocean shipping, due partly to high winds and partly to the fact that the mariners are beginning a new season and are more prone to accidents. The ocean-going masters particularly are proceeding cautiously through the locks during this initial period. In spite of these delays an average of 32 ships a day, 20 upbound and 12 downbound, have passed during the last week and with normal operating conditions the backlog of shipping at Port Weller should be cleared in a few days.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I may say, Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the reason for this delay is simply this. We have built a good seaway, we have a fair toll structure and we are attracting a great deal of shipping. We are simply suffering from overpopularity at the moment.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister of Transport say what proportion of these ships going through the St. Lawrence seaway or the Welland canal are foreign ships or other than Canadian and American owned ships?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not have that information available.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister received representations on behalf of Sandor Szilagyi?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister give her most sympathetic consideration to the plight of this young refugee, who has suffered so much for so long?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure I do not need to assure the hon. member of that. I always give sympathetic consideration.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: In the
absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to direct a question to the acting minister arising out of reports that the agricultural stabilization board have contacted the Canadian turkey federation suggesting that the present floor price for turkeys of 25 cents per pound be reduced to 20 cents. Can the minister comment on this report and can he assure the house that the government is not considering this further reduction in still another agricultural product?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture so he can deal with it on his return.

Inquiries of the Ministry PARLIAMENT HILL



REQUEST FOR BENCHES ON SUN DECK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. I should like to know why the sun deck in front of the parliament buildings has not as yet this year been furnished with the usual benches.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Prime
Minister, since three weeks or a little more have elapsed since he told us we could expect the announcement of the filling of the vacancy in the supreme court of Newfoundland very shortly, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he now hopes it will be made in the next day or two.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I think I said on the last occasion when the question was asked by the hon. gentleman, one of my major regrets was the fact that he was as yet a law student and could not be included among those who might be appointed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister if he is waiting to make this appointment until I become a member of the bar?



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Now that the Minister of Fisheries is also Acting Minister of Agriculture, I wonder whether any consultation has taken place between the two ministers with respect to transferring the cold storage arrangements from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Fisheries?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, some preliminary consideration has been given to this proposal, but no decision has been made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether, while he is in the enviable position in which he now is,

he would make a submission to council transferring this function to himself in his capacity as Minister of Fisheries?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that question requires an answer. In any event, I think any such plan would not materialize because I expect the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) to be back very shortly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a further supplementary question. Does the Minister of Fisheries expect to be the next secretary of state for external affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The ministers are not allowed to talk to themselves in this house.



VETERANS REHABILITATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-31, to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act-Mr. Brooks-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act repealed.
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, my advance in my discussion of this bill was halted last night by a cross-fire of other events. As I had done so little talking I will start at the parapet again. This bill was not only considered by the house on second reading before being sent to the committee and later sent to the committee, but was well considered by the Canadian Legion, as usual, with other veterans legislation. I should like to quote briefly from the Legion brief in this respect, but apparently I have lost the page.
In any event, some concern was felt by the Legion with respect to the effect of this bill on certain veterans. After Mr. Burgess, the dominion chairman of the Legion, had mentioned this concern in a brief presented to the committee, at page 366 of the minutes of proceedings of the standing committee I find the following:
Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to.


The Chairman:: Gentlemen, before we consider the preamble, there was one query from the Legion. It was a recommendation presented more in the form of a query than a recommendation. The Legion is wondering about the position of the veterans who have spent a long period in hospital, and whether they will be covered by the terms of this act upon their discharge from hospital.
To that statement by the chairman Colonel Lalonde, the deputy minister, replied. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the first colonel I ever met tried to put me in the jug. In fairness to the deputy minister, Colonel Lalonde, I

must say that ever since I have known him he has tried to bail me out of my problems as presented to me by my constituents. Anyway, Colonel Lalonde stated as follows:


Mr. Lalonde:: Under present policy, Mr. Chairman. I can give the Legion the assurance that these cases are covered. I cannot speak for future governments or ministers, but I know that at the moment these cases are all covered.
On account of the assurance from the deputy minister the committee felt satisfied that the concern of the Legion was covered. That is all I have to say on this bill at this time. That was the one point that had concerned the Legion before the committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might explain to the hon. member that he will find in section 4 of Bill C-31, at page 3, that it is covered. When we come to clause 4, perhaps we can go into it a little more thoroughly. That point is covered.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Additional time where veteran receiving treatment.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: This is the clause to which I was referring. If the hon. member wants to look into it he can see that the point he raised is covered.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-32, to amend the War Service Grants Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, the resolution introducing this bill and the bill itself were before the house on March 4, when the principle of the bill was quite thoroughly explained. It was also before the committee on veterans affairs and has been given very thorough study by that committee. If there are any questions on the different clauses I shall be happy to answer them.
Clauses 1 to 13 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
War Service Grants Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; there is an amendment to this bill. I would move that the house again go into committee on this bib.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Will hon. members give unanimous consent to revert back to committee of the whole to consider this amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 5-Member eligible for re-establishment credit mentally infirm.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I move:
That clause 5 of BUI C-32, an act to amend the War Service Grants Act, be amended by adding thereto, after line 5 on page 3, the following provision:
"9B. Notwithstanding anything in this act, where a member of the forces who is unmarried has, because of a mental infirmity that confined him to hospital, been unable to use all the re-establishment credit for which he is eligible under this act before the expiration of the period within which that credit may be made available to him, the minister may, on application by that member within one year of the date of his discharge from hospital, make available to him any unused portion of his re-establishment credit."


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am very pleased to see this amendment, as I was checking through the bill just prior to the minister making the announcement that he intended to introduce it. This was one question which was pretty thoroughly discussed in the committee, as the result of representations made by Mr. Thompson, in particular, of the Canadian Legion. I judge from reading the amendment now that it does meet the fears expressed by Mr. Thompson on behalf of the Legion and expressed by members of all parties in the committee when they were discussing the representations made by Mr. Thompson. I would like to say we are very happy to support this amendment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, on this clause may I just make this remark. As the hon. member has just stated, this point was brought up in the committee by a representative of the Legion, and more particularly by some of our own members on the committee especially the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Speakman). It is a point that was very well taken and it shows the great value of having a veterans committee studying veterans legislation. The purpose of the clause as it reads is to extend the availability of re-establishment credit to the dependants

War Service Grants Act of those veterans who are mentally infirm. It enables the credit to be used for the benefit of the veteran's household on application to the minister within one year of the date of his discharge from hospital, and he would be entitled to any unused portion of his credit. The act at present makes no provision for such contingencies.
The recommendation made by the committee was to the effect that a single veteran mentally infirm should not be deprived of his re-establishment credit, and then suggested that when his condition had improved to the extent that he could manage his affairs and such improvement had not taken place until the expiration of the normal time limit during which he was able to use that credit, such veteran should have a period of one year within which to use his credit. There would admittedly not be very many cases to which this clause would apply. I am very pleased indeed to get this recommendation from the committee, and we are very pleased to make this amendment.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, at the meeting of the committee this matter was decided by the committee. As a matter of fact the resolution was drawn up by one of the members, and I think some credit should be given to him. This matter has been reviewed on many occasions and discussed for the last five or six years, and finally we have resolved it into a piece of legislation today which is entirely satisfactory, I would suggest, to every veteran in the country.


William Hector McMillan: I did not see the amendment. Does it refer to a veteran after he is discharged from hospital? A veteran might be mentally deranged and still not be in the hospital. In fact, I know of one such case now, and I do not think he would be capable of applying for it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is a cut-off date, 1962. That is the time limit, but if a man is in a mental institution and is discharged from that institution later than that date, this arranges that he may apply for the rehabilitation grant, and he has a year in which to do so after he is discharged.


William Hector McMillan: Does it not state that it is one year after he is in hospital?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is one year after his discharge.


Mr. Carter:: I think the point which the hon. member for Welland was trying to clarify was this: if the man is not in hospital, but is still in such a mental condition that he cannot take advantage of these benefits, is


there any provision by means of which he may take advantage of them later when his condition improves?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My understanding is that if a man is not in a mental condition to look after the matter himself he would have a year in which to do after improvement.


James Moffat Forgie: If a man is mentally ill, in Ontario at least, a trustee could be provided. This rehabilitation grant could be transferred to the public trustee and held in trust until such time as the man was capable of managing his own affairs. I do not think the point which the hon. member for Welland has raised has yet been brought to the attention of the committee, and I do not think the criticism levelled at the minister has been met by this amendment introduced at the present time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have investigated this matter in the department. There would be very few cases at the present time of the kind the hon. member has in mind. We do not know of any. However, I am satisfied, that this amendment, in the light of the attitude the department takes, will prove sufficient.


James Moffat Forgie: I quite agree. I think the matter could be held in abeyance until the meetings of the committee on veterans affairs are held next year. But I would point out that the criticism made by the hon. member for Welland has not been met by this amendment.
Bill reported.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Rea): When shall the bill be read the third time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: third reading of the bill.


