1959-03-11

Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject and the concern over the situation, I should like to make a statement to the house as to the present position in the strike area in Newfoundland in so far as the R.C.M. police are concerned. I should like to make clear at the outset, as I shall be doing in more detail later on, that at no time have the police acted as strikebreakers, taken sides in the strike, or escorted or attempted to escort anyone through a picket line. They have acted throughout in strict conformity with their duties as police responsible for the protection of property and the maintenance of law and order, and indeed have conducted themselves admirably throughout a long and extremely trying period, and sometimes in the face of great provocation.
The functions of the R.C.M. police in this situation are determined by the provisions of the police contract between Canada and Newfoundland, the relevant provisions of which are paragraphs 4 and 5, which are as follows:
4. The division shall perform in the province such duties and render such services as are ordinarily performed by peace officers in aiding the administration of justice and in carrying into effect the laws of a provincial legislature.
5.	The officer commanding the division shall for the purposes of this agreement act under the direction of the attorney general of the province in aiding the administration of justice in the province and in carrying into effect the laws of the legislature.
A copy of this contract was tabled in the house on February 16.
It is of course the obligation of a police force at all times to enforce the provisions of the Criminal Code. These duties involve normally the investigation of acts of violence which are a breach of the code, such as assault and damage to property, and arresting offenders who commit such acts. It is an unfortunate fact that as a result of the tension and bad feeling engendered in the course of this strike, as between those who wish to continue working and those who wish to prevent anyone from working, cases
of assault and damage to property have been multiplied, thus magnifying the burdens of law enforcement.
The fact that there is a strike, however, does not relieve the police of their responsibilities in this field, but on the contrary imposes upon them extra duties of taking precautions to see that the tension and bad feelings engendered are not in fact allowed to result in general lawlessness and violence. They must protect the public-and this includes those involved in the dispute- against the possibility of excesses arising out of the tense situation.
In addition, under strike conditions there arises the further obligation of enforcing section 366 of the Criminal Code, which deals specifically with picketing and makes it unlawful for anyone engaged in picketing to use violence or threats of violence to any person, or intimidation, or to indulge in disorders. In particular, section 368 makes it unlawful to block or obstruct the highways.
It will thus be seen that under strike conditions the police are bound to be called upon from time to time to perform special duties such, for instance, as to make sure roads are kept open for traffic. Under normal conditions the necessity for such action does not arise, but under strike conditions it is a specific duty they have to perform.
It is apparent that the manner in which the police have discharged their duties must be judged against this background. Regard must be had to the nature of the problems with which they had to deal, the area in which they have had to carry out their duties and the total numbers of the loggers involved and of the police available.
The most troubled area is that of Grand Falls, particularly the Badger district. The Grand Falls area, extending from Gander lake to Millertown, stretches across a front of approximately 75 miles. The area involved extends southward across the island for a distance of 50 to 60 miles. If the Corner Brook district, where about 1,000 of the Bowater company's loggers are out on strike in sympathy with the Anglo-New-foundland Development Company loggers, were included, then the area would be extended by a further 300 miles.
There are many thousands of loggers involved. Indeed, I have seen one estimate
1826	HOUSE OF
Newfoundland-Administration of Justice which puts the number as high as 18,000. I am informed that a substantial number of the 1,000 loggers at Corner Brook, whom I have mentioned, have just moved over to the Badger district to support the strikers in that area. As against this I am advised that the total police strength attending to the strike situation is 143, the majority of whom are employed in the most troubled area around Badger. This strength has recently been supplemented by a group of some 25 from the Newfoundland constabulary, who normally police the city of St. John's and are not part of the R.C.M. police.
As I have stated, the actions of the police in this very difficult situation have been entirely preventive. Their actions have been limited to enforcing the provisions of the Criminal Code against assault, damage to property, acts of violence, obstruction of roads and other similar provisions.
Furthermore, the position of the police as I have described it has been outlined by responsible police officers to the union officials concerned, by whom it has been accepted. In addition the police have been at pains, in all cases where picket lines have been established or where men have gathered on the roads, to explain to them the limits imposed upon their activities by the Criminal Code.
It is an unfortunate fact that since the commencement of this strike, and particularly within the last six weeks, it has been necessary to make a number of arrests and charges. The total number of charges laid in this period has been 202, which have been disposed of as follows: convicted, 71; dismissed, 15; awaiting trial, 75; withdrawn 41.
Since there have been a number of accusations made against the police which have arisen in the main out of three major incidents, I should give here a factual account of what actually took place on those occasions, because the facts demonstrate most clearly that the police have only acted when the provisions of the Criminal Code have been violated.
The first incident was on February 7, when 84 strikers went to two camps in the Badger district at about 3.30 a.m. At the first camp they forced 50 workers out of their building and left them to walk in sub-zero weather to Badger, about 10 miles away. Many of the workers were insufficiently clothed. At this camp they broke windows and furniture and did other damage to property. At the second camp they threatened violence, with the result that 23 loggers decided to leave. As a result of these violations 79 men were arrested and charged.
The second incident took place on March 9. About 45 pickets blocked the main road