Chesley William Carter: Before third reading is agreed to, I just want to take one minute to call the minister's attention to the fact that when this bill was before the committee, the committee did receive a delegation on behalf of the Canadian overseas firefighters association which felt that the services of its members had not been sufficiently recognized, and that because of this they had not been able to take advantage of benefits which other veterans have obtained under the act.
Although many of these benefits have now gone out of existence, I think, as a member of the committee, that the firefighters had a fairly good case and that there had been some injustice with respect to their organization. I would therefore ask the minister and

his colleagues if he would give some consideration to the appeal made by the delegation from that organization to review their services and see what can be done in the future with respect to what may have been an oversight.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should just like to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. We all know where the minister's heart lies; I think it is largely a matter of persuading his colleagues in some of these matters. I urge that every consideration be given to the representations of this organization. We have felt for many years that these men suffered some injustice. They are few in numbers, and I do not think it would cost this country a great deal to remedy the injustices which affect them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ACT FURTHER EXTENSION OF INCOME TAX RATE

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-41 to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not going to say anything on second reading?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think anything I might say now would be quite superfluous. This is a very short bill. It contains only one clause, and we had a somewhat extended debate, I may say, on the resolution. The resolution gave full information as to the contents of the bill, and I think, therefore, the discussion on the resolution stage covered all the ground that would be relevant in a debate on the second reading of the bill.
I might just point out to hon. members that until this bill is passed we have no authority to make the payments to the provinces with respect to the additional 3 per cent of the yield from the personal income tax, and that the provinces are waiting for this; some of them have indicated that they are counting on it and hoping to receive it very soon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the heart-rending appeal which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made in concluding his observations, it seems to me that there is not only a great deal to say but that there is need for much to be said about this bill.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
It may be recalled that a bill similar in all respects was introduced into this parliament a year ago, and also into the previous parliament a little more than a year ago. This is the third round of the same old thing. It seems to me that this business of bringing in this measure for one year at a time and holding out a kind of carrot to the provinces indicating that something is going to be done on some future occasion is a most inefficient way of using the time of parliament and of carrying on the affairs of this country.
When my friend, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) spoke during our discussion of this matter on the resolution stage, he described this as the annual reprieve of the government from its pre-election promises, and I suggested, speaking after him, that the government would continue to proceed in this way from year to year until at least 1962 which seems, if I may make a brief allusion to the bill which we were discussing just before this one, to be the final cut-off date favoured by this government.
Now the minister indicates that the government has no authority to pay this money. It seems to me that there is no need whatever for this situation to have arisen. The minister well knew, when he brought a similar bill before the house in the previous session that this government had no intention whatsoever of making any different provision this year, and there is no reason on earth why the bill of last year should not have applied for two years, or three years, or four years.
This government has not the faintest intention of doing anything more for the provinces at all. Hon. members of this government simply are not willing to get up and say so, however. That is what I said last August in the debate on the previous bill. I said that at most the provinces might receive telegrams but probably this year they would not even receive telegrams; the matter would be just presented to this house and that would be all there would be to it. I also said it would be done at the last possible moment in an endeavour to make a squeeze play-I did not use that phrase, but that is what it amounts to-on the House of Commons.
This is no way to treat parliament. This government that was going to be so respectful of parliament is simply using up the time of parliament in making these annual appropriations in exactly the same form when it knows perfectly well it does not intend to do anything different although, as I suggested the other day, there will probably be a deathbed repentance just before the next election

Dominion-Provincial Relations which I have no doubt is already being planned. I hope hon. members opposite will mark those words because like previous predictions that have been made in this field, I think my words will be borne out by the facts as they will unfold.
There is another thing that needs to be said about this particular bill. This bill is an amendment to the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act. It is an enactment of a new scheme for federal-provincial taxsharing that was devised very largely by the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, and the former minister of finance, Mr. Harris, with the very competent assistance of the able officers of the Department of Finance and other relevant branches of the public service. It was a vast improvement in two respects on any previous arrangements there had been in this field. It was an improvement financially in that, in the good times which we had three years ago, the federal government of that day showed a disposition to share the tax advantages to a much larger extent with the provinces than the present government has been willing to do.
In the second place, it was a much better arrangement because it did remove the last vestige of anything that could conceivably be described as a disability upon provinces which did not want to impose their taxes in exactly the same way as the federal taxes were imposed. In other words, if there was any suggestion-and I never thought there was much to it-that the old tax rental system in any way limited provincial autonomy, the new tax-sharing arrangement removed that suggestion. That is no doubt the reason why the premier of Quebec is now taking the money, which, of course, he did not do under the old tax rental arrangement. It should not be forgotten that it is a very handsome sum, indeed, that he is taking nor should it be forgotten that the people of Quebec would be very much worse off as far as provincial services are concerned or as far as provincial taxation is concerned, or more likely both, if it had not been for the constructive and statesmanlike efforts of Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris and the present leader of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -than whom no hon. member of this house understood these problems better, in my experience in these matters, with one possible exception and that one possible exception was Mr. St. Laurent himself.


Mr. Ricard:: That is a tough one to swallow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It happens to be the truth and I am sure the truth is very unusual in the experience of some hon. gentlemen who have been fed a mixture of myth and camouflage for so long that it has become difficult for them even to recognize the truth when they hear it.


Mr. Cardiff:: Why not stick to it?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The people of Quebec do not share your view.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister, of course, is bringing in a bill one year at a time just for the sake of attempting to kid the troops, and I shall not proceed very long in my remarks before I shall be able to show that that is exactly why it is being done. This method is already wearing pretty thin.
Why do we not have a bill that will run for the same period of time as the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, until 1962? I will tell you why, sir, and I will tell the minister too although he knows it perfectly well. The reason we are not doing it is because there are provincial elections this year in Manitoba and Ontario. My hon. friends opposite, ably assisted by the party's chief of staff, are trying to win those elections by, among other things, giving the impression that something is going to be done about this in the very near future. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) attempted to elicit some information from the Minister of Finance on the orders of the day, with the usual success we have in these matters.
I have here a quotation from one of the leading newspapers in this province, a newspaper very dear to the heart of the Minister of Finance. I refer to the Toronto Star of the day before yesterday, May 4. That issue carried an article in which the newspaper quotes the manifesto of the premier of Ontario in these words:
In the manifesto, Premier Frost disclosed there would be a federal-provincial conference "within the next month or two"-
That was before he got the minister's letter. He was jumping the gun a little, apparently. I continue:
-to initiate a study of Canada's entire structure of taxation and the expenditure and debt trends of each level of government.
A direct quotation then follows in these words:
"There is no doubt," he went on, "that this intensive and dispassionate study-
I like that word "dispassionate" study. There was nothing very dispassionate about those tear-jerking speeches the premier of Ontario was making a couple of years ago when he was appearing on the same platform

with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and was saying, "That is the man who is going to give us $100 million." There was no dispassionate study at that time and apparently the $100 million is now being devoted to a dispassionate study. Certainly it is not in the provincial treasury.
Returning to the article, the premier then went on to say:
"There is no doubt-that this intensive and dispassionate study will produce far-reaching fiscal reforms best calculated to render effective the great principles of our Canadian constitution."
It is obvious from that kind of language that there is an election impending.
The Minister of Finance and the premier of Ontario are engaged in this joint enterprise of trying to fool the people of Ontario once more into thinking that something is really going to be done about this matter, but we know perfectly well that this study group the minister has organized is little more than a pale reflection of the kind of conferences which were promised before the last federal election. Oh, I know that the minister is going to get up and say that this promise was made in the election campaign prior to the last election campaign, and so it does not count any more. The minister might be interested in knowing, however, that there are many people in this country who take public men-or at least some public men-at their word.
As I am going to be saying a great deal about federal-provincial conferences and as I know how sensitive the Minister of Finance is on this subject, I think I might anticipate the objection I expect he will raise whenever he thinks that anything I am saying is somewhat effective, by recalling to Your Honour's mind the fact that we did have a debate on a very small aspect of this subject which began with a motion moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) on February 9. That motion read:
This house is of the opinion the government should call a federal-provincial conference at once to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations.
The words of the motion may be found at page 826 of Hansard of February 9. I can assure Your Honour that I am not going to argue that the federal government should call a federal-provincial conference at once. I understand the rules of the house and I know that the Tory majority in this house decided there should not be a federal-provincial conference at once even if Mr. Frost wants one and in spite of the fact that Mr. Roblin wants one, or pretends he does. The Tory majority in the house put a steam roller over that motion. They would not allow it to pass. Therefore it is a decision of the
Dominion-Provincial Relations house and I am not going to transgress the rules of the house.
But I do think that when the minister replies he should tell us when this conference is going to be held, and I do not mean this pale imitation conference of bureaucrats who cannot decide anything and who, of course, should not be allowed to decide anything; but when a real, proper conference of heads of government is going to be held, or whether the government has any kind of intention of holding one at all, which I do not think they have. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a complete change in the attitude of the government since they came into office.
In the last parliament we were told very authoritatively by the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) what the situation was. On October 18, 1957 he was asked a question by Mr. Breton, the then very distinguished member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, whom all of us in this house miss, at least all of us in this party, and who, I predict, will be back. I read from the English translation as found on page 129 of Hansard:


Mr. Breton:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Solicitor General a question? When sitting in the opposition the hon. Solicitor General has, on various occasions, given expression to the well-known thought that federal subsidies are unconstitutional. The opinion which he voiced then was shared in every way by the government of the province of Quebec. In view of the proposed federal-provincial meeting on fiscal matters-
That was the one in November, the shadow meeting.
-could he tell us now if he would oppose the subsidies which his government seems to be preparing at this time?
Here is the answer by the Solicitor General:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. friend that I am still opposed to subsidies such as were proposed by the former government.
"I am still opposed." These subsidies so-called are still being paid. A slight increase has been made by the present government, but surely if a thing is wrong, to do a little more of it is even more wrong. Yet the Solicitor General, despite his capacity as a law officer, is now compounding this wrong. At that time, it was suggested by an hon. member that the question was a political one, and the Solicitor General went on:
And a political one, yes.
Since when has it become improper to ask political questions in a political assembly?
I want to tell him that the proposals of the federal government are not yet known-
How right he was! They are not yet known, and heaven knows when they will be known!
-but I am convinced-
Though nobody knew what they were.
-that they will be made on a very different basis from those of the former government.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
Then we got, of course, a small instalment precisely on the scheme of the former government. The questioning was pursued but I will not take up the time of the committee to read all that intervened. It is very interesting and can be found on pages 129 and 130 if hon. members want to read it. But I intervened-perhaps it will not surprise some of the newer members to hear this-and addressed a question to the acting prime minister, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). The question I asked him was this:
I ask the leader of the government, is there any intention whatsoever on the part of the federal government to substitute something else for the equalization grants?
This was the reply of the Minister of Public Works:
Well, now, Mr. Speaker-
We all know the way the Minister of Public Works speaks.
-I suggest that the hon. member for Twillingate-Bona vista-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Green:: Oh, Bonavista-Twillingate-he is all twisted up anyway.
That, I thought, was a remarkable contribution to the debate.
I suggest that he has already had his answer from the Solicitor General and he should know better than anybody else in this house that announcements of policy will be made in due course by the government.
We know that all announcements by this government are going to be made in due course, and "in due course" is coming to be more and more and more like eternity. The Solicitor General, having told us that on no account would this government continue payments to the provinces on the same basis as the Liberal government we had, of course, the events we all remember in January of 1958 when the Minister of Finance got his arithmetic all wrong and allowed all of the provinces to expect more than they got and some of them to expect more than, after a bad week end, even the Minister of Finance thought they were likely to get.
From that day until this, we have never had the faintest hint of what was in the mind of the government until the speech made by one hon. member from the province of Quebec who last Thursday was preaching for a call. The hon. gentleman, who made a very bright and intelligent speech, is already rumoured as likely to be, if not the next minister of finance, at least the parliamentary secretary to the next minister of finance. I am sure that considering the limitations on the choice of the government that choice would be welcomed in some quarters at any rate. The hon. gentleman had this to say, as found on page 3197 of Hansard of April 30:

(Translation):
When the central government convened the provincial representatives in 1957, it listened to their proposals, but soon realized that there were such differences of opinion between them that it became necessary to go very deeply into that problem.
(Text):
A very profound study would have to be made of this matter, a very profound study going on at least until 1962 and maybe beyond that. That is not what we were told before the election before the last. Before the election before the last, when the hon. gentlemen now occupying the treasury benches were going about the country preaching for a call, they had no doubt that they had the solution right up their sleeves.
(Translation):


Mr. Tremblay:: You said that last week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I see that the Tremblay is trembling.
(Text):
They had the solution. The solution was all there. There was no problem at all. There was no profound study needed. All the people needed to do was to elect the Conservative party and this problem would be solved forthwith.
We all remember that touching scene in Toronto on April 25, 1957, when Mr. Frost and the Prime Minister appeared together on the same platform to open the campaign and Mr. Frost appealed to the people and said-it must have been very touching indeed-"Don't let them work you to death, John. We need you." They may have needed him, but they have not got much out of him. I could go on reading this sob story. I do not think the meeting was quite what was expected, because Mr. Frost spoke so long that the Prime Minister, according to the Canadian Press, had to cut three-quarters of his own speech and even then it went on until nearly midnight. But there were some things said on that occasion that I think are perhaps worth recalling today. For example, the Globe and Mail reported as follows:
Mr. Frost, whose appearance on the platform with Mr. Diefenbaker gave the rally a significant air of party solidarity, hit hard at the tax-sharing deal which the Liberal government offered the provinces ... "I say that the solution lies in a realistic division of tax sources in the direct tax field which belongs equally to the provinces and the federal government. It is not a matter of the federal government giving Ontario or the provinces anything. That is the patronizing attitude of Ottawa.
Now they do not even give!
All we ask is a reasonable part of our own, a part which is commensurate with the size of the job we have to do, and upon the accomplishment of which much of Canada's future depends."

Then, the present Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, had this to say at that same meeting and I think the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) should listen to what his leader said on this occasion because it is very different from what has happened.
We believe there can be no national unity in this nation-
Imagine, sir, saying that after Mr. St. Laurent had been prime minister of this country for nine years and when there was a greater degree of unity than there had ever been before or than there has been at any time since.
We believe there can be no national unity in this nation until there is a realization that the federal-provincial matters have handcuffed the provinces of this nation; have denied the municipalities adequate sources of revenue;-
What amount extra have they got since?
-have placed the provinces and the municipalities in a position where they cannot discharge their constitutional responsibilities or permitting the necessary development in their own territorial confines of the natural resources that there are. We believe the provinces and municipalities must have the financial resources to carry out those responsibilities. We believe in the federal system of government.
That, of course, is a remarkable assertion!
We believe in the federal system of government.
These are the people who send telegrams out to tell the provincial governments concerned what they are going to get.
We believe that its preservation is essential to Canadian unity. We believe the federal system is today being challenged by the centralization complex of the St. Laurent government and that a healthy division and balance of revenues as between the federal and provincial governments must be assured.
We intend to form a government to immediately convene a dominion-provincial conference to bring about a settlement of these problems, not in the spirit of arrogant domination as displayed by the present government, but in the spirit of unity and amity and with mutual tolerance and respect.
That was the first speech in Toronto, and there were variations on this theme right across the country. Because there were some variations I intend, in order to be completely fair to hon. gentlemen opposite, which I always try to be, to give some of these variations. For example, I quote from the first television broadcast the Prime Minister delivered on April 30, 1957:
Since they came into power-
That is the Liberals.
-they have more than doubled the percentage of the federal portion of the taxation dollar. They have left the provinces and the municipalities fewer and fewer sources of revenues for their expanding requirements.
66968-9-215
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Since the minister's latest budget a higher proportion of the taxes of this country is being taken by the federal government than ever before in our history.
Then, at Hull, on May 7, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of May 8, we find the then leader of the opposition saying:
"One of the first steps to be taken by any government which I am called upon to lead", he said, "is to call a dominion-provincial conference to discuss a fair apportionment of sources of revenue as between the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities."
Well, the municipalities were forgotten along the way somewhere as we all know. Then, at Guelph, on May 13, as reported in the London Free Press of May 4, we find this:
Mr. Diefenbaker asserted that a Conservative government would convene this autumn a dominion-provincial conference to ensure that the provinces and the municipalities had a reasonable share of the tax dollar.
Then the present Prime Minister went into a province where there is, if I may say so without offence to the people of any other province, a more acute understanding of federal-provincial tax problems. This matter has been discussed for longer in that province than any other province. I refer to the province in which I spent 30 years of my life, Manitoba, because it was in that province under Mr. Bracken, Mr. Garson and latterly Mr. Campbell, that this problem of taxsharing was preached to the people. When the Prime Minister went to Winnipeg, therefore, there were some doubts in a good many people's minds, including apparently the Prime Minister's, about how some of this doctrine he was preaching was being received. There were some questions in many people's minds about whether the equalization system was going to be continued. The Prime Minister gave a press conference in Winnipeg which was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press. This is on May 14, 1957, and it reads:
Conservative Leader John Diefenbaker In Winnipeg today denied any claim that he was "buying" the support of Ontario Premier Leslie Frost with promises of a better federal-provincial tax agreement deal for Ontario which could work against the prairie provinces.
Such a suggestion, said Mr. Diefenbaker in an interview here, had "absolutely no foundation". There never had been any "direct or indirect suggestion" by Premier Frost that he would expect better tax terms from a Conservative government.
And he added that any person saying otherwise was talking "from fear and not reason".
I do not think I should trespass upon the time of the committee to read the whole of it. However, there are one or two other points.
He charged that continued centralization of taxation by the federal government was leaving the municipalities as "the forgotten people".

Dominion-Provincial Relations
Present tax relations, Mr. Diefenbaker maintained, are a "haphazard outgrowth" of wartime agreements which don't meet the problems of Canada today. The federal government offered "cut and dried" plans-
The difference there is that in the case of this government they were cut and not even dried before the provinces were forced to take them. They were "all wet", and they were "all wet" in more senses than one.
Under a Conservative government, he said, the provinces would have a voice in deciding fiscal terms-
Listen to this!
-the provinces would have a voice in deciding fiscal terms and the tax agreements would contribute to national unity.
Then, at Carman, Manitoba, on May 15, 1957, as reported in the Toronto Star of May 16, we find something very important, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to say something about this one.
No province in Canada will get less tax money from Ottawa if a Conservative government is elected June 10, John Diefenbaker pledged here last night.
The national Conservative leader promised a fair share of tax revenues for all provinces, with more for the poorer provinces but not at the expense of the richer provinces.
This is more of that mirage about which we used to hear, that you could give more services, have lower taxes and still balance the budget. This is one of those myths of the balmy days of 1957 that have gone with the wind.
The larger provincial shares, he indicated, would come from tax money now retained in the federal treasury.
At that time, of course, the Tories were going around saying that Mr. Harris had left the treasury bulging with money. I believe the Minister of Finance has a different line now.
Mr. Diefenbaker made this pledge to almost 700 persons who overflowed-
And so on. Then, at Victoria, on May 21 -I think this, sir, is really a honey, and I hope the Minister of Finance is listening- this statement was made:
"The plight of the municipalities is becoming tragic because there is a constant increase in federal taxes. Now the federal government takes the attitude that there is no responsibility on them to assure that the municipalities shall have the right to discharge their responsibilities-
"The municipalities find themselves unable to carry on because they are being restricted of the sources of revenue."
The premiers of many provinces, he said, had complained there was no recognition of their fiscal needs.
"Even the city of Victoria has to pay outrageous rates of interest today."
This is in 1957, and I should like to know what they pay in 1959.