leading to Halls Bay. A police patrol went out and persuaded the pickets to cease their obstruction, which they did. On the way back the patrol met a crowd of about 200 on the same road; they radioed for help and on the arrival of reinforcements the crowd opened up and ceased to obstruct the road. On both these occasions on that day, therefore, the police were able to discharge their duties by peaceful persuasion and no arrests were made.
The third incident was last night. At about
5.00	p.m. yesterday the police detachment at Badger reported a crowd of about 250 collecting on the road outside the town. In order to prevent or remove the obstruction the police detail went to the scene and saw that a car which was trying to get through had been stopped by the crowd, its windows had been broken and the car had been forced to turn back. It was also observed that this crowd was armed with sticks, peaveys and bottles. It was established later that one of them was carrying an axe.
A call was sent for a police detail from Grand Falls to help deal with this situation, since the road was blocked. On arrival of a detail of some 50 police, including some members of the Newfoundland constabulary, words were exchanged in which the police clearly indicated that the obstruction could not be allowed to continue and the group must disperse. One of the crowd then swung an axe at one of the leading policemen. The police moved in to arrest him. This led to a clash. A member of the Newfoundland constabulary was struck on the head with a club and critically injured. This clash lasted for some ten minutes. Nine of the apparent ringleaders were arrested and the balance dispersed into nearby brush. I am informed that two of the crowd of strikers were also injured, but the extent of their injuries is not known. The member of the Newfoundland constabulary is critically ill in hospital.
In concluding this statement, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear that I have made this report to the house not because I as Attorney General of Canada have any immediate responsibility for the enforcement of law and order in the province of Newfoundland, but simply in my capacity as minister responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As such it is my concern to see that the police discharge their responsibilities wherever they may arise, and it is also my concern to investigate any criticism of the conduct of the R.C.M. police. I have investigated and reported upon the situation accordingly.
I	am satisfied from my investigation that there is no foundation for any suggestion that the police have permitted themselves to be

used as strikebreakers. I am also satisfied that they have acted strictly within the limits of their duties in connection with the enforcement of the criminal law as these duties are multiplied under the circumstances of a strike. Indeed, it is apparent that the approximately 150 police involved have done a thoroughly creditable job in their efforts to preserve the peace over a long period under most trying and difficult circumstances.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house will have listened with great interest to the report which has just been made by the minister in, as he has stated, his capacity as the minister responsible for the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the responsibilities they have incurred as the result of an agreement made with the government of the province of Newfoundland. I am sure the house will have learned with satisfaction that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are discharging with restraint the responsibilities arising out of an extremely difficult and indeed very distressing labour situation; that their activities have been confined solely to the maintenance of peace; have been preventive in that sense, and also that they have not been concerned in any way, shape or form with any strikebreaking activities. We would expect that from the R.C.M.P. under any circumstances.
I am sure also the house will have learned with great regret from the minister and from the press of the most unfortunate clash at Badger last evening which has resulted in injury, especially in grave injury, to a member of the Newfoundland police. Pershaps, Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing at this time only with the relationship of the R.C.M.P. to this matter, that is all I can usefully say.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the incidents to which the Minister of Justice has referred have been serious ones. They are incidents which give us cause for concern, and to which I am sure all members of parliament generally are giving their attention at this time. I listened very carefully to the statement of the Minister of Justice. So far as the C.C.F. group are concerned we shall have to examine very carefully the statement he has made, because we feel that as a basic principle the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should never be used as strikebreakers.


Mr. McPhillips:: What do you mean?