The time has come for a meeting of the provinces and the federal government, with the municipalities present, to discuss these problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I wonder what the idea of the hon. member who has the floor is as to the scope of this debate? He seems to cover the whole realm of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. I am not sure if he is right in doing that. It seems to me that the section continues for one year an increase from 10 per cent to 13 per cent of one particular arrangement-that is the allowance, I think it is-with respect to personal income tax as a factor in calculating the tax equalization payments. Is that not it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: What the bill does in itself is a relatively limited thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite so.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether it is necessary or appropriate to debate the whole concept of the division of revenues between the federal government and the provinces and the municipalities on a bill that is as narrow as that. I should like to have a little bit of guidance on that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might say to Your Honour that I completely agree with you. We are told that this bill is a temporary measure for one year only pending the permanent measure which the present government promised before it was in office, and which it has continued to hold out some hope of extending to the people since. I am seeking to argue that instead of bringing this temporary measure before us for a period of one year only-and the duration of one year is extremely important to my argument-the government and the minister should explain to us why the government did not do what it undertook to do when it obtained a mandate from the people. I suggest that this measure which is brought before us is an entirely different one from the measure for which the government obtained a mandate. In order to make that argument it seems to me I must show what the nature of the mandate was. I have been trying to confine myself strictly within those limits, with this one exception that in making that argument-


Mr. Speaker:: Even following the hon.
member's argument in that respect, may I ask whether he should not relate his proposition that the government is not doing something that it promised to do to this narrow field rather than to the broader field. In this bill the government is not saying that this is the only provision with respect to federal-provincial arrangements that it is putting forward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am seeking to show that that is precisely what it is and indeed that the government has forgotten these other things which it promised to do. It seems to me that it is the proper scope of debate. When the government seeks, as we as an opposition think it does, to mislead the people and to fool the people, it seems to me that it is the proper function of an opposition to bring to light the facts relevant to this measure. The excuse that the minister gave-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that the hon. member is leaving the point of order that was raised.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I am not leaving the point of order. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could possess his soul in patience until I am finished. When the minister introduced the first bill in 1958 he indicated to us that this was an interim measure pending the resumption of the conference which had been promised and that, in succession to that bill early in 1958 in the previous parliament, something else would come. He told us the same thing with less conviction last year. He told us that with still less conviction this year. In other words, what we are being asked to do is to accept this bill.
What seems to me to be the governing point is that this is a one-year measure. I am suggesting that the principle of the bill, in its being a one-year measure, is entirely unacceptable. So that Your Honour may perhaps more readily see what is the trend of my argument, may I say that I intend to show that either the government should come clean and admit it has nothing else to offer and then propose a bill that would extend this until 1962 when the parent act also expires, or, alternatively, they should tell us now what it really has in mind as the successor of this legislation. It seems to me that matter is entirely relevant to the principle of the bill, and I have no intention of departing at all from that line of argument. If the Minister of Finance wishes to say something, he now has the opportunity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should say thank you to the hon. member who permits me now to have a word on the point of order. Apart from other considerations, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this has now become the third debate in this session on the subject of dominion-provincial relations. It has become that because hon. members in the opposition will not recognize the rules of the house. The first debate on dominion-provincial relations in the present session was held on February 9 and 10 on an amendment introduced by the hon. member for Essex East. It is to be found at page 826 of Hansard and is as follows: 66968-9-215J
Dominion-Provincial Relations
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion the government should call a federal-provincial conference at once to deal with serious problems of common concern such as unemployment and fiscal relations."
That amendment, Mr. Speaker, was negatived by the house by a vote on February 10 as recorded at page 885 of Hansard. In that debate we heard the same speech that we are hearing today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not speak in that debate, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not the same speaker. We were denied the inexpressible privilege of listening to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in that debate. But his near neighbour the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) then made the same speech that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is making now. Then we have had speeches on the same subject smuggled at every opportunity into other debates during the session by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate smuggled one in within recent days-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -on a matter that was not related to the matter in issue. But there was indulgence shown to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who is always ready to test, try and take advantage of any indulgences. We had this same ground covered again at the resolution stage. Members were not restricted as I urged them that they should be in the light of the fact that the debate had been held on this wide-ranging subject on February 9 and 10. They covered the whole area again. Now the hon. member is back trying to repeat the same thing again.
I recall, Mr. Speaker, that I chided the Leader of the Opposition about introducing that amendment on this subject on a supply motion back on February 9, when he knew very well that we would be bringing in this resolution and bill not long after that and that there would be full opportunity to talk about the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, his answer then was, "This will shorten up the debate when we come to that bill". It has not shortened the debate, Mr. Speaker, because hon. members opposite have blithely disregarded the fact that there was discussion on this matter and they have gone over the whole area again.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this bill is confined to one thing and one thing only. It proposes to amend one section of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act and to do so for one

Dominion-Provincial Relations purpose and one purpose only, namely to raise from 10 per cent to 13 per cent the provincial share of the yield from personal income tax in this present fiscal year. That is what it does and it does no more than that. In my respectful submission this wide-ranging debate, this odyssey into the realm of federal-provincial fiscal relations is quite out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: If this bill is not passed, the effect would be to leave the exemption at 10 per cent, would it not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not the exemption, Mr. Speaker. The provincial share would then remain at 10 per cent. The one thing the bill does is to raise to 13 per cent for this present fiscal year the provincial share of the yield from personal income tax.


Mr. Speaker:: The point on which I wanted assistance was what the minister and the hon. gentleman who had the floor felt was the proper scope of debate. I take it that the minister feels that the debate should be limited to a discussion of the desirability of increasing from 10 per cent to 13 per cent for another year the exemption of tax. Can he say whether that necessarily involves other aspects of the agreement and arrangement between the provinces and the federal government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not at all. The other provisions of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act continue without change. There is no change made in the agreements which have been entered into between the federal government and the provincial governments in pursuance of the act. All this does is to enable the federal government to pay to the provinces this additional 3 per cent yield from the personal income taxes for the present fiscal year. That is its complete effect, no more, no less.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I have a word on this very point of order. I noticed with great interest the point you raised with reference to what had been said by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), and I had decided to let well enough alone and that nothing needed to be said. However, the minister, who is considered an authority in this house by a goodly number of people, has raised the point which I noted very carefully you had not raised, which was that when the house has made a decision in the same session, the minister's contention seems to be, that subject matter may not again be debated within the same session regardless of the legislation which may be introduced after the decision has been made in the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, that is a position which I would maintain would be completely unacceptable. If we accepted that proposition, all the government would have to do in order to prevent any debate on any of its contentious legislation would be to sit and wait until the opposition had obtained a verdict on an issue and then bring in some very controversial legislation on that very subject. Then the house would, according to the minister's interpretation, be blocked from having a proper debate on the bill in question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's apprehension on that score is not warranted, because the debate on this general field was a debate on the holding of a conference, and that has been disposed of. I would think it quite improper to reopen or redebate that decision today. The debate, of course, on the resolution stage is an inevitable duplication in our system of debating a bill three times, or four times if you count the committee stage, if the house wished to do so. I suppose that is just a precaution against inadvertent or ill-considered legislation. But I think it has been well established that where a section of an act is amended it does not open up the discussion of the whole act. That has been well established and well laid down. The trouble with this subject is that it is so intangible. At least, it has so many ramifications that it is hard to draw the line, but I think the debate ought to be restricted to the proposition which is before the house and criticism of the government for having taken that particular stand.
I admit that that necessarily opens the door to a reference to what else might have been done and what else the government promised, but I think that discussion too ought to be with relation to this particular amendment, which is an allowance of the equivalent of a percentage of income tax. It will take a little time, but this might be a long debate if it were not clear what we were trying to do. I would therefore ask the house to keep as closely to this specific item as it can, because the rules are clear that that is what we are supposed to do when debating an amendment to a specific section.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to avoid this by pointing out at the outset that I was not going to open up the debate of February 9, and I have not, at any stage, urged or said that I thought there ought to be a federal-provincial conference now or at any other time. I have been keeping completely off that subject. It may prolong my argument a little to have to point out at each stage that increasing Mr. Harris' 10 per cent to the present minister's 13 per cent

is not carrying out what the people of this country were led to believe would be done in this field, and in this specific field, when they elected this present government. It does seem to me that perhaps the Minister of Finance, having used this rubber stamp method of dealing with the provinces, now thinks that this house should also be treated as a rubber stamp, and that all we can debate is whether it should be 14 per cent or 11 per cent, or else we must keep quiet.
What I am saying is that this bill is not what the people were led to expect. In the first place, they were led to expect that this problem was going to be solved, and not that the government were going to be given an annual reprieve, as my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's described it. It seems to me that, we should consider what the Prime Minister said at Victoria on May 21 as to what he intended to do about this problem of federal-provincial fiscal relations. What he said was that the government intended to convene such a meeting in the spirit of confederation. He said that if action was not taken we would find ourselves in a position in five years where the municipalities would be bankrupt or unable to carry out their responsibilities.
I say that this is a very poor substitute for that promise. That was apparently something which was to be done urgently. Two years have already passed almost to the day since the Prime Minister made that statement in Victoria, and we are ask to approve another interim arrangement for another year. It is obvious that nothing more will be done about this urgent problem for one more year, although the Prime Minister had said that in five the direst things would happen, and we have already disposed of three of those five years.
Then the Prime Minister said at Saskatoon on May 27-and I will make these remarks as brief and direct as possible-that no province would receive less than it is receiving under existing fiscal relations. Well, that is true. Then the Prime Minister added that no new fiscal agreement would be made "except by agreement of all". This bill is introduced by agreement with no one except with the majority of this house. It is an enactment of this house and the provinces can take it or leave it. No province agreed to it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But they all take the money.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They take the money, just as they took the money which Mr. Harris' bill provided in exactly the same way. That was the "take it or leave it" which the minister used to complain about, but all he is
Dominion-Provincial Relations doing today is exactly the same thing except that Mr. Harris discussed the question with the provinces, and Mr. St. Laurent discussed it at five different meetings with the provinces over a long period, and had a great deal of correspondence, before reaching a decision. Mr. Harris did not send a telegram on Saturday saying, "We will be doing this on Monday, and if you do not like it, it's too bad, but that promise made last November to have a conference is no good any longer." That is the difference between what we are asked to do here and what the people were led to believe would be done.
Then at Prince Albert-and this is surely very different from what the minister is doing in his bill-the Prime Minister told his audience that if elected the Conservatives would call a federal-provincial conference at once, with the municipalities invited to sit in, to "distribute the Canadian tax dollar to suit all provinces". This certainly is not doing that. This bill is certainly not doing what we were told would be done right after the election. Another thing which was said at Prince Albert was that one result of the conference would be to ease present tax burdens on Canadian municipalities. I do not think the minister would contend for a minute that he has done that by this bill. At least, if he did, he certainly would not find his friend Mr. Gardiner, the super-mayor of Toronto, agreeing with him, because we know his views. He would not find the premier of Ontario agreeing with him either, and he certainly would not find the premier of Manitoba agreeing with him.
There is other evidence of the same kind, but I do not intend to be repetitive, sir. This is what we were told would be done as compared with what is now being done. The Prime Minister said at Three Rivers on June 4, 1957, according to the Montreal Gazette:
The Conservative party will restore the true meaning of the British North America Act which guarantees the provinces freedom to carry out various spheres of activity allotted them under the constitution.
We will not only make sure that the constitution is respected-we will make sure that the provinces and municipalities have sufficient money to do the job they are supposed to do.
And this is how this is being done!
Having the power to do a certain job does not mean very much if you have not the financial means to implement these powers.
I believe, Mr. Frost is still saying that. So, I believe, is Mr. Duplessis and so, certainly is Mr. Roblin, the premier of Manitoba. And here is the last of these quotations. At Woodstock on June 6, the leader of the Conservative party said:
A Conservative administration would summon a dominion-provincial fiscal conference in the fall to revise the tax structure-
3396	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations
And this is the revision. It was not done at the conference; it was just brought in unilaterally and the provinces could take it or leave it.
That is the record. There were no doubts, no problems, before June 21, 1957. You just called a conference; you all loved one another and the problem was quite easy-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are talking about a conference again, and that is out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not talking about any conference that is going to be held. I am talking about the conference that was held here in Ottawa, the conference out of which the minister claims this bill came. I am talking about the very origin of this bill, and surely not even the minister will claim that that is out of order. He surely will not contend that it is not competent in a debate on the second reading of a bill, to discuss the origin of that bill. The minister told us in January 1958, when he introduced a bill which was exactly the same as the present bill except for the dates, that it was in substitution for the resumption of the conference, which held a two-day meeting in November, 1957. It was to tide them over the period when parliament was meeting. He did not say "until the election was over", because that was a dark secret then. He said "while the session was on", and explained that there was not enough room in this building to accommodate the conference while parliament was sitting, though Mr. St. Laurent did not find any difficulty on that account. When there was a will, there was a way, but when there is no will, no way can be found. The reason we have this bill before us, for a third time, is precisely because of what happened at that conference, precisely because it was the most disillusioning experience that this new government has had, among the many disillusioning experiences it has suffered. Let us see what this conference was supposed to do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is just doing the very thing which, if I correctly understood the view which you expressed earlier, Mr. Speaker, is quite out of order. He is going back now and advancing the most spurious connection between the argument with which he wants to delay the house and the bill itself. There is no such connection as he is trying to maintain, and all these arguments with which he is now seeking to delay the house and the payments to the provinces, are entirely without relevance to the matter before us as I understand it.


Our purpose at this stage, as I conceive it, is to debate the principle of this bill, and the principle of this bill is concerned with raising the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax under this statute. The statute is not opened up to discuss other matter. This bill proposes to amend one single provision of that act. It is quite obvious that the hon. member is just going ahead to make these endless, repetitious remarks in an effort to cover matters which are not relevant to the bill within the rules of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say a word on the point raised by the minister. I think it comes with singularly ill grace from a minister who read endless documents for three hours in a very recent debate-


Donald Methuen Fleming: All relevant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and who also took part in a very celebrated debate in 1956 when he refused to accept the ruling of the Chair and had to leave the chamber-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this relevant?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am discussing whether this is relevant.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This demonstrates the irrelevancy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened to the minister patiently and without interruption. Perhaps he could reciprocate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could stick to the point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will have an opportunity to speak later, and if he should stray from the point I will not raise points of order.
The principle of this bill, says the minister, is to raise the provinces' share of the personal income tax from 10 per cent to 13 per cent under the federal-provincial taxsharing agreement. Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill is surely nothing of the kind. That is the modus operandi of the bill. Surely, the principle of the bill is to provide the provinces with a share of the direct taxes. That is the principle of the bill. It is the principle as enunciated by Mr. Walter Harris when the statute which we are now asked to amend was introduced, and it was the principle to which the minister pointed with great satisfaction when he claimed that he was following it in a more generous way only a little over a year ago. The principle of the bill is not merely the arithmetic of the bill but the purpose of the bill, its object, why we are doing it at all. Why do we have this federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangement at all? We have it for many reasons and I am not going to enter into a discussion of

these reasons now, because that would be debating the main measure. We have it primarily in order to divide as equitably as possible the direct taxes in which the federal government and the provinces are entitled to share under the constitution. And I am maintaining that this bill does not do what the government said it was going to do before the Minister of Finance introduced the original bill of which this present measure is the successor.
The minister now says that this measure did not arise out of the conference. If I had Hansard here for January 25, 1958, I think it was-that Saturday morning when the minister said the conference could not be resumed for certain reasons and that, in substitution, he was taking this course-I could prove otherwise. Now he says there is no connection between the two. It seems to me that the minister has answered himself.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Agreements Act of 1956 here. It contains a great many sections and it deals with a great many different things. I would think that while this bill does, in effect, change the amount of the payment which will be made-the amount of the share which will accrue to the provinces-it does not change any of the principles which were settled by this act passed in 1956. The house then took its decision on the general scheme for a division of revenues between federal and provincial authorities.
All this bill seeks to do is to alter one of the component parts. That does not open the door to debating the question of how corporation taxes or estates taxes are dealt with, or anything of that kind, nor does it open the door to the debating of the negotiation of agreements which have been concluded, except in so far as this legislation may change those agreements. I admit it is not easy to define a narrow pathway, and I certainly do not wish to restrict debate, but I feel that if the whole subject is discussed we would not be following the course that this house should follow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was about to read from the opening speech made by the Prime Minister at the conference. I should like to read a sentence or two, and I think Your Honour will see how directly it is related to this particular bill.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to indicate in what way it is related he should do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is related because it states what the government intends to do in this precise field. I wish to refer to what
Dominion-Provincial Relations the Prime Minister said at page 8 and I shall try to leave out every irrelevant sentence. I hope the minister, in consequence will not accuse me of taking statements out of context. Here are the Prime Minister's words:
We have given our undertaking that when new fiscal arrangements are determined on-
That is to say, new fiscal arrangements with the provinces. I continue:
-no province will receive less than it is now entitled to. But I want to make this clear at the beginning. We are not placing before you any "take it or leave it" attitudes;-
Those words were spoken on November 25, 1957, two months precisely to the day before the take it or leave it attitude was placed before the provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue.
-we are not taking any hard or fast positions. We are not placing before you any rigid formulae. This conference was convened to seek your ideas and your proposals.
In other words when this conference was held the Prime Minister said that the course this government would follow in federal-provincial fiscal relations was to seek the ideas of the provinces and to get their agreement. But instead of doing that, the government has used its overwhelming majority to impose a particular piece of legislation upon the provinces. That was the point I was seeking to read from this part of the proceedings.
I am sure the Minister of Finance will be able to contain himself while I read something that he himself said on one of the Press Conference programs on which the minister always distinguishes himself to such a marked degree. This conference was held on November 26, 1957. The minister was asked the following question by Mr. Blakely, an old friend of his:
We have just had a new federal-provincial conference, and yet the only one thing which did not emerge from that was a new tax arrangement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about conferences again he is just going back over the same ground and in effect defying the view you have expressed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not understand that Your Honour's ruling precluded me from referring to conferences.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member in referring to a conference is coming to the matter of this bill, well and good; but if he is only referring to a conference it seems to me it would be out of order to do so.

Dominion-Provincial Relations


John Whitney Pickersgill: This refers to the subject matter out of which this bill emerged. The minister two months before-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it is not sufficient to make it in order to have it referable to something in the history of dominion-provincial relations over the past several years. Surely to be relevant and to be in order in this debate it must have relevance to the principle of this bill and the principle is a very narrow issue, whether the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax should be increased from 10 to 13 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: I am inclined to agree that this is the limit of the reference the hon. member should make to speeches and conferences. Such references should relate to this method of determining a part of the remuneration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well, Your Honour, I shall confine myself to the last sentence of the minister's reply to Mr. Blakely at this press conference, because, in his words, the minister told the public of Canada on November 26, 1957 what the government was going to do about this matter. That is what the minister was purporting to tell the people what the government was going to do about the matter. This is what he said then:
But we are going to continue meeting. There will be a meeting, as you are aware, early in the new year, after these extensive proposals that the provinces have submitted have been reviewed by the federal government. We have promised to give them very serious consideration.
That is what he said, but what did he do? The minister sent those telegrams that resulted in this temporary-permanent arrangement. I now ask myself why it is that we are being presented year after year with a bill of this kind and I shall seek to give my interpretation of why that is.
If it is beyond the rules of debate to argue about why this course is being followed instead of another course it seems to me that debate is virtually impossible. As I apprehended what happened at the conference which made the minister take this new course which Your Honour so aptly described as nothing more or less than carrying on the old course of the previous Liberal government with a slight change in the rates it was that the minister was unable to devise anything better. I must say I am flattered by that suggestion. I am flattered that Your Honour recognizes that this is all the bill amounts to, and, as I said the other day, we in this party are flattered that, after two years, this superman working 18 hours a day


has not been able to think of anything better than Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris were able to devise. This is very flattering to us.