Hazen Robert Argue: And should not be used in any way detrimental to human rights and fundamental freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Newfoundland-Administration of Justice


Hazen Robert Argue: We in this group believe that those incidents were unnecessary and could have been avoided. We feel that in this very difficult situation the government is justified in giving the most active and earnest consideration to whether or not it should set aside the law of Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Assiniboia to consider whether it is proper to go beyond the matter which was raised by the statement of the minister. I appreciate that he would like to comment on broader aspects of this matter, but I do not consider that appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order which you have raised, Mr. Speaker, I submit with great deference that in relation to these very tragic incidents it is most appropriate that a member should comment on the things that can be done to prevent these incidents happening. We have referred to this in the past. We know that it is now before the governor in council-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot accept the hon. member's interpretation of what is proper to be done at this stage. The matter which is raised is the responsibility of the federal authorities for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their activities in connection with the keeping of order in Newfoundland, and not the matter on which I apprehend the hon. member was about to embark, namely the question of the recent legislation of Newfoundland. I would consider that out of order, and I ask him not to enter on that subject.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice went over in some detail some of the circumstances surrounding the incidents to which he referred. I hold in my hand further comment on this latest incident. It is reported in today's Toronto Star as follows:
Marching three abreast and carrying nightsticks a column of 66 policemen waded into a throng of striking loggers last night, clubbed two of them unconscious, flattened dozens more, while wives and children screamed for them to stop.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I continue:
I watched the attack on mainly defenceless men for about an hour.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to read the whole of this news report into the record.


Mr. Churchill:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member accept that statement as his own and take responsibility for it?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am not accepting-

Approval of Gift to UNRWA


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Coward.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia has the floor.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am referring to something that I feel should cause all members of the house concern.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: It does.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am certain that it causes the cabinet concern. I am asking that this report, in addition to the information the Minister of Justice has given the house this afternoon, should be inquired into. I was about to say that the report is headed "Eyewitness -It Was Dark Hour for Canada's Finest." The report goes on to say:
It was a dark hour for Canada's finest and the beginning of violence that could set all central Newfoundland aflame.
I reiterate that I believe members of the house on both sides are most concerned with these tragic and regrettable incidents. We in this group feel that they need not have taken place, and we respectfully submit that action should now be taken by the cabinet to disallow this legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I comment on one thing the hon. member has said. Of course all reports received as to these incidents will be most fully and carefully investigated to establish what are the true facts. My information is that the only ones who carry any form of stick, and it is called a nightstick, are the Newfoundland constabulary. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as my hon. friend knows, carry short riding crops.


Mr. Winch:: How they can hurt.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My information also is that the picketers-


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Harold Edward Winch: I know. I got it years ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -in question were armed with pulpwood clubs, bottles, peaveys and one at least with an axe.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the house will be interested in the statement I am about to make. The government has decided to seek parliamentary approval for a special gift of $1,500,000 worth of Canadian flour, which is equivalent to about
973,000	bushels of wheat, to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine

refugees. This proposed expenditure will be in addition to our normal cash contribution of $500,000 for which parliamentary approval will be asked when we consider the main estimates for 1959-60.
The house will recall that a similar special flour contribution was made to UNRWA last year. That contribution, together with a very large matching contribution made by the United States, we have been informed, brought about a considerable though temporary improvement in UNRWA's finances and, as we had hoped, the agency has been able to make plans to use the savings effected on food costs, through our gift of flour, to revive some of the more constructive rehabilitation projects of the agency such as improved vocational training facilities and the like. Some of these activities had to be abandoned because of lack of funds.
Recently, however, despite new and increased pledges by a number of countries and despite a lower total budget, UNRWA has again found itself gravely short of funds. As last year, our flour contribution will also make available to UNRWA a large additional contribution from the United States on a matching basis. The contribution is being made not only because of the humanitarian reasons which the government will place before the house but by reason also of UNRWA's important role in preserving political stability in the area through its relief and rehabilitation work among the refugees.
This special contribution is also evidence at this time of Canadian support for a proposal that was unanimously adopted by the United Nations assembly last year, namely to designate 1959 as a world refugee year. The objective of the world refugee year is to focus attention of governments and peoples on the unfortunate plight of large groups of refugees and, by drawing forth increased support for programs in their aid, to alleviate and where possible solve their difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, just for a moment I will seize this opportunity to speak of the contributions that have been made by Canadian citizens and certain voluntary organizations in Canada in addition to government help for UNRWA. A number of private Canadian charitable organizations are providing extremely valuable and worth-while assistance. The Unitarian service committee of Canada, for example, provided in 1958 some 20 tons of clothing for the refugees, 10,000 layettes sewn by thousands of groups across Canada, and funds for commercial and nurse-midwife training courses. The