Mr. Stinson:: Be careful of that kind of language.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman wants to get up and say that all these promises in 1957 and all this past record should be forgotten by everybody, that hon. gentlemen opposite have now seen the light and know that Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris were right, that this is the best thing that any government could do and that is all they could do, and that that is all parliament is being asked to do, and we therefore, must not debate anything else, all well and good. If that is the attitude of the government and if the minister wishes to get up and say that is his position, and that all those things he and his leader and other hon. gentlemen opposite said about those matters when they were on this side of the house, including some of the things which the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) put on the record the other day, perhaps there is nothing more to debate. But we were told, over and over again, that this scheme of things for which Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Harris and the Liberal government were responsible was inadequate.
We were told by the Solicitor General that the government would change this basis, that it was going to bring in something new and different. The Solicitor General, standing in his place in the house as a member of the government, made that statement. Of course, he spoke for only a little while. I think the Minister of Finance now feels that nobody should be allowed to say a word about finance in this house, except himself, and that if anyone initiates the debate the minister should take three hours or more in order to prevent other people from talking.
This measure is not what was promised. It is not what the people were led to expect they were going to get from this government. It was not done in the way they were led to expect this government would behave even as late as November 26, 1957, as I have said, after that ill-fated conference was over.
I wonder what it is that made the government see the light. I suggest there were two things. I suggest the first was that hon. gentlemen opposite found, perhaps to their surprise-though this is rather a confession of ignorance on their part, if that is the case-that this subject is a very complicated one and that it is not very simple or easy to find a solution. The hon. member for Quebec South very wisely said that the other day. I agreed with him when he said that this is a very complex matter and perhaps,

if the hon. member for Quebec South would apply his obvious talents to this problem he might come up with the solution which the Minister of Finance is sorely in need of, because, after telling us what a terrible mess the Liberals made of it, he continues the Liberal system unchanged except for three percentage points. It may be that the distaste for a conference itself-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance seems to think that the word "conference" is now unparliamentary.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister appears to labour under the delusion that if there is one debate on the subject of a conference in the course of a year the word cannot be mentioned again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest that the hon. member not debate points of order unless they are raised by the minister when on his feet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I raise the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member in talking about conferences that he suggests should be held is completely out of order in the light of the decision made by the house on February 10.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Are you asking a question or trying to direct the Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I did not understand the hon. member to say that he is calling for a conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not at all.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member understands that it is not within the scope of the debate to talk about the need for a conference or the desirability of holding one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. As a matter of fact, what I was going to suggest was that I thought that the Minister of Finance had perhaps accepted the view of his colleague and next door neighbour, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), who on May 10, 1955 made this remarkable statement in the house as found at pages 3647 and 3648 of Hansard. This is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, then the private member for Winnipeg South Centre, speaking about his conception of having federal-provincial conferences, and I am not asking that one be called or anything of that kind. I am suggesting one reason why this bill, this arbitrary method, this take it or leave it method is being substituted for what was promised as late as November 26, 1957. I suggest that 66968-9-216
Dominion-Provincial Relations we may have the explanation here in this statement made by the self-confessed architect of victory, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who, at least, has the name of an architect of victory, if none of the other attributes. The hon. gentleman said:
If you carry this idea of dominion-provincial conferences to a logical conclusion what happens? You have a government set up over and above the ones we now have, and the result would be a sort of small united nations assembly of Canada. What disturbs me is the effect of all this on the House of Commons.
I will conclude with this statement. Dominion-provincial conferences may continue to be a necessity for Canada. If so, they should be restricted to the core of the problem, the division of administrative responsibility between the dominion and the provinces, and the division of fields of taxation.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt, I do think that the hon. member is going beyond the scope of the debate in arguing the pros and cons of conferences and the usefulness of conferences.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me, sir,
that this particular argument was used in a precisely similar debate on a precisely similar motion in another parliament, but I think that hon. members will have seen the trend of the views of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and they may throw some light on the attitude of the government. In the past it was from Manitoba that most of the light on this federal-provincial problem came and perhaps a new light has come from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Perhaps the Prime Minister, having had that new light recalled to his mind may see in the Minister of Trade and Commerce a fitting successor to the Minister of Finance when he is transferred to another sphere where his human qualities will perhaps be even more appreciated. I want now to say a word about


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Say
a word about the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will say a word or two about the bill. The hon. gentleman does not need to worry about that. I want to say a word or two about the way in which this legislation has been received in one or two of the provinces. You will recall that earlier I indicated very clearly that the government had promised before the election that they were going to solve this problem in a spirit of amity and agreement with all the provinces. Let us see what kind of spirit of amity they have in one or two of our provinces, because I think it might be very helpful. I am going to speak first about a province in which I have lived for a good deal of my life and which I know something about. It perhaps will not surprise the house if I refer to the province of Manitoba where I went to school

Dominion-Provincial Relations and lived a good part of my life. A year ago the present premier of Manitoba, then not premier, had nothing but admiration for this government in every respect.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: And
still has.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is very well illustrated by this clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of May 31, 1958, headed, "You Followed John, Now Follow Me." One sentence of the article reads:
-Mr. Roblin pledged his party would keep its promises provincially just as John Diefenbaker did federally.
I hope that Mr. Roblin is still saying that but in fact he is not. Why is he not? Precisely because of this bill. I refer now to the Winnipeg Tribune of March 3, 1959, a paper that is not unfriendly to hon. gentlemen opposite and their friends in Manitoba. 1 have here an article headed, "Duff Says Policy Not Always Dief's." The headline is the Tribune's, not mine. Apparently in the campaign another slogan was, "What Dief Did, Duff Will Do Better."


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have finished that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -on a point of order, do we have to listen to this running debate on a provincial election? Can we come back some time to the provisions of the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is being very repetitive in his argument that the government has not kept its promise. After all, he has advanced it in five or six different ways and I thought he was turning now to the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just laying the foundation for what I am now going to read. Perhaps what I am now going to read would not be as well appreciated by hon. gentlemen opposite without the foundation because it is really necessary to see how great these illusions were before you see how great the disillusionment is. This is the Winnipeg Free Press of March 17, 1959.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This has nothing to do with the election. It is before the election was called. As Your Honour will see, it has to do with the bill before the house now. The article reads in part as follows:
Conservative Premier Duff Roblin told the provincial legislature Monday night that the Conservative government at Ottawa is not giving the provinces a fair share of federal funds.
If anything can be more directly related to the bill I do not know what it is. That


statement was made in the legislature on that date, so far as I can judge, or on the previous day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is from the Winnipeg Free Press of March 17. The Free Press commented editorially but I will not attempt to read their editorial. It was headed: "Mr. Roblin Says Boo." Then I wish to indicate that nearer home-


Some hon. Members:: Boo.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I mean the minister's home, not mine, in Ontario there is not 100 per cent satisfaction with this bill that the minister offers, what the minister would have described when he was over here as "these crumbs". They are not crumbs. This is a substantial sum of money and I am one of those who believes that any million dollars or any half million dollars or any quarter million dollars is a substantial sum of money. A substantial sum of money is involved here but it is very much less substantial than the people of the province of Ontario were led to expect they would get from this government. I have here an article in the Windsor Star of March 12, 1959, headed, "Better Tax Deal Still Frost's Aim." This was after the bill had been announced, and the opening sentence reads:
Premier Leslie M. Frost has no intention of dropping his campaign against Ottawa for a better tax deal for Ontario.
Then, of course, in the Globe and Mail of yesterday morning we have Mr. Frost's manifesto in which he said, indicating once more that he was not satisfied with this bill which is all he is being offered:
His government would continue to strive for the 15-15-50 formula of tax sharing with the federal government and would press for a rational and equitable tax structure in Canada at all future fiscal discussions.
In other words, the provinces were promised something that they would all find satisfactory. In so far as this legislation is concerned, it is found completely unsatisfactory by the two Tory premiers who are now seeking suffrages of the people of their provinces.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is not going to interrupt too frequently on points of order, I can assure him I will not be saying again what I have said in the house on other occasions on the matter now before us. I will not be as long as other speakers have been. I have not any doubt in the world but that all hon. members in the house are going to support the amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing

Arrangements Act as it is offered by the government. However, that is not going to prevent us from underlining, with as heavy a marking pencil as we can, our contention as to the inadequacies of the amendment that is offered at this time.
The present Minister of Finance has by way of the budget seen fit to impose additional tax burdens on the people of Canada to the extent of $352 million for the period of a full calendar year, and yet in the amendment he is offering he is making it very plain that he is not pretending to let the other levels of government receive any of the increased taxes that he is hoping to garner for the federal treasury. We deplore especially the arrangement whereby once again we are being asked to accede to the ten provincial ministers of finance having an assurance as to what their receipts from the federal government may be for only a 12-month period.
We have long contended that the original approach taken on federal-provincial taxsharing arrangements ought to prevail, that is that the minimum time for which an arrangement should be made should be at least five years. As conditions have now existed over a number of years, all we are doing is to assure the provinces of their receipts from Ottawa for the ensuing 12 months. This is hardly good enough in that it completely handicaps the provinces in so far as any long term planning is concerned. We feel that this house has had enough of these annual amendments such as the one now being discussed.
We feel also that the government is certainly less than honest when it presents an amendment of this nature to our Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, while at the same time carrying on negotiations for financial arrangements with certain of the provinces that are not being revealed to the House of Commons. I have particular reference to the announcement of the premier of Ontario indicating very clearly that, in his opinion at least, negotiations are under way for another kind of financial arrangement not yet disclosed to the house. I should like to refer also to the indication on orders of the day yesterday that negotiations are taking place with the province of Manitoba. These negotiations, too, are not covered by the proposed amendment or by any explanation of the need for the proposed amendment. I have reference in particular to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) as recorded at page 3327 of Hansard for May 5, 1959, when he said, referring to Manitoba:
-I may say that no decision has yet been reached.
66968-9-216J
Dominion-Provincial Relations
I feel that if the minister wants to be honest with this house in offering an amendment of this nature he ought, in all fairness, to reveal to this house at this time, and to the people of Ontario and Manitoba, whether or not there are some arrangements being made in the back rooms of the Conservative party about which this house should know. We feel it is an insult to the integrity of parliament to be asking parliament to approve this measure, inadequate as it is, when there may well be other measures of even greater significance in the offing. We feel that if there are other measures in the offing the time to reveal them to the House of Commons is now when we are asked to renew this amendment to the act. I realize very well that Premier Roblin and his supporters are running around the province apologizing for the actions of the Diefenbaker government. I feel that now, not next Wednesday, is the time to reveal the intention of this government.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: As I rise to discuss the principle underlying the bill before us, Bill No. C-41, I feel that possibly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) might not have the same patience with me as we have had with him on certain occasions when he was endeavouring to explain his problems to us. I feel that if he has such problems, and possibly duties to perform, he will be more patient in listening to me present the problems which I feel I must present on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Nickel Belt.
The principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is one which is most important in Canada because it represents an effort to solve a problem which has grown greatly and which represents a burden to every citizen. I refer to the problem of how they can manage the high rate of expansion brought about by our way of life, in addition to the burdens imposed by having three forms of government, federal, provincial and municipal. The workers in my area do not have three salaries, one to assign to the expenses created by the federal government and the other two to provide for the necessary expenditures of the provincial and municipal governments. It is, therefore, in an attempt to solve this problem that the government has introduced the amendment to augment by 3 per cent the provincial share of the revenue for a period of one year.
Apparently this government is interested in this problem only by way of anniversaries. Last year we had this extremely short amendment which we were told was to be for one year. Definitely the people of Canada, if they have followed the discussions in the house, expected that this government was studying the solution which they had

Dominion-Provincial Relations promised of this problem of sharing taxation which necessarily would alleviate the burden caused by the works which are undertaken by our municipalities and works and services undertaken by the provinces. I say that the bill before us today in no way solves this problem.
Moreover, this bill which is before us today indicates that this government has absolutely defaulted in connection with the study which was required of the problem, something which, of course, we all know was discussed at great length by the members of the government prior to the last election and the one preceding it.
In connection with the principle and problem involved in this 3 per cent increase, I should like to quote some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) prior to the last election concerning the solution of this problem of tax sharing with the three levels of government. I have a quotation dated June 3, 1957, from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. Here are the remarks attributed to the Prime Minister on that occasion. It states:
A Conservative government will call a federal-provincial fiscal conference at which there "must be municipal representation"-
We see by this bill-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely we have had your views clearly made known to the house by this time this afternoon with regard to proposals for calling a conference. The hon. member is now reading what purports to be statements made advocating the calling of a dominion-provincial conference. Surely that matter was decided on February 10.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see how the hon. member who has the floor can justify the line he is following. I base that statement on two grounds. The first is that it is irrelevant; and in the second place, as to the argument that the government has not carried out its promises in this bill, that point has been amply made already. The hon. member is being repetitive.


Osias.-J. Godin: With all due deference to you, Mr. Speaker, and with much respect, may I say this. I realize, as do you, that the shortness of this bill and the grave problem which it is endeavouring to solve, cannot be discussed simply in a discussion of the 13 per cent or 10 per cent. In discussing this bill- and I think this is the best opportunity-I think I should be entitled to express the opinion that the solution for the Canadian problem has not been found. We have no other legislation. It has not been suggested since the discussion has been opened on this


bill that a solution has been found for the Canadian problem faced by the three forms of government under our constitution. Where the provinces and the federal government are entitled to share, they must come to some agreement which will solve the problem of the burden which is obvious in Canada, especially in my province of Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon. member. This bill does not open up the whole question of federal-provincial fiscal relations or federal-provincial-municipal fiscal relations. This is a bill to amend one section of an act which dealt with that problem some years ago. That was the time when it would have been relevant to follow the line of argument which the hon. member is now attempting to follow. However, he cannot do it on this narrow, limited bill which amends one section of the act. I refer him to the ruling made by the Speaker of the house on November 14, 1949, and which appears in the Journals for 1949 at page 237. It reads in part as follows:
On the second reading of an amending bill-
And that is what this is.
- (honourable members will notice that this is an amending bill)-it is the principle of the amending bill, and not the principle of the act to be amended, which is the "business under consideration". The discussion must therefore relate exclusively to the principle of the amending bill. If, for example, a bill were introduced to amend a certain section of the Criminal Code of Canada, the discussion would have to relate to the principle of the particular amendment. It would be irregular to enter upon a general discussion of the Criminal Code as a whole.
Then he goes on to deal with the principle of the bill which was before the house at that time. There is no doubt about it that what is relevant relates to this particular provision with respect to income tax, and that exclusively.


Osias.-J. Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize that there should be some limitation and I will try to govern myself accordingly. But what I should like to suggest at this moment is this. My intention is to discuss what this government has offered to the provinces under this bill, which is the only piece of legislation before the house, in order to solve the Canadian problem of tax sharing. In order to do that I should like to indicate that because of the knowledge which we have outside the house and the knowledge which we have inside it, this government has not performed those things which should have been performed in order to obtain a better arrangement than the increase to 13 per cent.
With all due respect, may I say this. If we were now discussing an amendment of the Criminal Code, as was mentioned in the

reference made by you, Mr. Speaker, concerning for instance abolition of the death penalty, I feel that the members of this house representing the Canadian people should be able to make reference to a conference which was held or not yet held concerning the study of the problem of the abolition of capital punishment. I realize that you could not go into the Criminal Code and discuss any other conference or any other meeting which had nothing to do with the particular amendment but that, as the quotation indicated, you should be limited to discussing those problems pertaining to the section of the code in question, just as in this case we are limited to the particular amendment we are now discussing. But I think it would be outside of the meaning of the reference-and I say this with all due respect-to state that if we were discussing an amendment of one section of the code we could not discuss meetings or conventions concerning studies of that amendm ent.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the hon. member to proceed with his remarks. If he errs, I shall try to keep him in line.


Osias.-J. Godin: I am stating now that this amendment concerning the 3 per cent increase for one year only, as I stated before, does not give the provinces the tax sharing possibilities which they were led to believe would be made available. My people in northern Ontario today are more burdened than ever. The costs of services of local governments and provincial governments have risen greatly. My people feel that they have been unjustly treated by this minimal increase which is, after all, a repetition of last year. I am of that opinion, and my people hold it much more strongly. I am sure the Minister of Finance will not disagree with me, having regard to the indication made by him along with his leader that they had absolute solutions to this problem which would bring about the desired result. This government has stated that with respect to this tax sharing problem they would do things which are not even included in this bill. I should like to see them included. I think I am entitled to mention that matter. We have spoken of fiscal relations with the provinces-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated that he is going into a discourse which I think is not in order. I think it is quite proper to indicate in general terms that the bill does not go far enough, as the hon. member has already done, or that something else should be done. I have no objection to his doing that, but I would not permit a debate on all the other things that should be done.
Dominion-Provincial Relations


John Whitney Pickersgill: But surely, Mr. Speaker, no hon. member should be restricted or prevented from saying that he thinks a bill is totally inadequate having regard to the purposes it is supposed to have or was proclaimed to have. As I apprehended what the hon. gentleman was proposing to do, that was all he had in mind, namely to indicate that these crumbs from the rich man's table-that is what the minister would call it; I will not call it that; I think that was one of the phrases he used when he was over here on this side of the house-would not be adequate.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious that when this government discussed before the Canadian people the solutions which they had, they led them to believe, as far as my province is concerned, that it would receive in the neighbourhood of $100 million last year, and that was stated by the premier of the province from which I come, and stated on many occasions. Undoubtedly this bill does no such thing. That is what I am trying to place before the Minister of Finance and this government the manner in which they led the people to believe they would find a solution to their great problem. I certainly cannot see it in this 3 per cent increase. For instance, it was stated that the municipalities should have some benefit from new fields which would be opened to them, but we did not receive them.
The Prime Minister has stated that Canadian unity would be solved. He stated that a concerted "study"-if you do not wish me to use the word "conference"-of this problem would bring about a complete redress of injustices which they thought existed. This bill will make the people realize that they will only get this very small gift-and I use that word-for another period of one year. They will only get this small increase.
Possibly the Minister of Finance will permit me to indicate to him how different this amendment is compared with a similar amendment which was brought before this house under the previous administration, the Liberal administration under Mr. Harris as minister of finance. We heard a lot last year about the amendment which we are now renewing by way of changing the date of its expiration. We are renewing the same amendment which was before us last year, and it was said then that the province of Ontario would receive by this amendment $22 million. Well, we knew within a year after that that there was no such thing. This government had failed to realize that this percentage increase of income tax was certainly dependent on the prosperity of this country, and therefore because we suffered

Dominion-Provincial Relations under this regime a recession last year in the incomes of our Canadian people, the $22 million which was thought of in the first place turned out to be a mere $18.9 million.
Now what was the increase granted under the Liberal party in 1956? I would like to refer the house to some figures. We have the figures under the previous arrangement before this act which we are now amending came into effect. If we look at the figures under the previous arrangement, the provinces, including Ontario, in all received $156.8 million. That reference will be found by the minister at page 114 of the 195758 budget. If you care to find the figure for the first year under which the Liberal amendment was made, Mr. Speaker, you will find on the estimates that the figure is $196.8 million, which gave a total increase for the province of Ontario of $40 million. This government contends that because the province received less than the $19 million increase by this amendment it has found a complete solution to the problem in which my province, as well as all the other provinces in Canada, found themselves.
We have ways and means of making promises about this bill which we are now studying. We have the outside promises, which I am not going to quote. I would like to, because it would be very good for the memory of the Minister of Finance and members on the government side, when they were about the country electioneering before the last election. But the people in Ontario construed the promises which were made to mean an increase of $100 million to the province of Ontario. Of course, I must realize that we have now classified these promises, and that was one made outside of the house. Then we have the one which I have just discussed a moment ago, as did the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), the one made by way of telegram. Of course, I was not a member of the house at the time, but I understand that there was a slight mistake in the telegram and finally it turned out to be $22 million. But that was a promise which was made in the house, and even that promise made last year on the passing of the bill was found to mean only $18.9 million. That is the type of attitude this government has taken toward its promises, the ones made outside the house as well as the one made inside.
We have been told, Mr. Speaker, that in wanting to solve this great problem of the provinces and our municipalities we would try to satisfy them better by opening the field of possible taxation for them. I realize that this bill does no such thing, but what the government has done is this. While it

has promised new possibilities of money for the provinces and municipalities, instead of giving them more occasions on which to levy possibly their taxation, the government has now raised the personal income tax 3 per cent and the corporation tax three points. In other words, this government is acting in this piece of legislation in the very opposite manner to that promised. It would seem to me that someone should find a way to invent power steering for those people in public office on occasions, because this government is showing by its conduct, and the Minister of Finance who is proposing this bill has shown in his budget speech, that he was prepared to increase taxation and told the provinces and the municipalities-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely it is not proper for the hon. gentleman to refer to the budget debate during the course of a debate on the present bill. It is perfectly obvious that hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to talk this bill out today. I think that has been evident all afternoon. They are trying to keep the debate going until their leader is able to return to the house to take part in it some other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to remind Your Honour that the other day, when we were debating a supply motion immediately after the budget, the Minister of Finance made allusions to his budget speech. He did not quote from it, but he did make allusions to it. It would seem to me that surely a backbencher would have the same right as the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: It is undoubtedly improper to quote from the budget debate because it is obviously just repetition. I did not understand the hon. member to be actually quoting. I think he made a passing reference to something, but he must not quote from the budget debate.


Osias.-J. Godin: I was making a reference, Mr. Speaker, and I also realize that on one occasion I have had reason to believe that the Minister of Finance was reading at great length from what he called his notes or his files. I have a few important notes which I would like to refer to as well. I would like to indicate that this government has acted in an opposite direction absolutely from that promised in that it has increased its taxes and has sent the provinces and municipalities out to borrow. I notice that the Minister of Finance more or less indicated that that was not the case, and I have here a very good phrase of his in his own speech to which I would like to draw his attention. However, if it is against the rules to quote from his speech, I would simply refer him to page 2415

of Hansard, where he may find reference to remarks of his where he was begging the municipalities to try to borrow to solve their problems. Borrowing has today become very difficult for the provinces-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, surely we are not to have another debate now on interest rates? That subject was fully debated some days ago. The hon. member is just killing time in order to talk this measure out until six o'clock for the purpose which I mentioned earlier and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect to ask the hon. member to conform with the rules of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the Minister of Finance has made an uncalled for and totally improper reflection on the motives of another hon. member. I did not say that the three-hour marathon of the minister the other day was a means of killing time, and the hon. gentleman has no right to say that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) is doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the hon. member's view that it is not proper to accuse members of ulterior and improper motives. Members are supposed to keep within the rules, and they are entitled to speak as much as they like within that limit.
I must say that this debate has been a hard one to limit because the subject matter is not a definite one and because members have not, I think, been too co-operative in keeping within the narrow limits of this measure. Certainly it is not in order to enter upon a discussion of matters such as interest rates with which we have dealt on a previous occasion.


Osias.-J. Godin: It seems that the minister and the government do not appreciate at all times that when members of the opposition have occasion to rise-


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member proceed with the debate on the bill. It seems there is too much lecturing back and forth across the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Osias.-J. Godin: What I was trying to indicate is that this bill, since it provides the provinces with so little, obliges them, as was suggested by the minister himself, to go out and borrow money, because there is no other way by which they can obtain the extra money which they require. My province is one of those which feel that this 13 per cent is not sufficient, and it will be required to borrow in order to continue the
Dominion-Provincial Relations expansion which is necessary. I feel that this government has defaulted greatly in the light of its promises.
I trust that even now the administration may find the solution which all Canadians have been led to hope would be brought about, and that before too long, as a result of a proper study, our provinces may obtain the money which is definitely needed. It is clear from the complaints which were voiced in this chamber at the time this agreement was announced and on subsequent occasions that it has failed to satisfy the provinces of Canada.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When I spoke on the resolution stage of this bill I was prevented by the rules from presenting the plea of the municipalities and, particularly, of my own municipality of Gloucester, where education costs have increased 800 per cent in the last 12 years.
This debate has to do with an amendment to the tax-sharing agreement or rather an amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. It deals with one point of the formula, and this point was amended in a mild respect last year following a shadow meeting or a cover-up meeting which was held with the provinces. I am trying not to mention the word "conference" because I am sure the Minister of Finance will rise and try to have me ruled out of order.
Today we are again asked to approve an amendment to an interim measure. In other words, this is an amendment to an interim measure pending the convening of a meeting at which special studies may be made of this particular point.
I shall try to show where this amendment does not meet the needs of the provinces and of the municipalities. The 3 per cent increase which was agreed to last year is not sufficient, and it is far from being in accordance with the promises which were made prior to this government taking office. After all, Mr. Speaker, how can principles which were wrong before 1957 be right today just because a different government administers the affairs of the country? When the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act was introduced in this house in July, 1956 here is what the present Minister of Finance had to say as reported at page 6287 of Hansard for July 23:
I point out at the outset, sir, that this is enabling legislation. If it is adopted, it will vest very wide powers in the Minister of Finance, and the power vested in him includes the power to legislate in the form of regulations.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
And then, this has to do with the formula which we are asked to adopt today:
As to the details of the formula, suffice it to say at this point that it is an actuarial maze to most people. The formula itself would undoubtedly confuse most citizens.
And yet today, the Minister of Finance, the same hon. member who was sitting in this house on July 23, 1956 is asking us to approve this same formula with minor amendments. And then the minister continued:
Talk of tax equalization payments, provincial revenue stabilization payments, tax rental agreements, gross national product, average personal income, and other expressions in which this formula bounds make it very difficult for the average citizen to appreciate the niceties of the formula. Indeed, it would be interesting, particularly in the light of the fact that no Liberal member spoke on the resolution-
In this he was wrong, because a few days before two Liberal members had spoken on the very same resolution.
How could the minister blame the government of the day for introducing a formula which he is asking this house to support today? Later on in the course of his speech the minister referred to the municipalities. It has been said in this house time after time that part of this grant to the provinces is intended to relieve the municipalities of the heavy responsibilities, the heavy tax burdens, which they are called upon to bear. Here is what the Minister of Finance had to say about the position of the municipalities as reported at page 6294 of Hansard of April 23, 1956:
The Minister of Finance and the government have been often urged in this house to recognize the fact that the sources of revenue open to the municipalities and to the provinces are inadequate to provide for the expanding cost of education as things stand today. In approaching this present renewal of fiscal arrangements between the dominion and the provinces, the Minister of Finance has a golden opportunity to recognize that inescapable fact and to do something to meet it.
Well, what is he doing today to meet this need of municipalities? He is asking this house to approve a minor amendment to the same act about which he was speaking on July 23, 1956. The explanatory notes of the bill to which we are asked to give second reading today states:
The effect of the proposed amendment will be to extend for a further year the rate of 13 per cent for standard individual income tax for the purpose of calculating the tax equalization payments to the provinces and the amounts payable to the provinces under the tax rental agreements.
The explanation does not refer to one part of the formula but mentions the tax rentals agreements. I feel that the adjustment we are being asked to approve for a period of another year pending the holding of a few provincial elections throughout the country is a far cry from the promises made to the
[Mr. Robichaud.l
electors of Canada during the last federal election campaign. I have in my hand a press clipping dated March 19, 1958, in which the premier of Ontario is reported as having said:
-the $22 million additional tax revenue Ontario has received from the Diefenbaker government, must be regarded as a down payment. Ontario had found it much easier to work with the federal Conservatives than with their predecessors, the Liberals.
The Ottawa Citizen of March 20, 1958, also contains an interesting statement attributed to Mr. Frost:
The premier said the Diefenbaker government was producing "a new deal for the people of Canada" and referred to the October provincial-federal tax meeting as proof.
"After years of getting nothing from Ottawa we came back from that conference with a down payment of $22 million in federal money, which we returned to the municipal taxpayers of this province."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, down $3 million.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is obvious that the premier of Ontario is much easier on the present government and especially on the eve of a provincial election than he was on the former government. Let me quote a statement made by the Prime Minister in Moncton on March 25, 1958, as reported in the Toronto Star on March 26:
The Prime Minister pointed out New Brunswick was getting an extra $2,236,000 annually for the next four years in federal tax-rental grants.
The Minister of Finance introduced early in this session his estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960, which contain a section entitled, "Special payments to provinces" under which we find:
Payments to provinces as provided under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act (Chap. 29, Statutes of 1956, as amended).
This may be found at page 23 of the blue book. The people of certain maritime provinces were disappointed to learn that the amounts they will receive for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960 will be much lower than the amounts they received in the previous year. The province of Newfoundland will receive $24,893,000 which is $321,000 less than what was received in the previous fiscal year. The province of Nova Scotia will receive $35,250,000 which is $1,441,000 less than it received in the previous year. The province of New Brunswick will receive $30,266,000 which is $724,000 less than it received in the previous year.
The Atlantic provinces have no guarantee whatever that the amounts they were receiving under federal-provincial grants will be maintained at least at the level they were last year. People in the maritime provinces

who are interested in the affairs of the provinces are today expressing the fear that the special Atlantic grants which are supposed to terminate in 1962 may under this government be terminated simply by an announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) similar to the announcement he made in respect of Newfoundland.
The bill before us today does not meet the requirements of the different provinces and municipalities across Canada. It is no wonder that the Fredericton Gleaner, a newspaper which we know is rather friendly to the present government, in an editorial under date of May 4, 1959 stated:
We have made no secret of our disappointment and regret that the federal government is not giving evidence of its avowed intention of remedying the conditions which plague us in this area of Canada and make us worse off by far than other Canadians.
Pledges were given and the people of the mari-times intend to see that they are carried out. We mean to keep this issue clearly before us.
This is an expression of the popular opinion that exists in the maritime and Atlantic provinces today. It is not surprising that the
Business of the House
people of New Brunswick and other maritime provinces are disillusioned by the actions and attitude of the present government after only two years in office.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock and move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Robichaud the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the acting house leader what the business is for tomorrow and Friday?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, as stated last night we shall take up the estimates of the Department of Labour tomorrow and if we finish them we will proceed with the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Lionel Chevrier: So we will have estimates both on Thursday and Friday?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
3408	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions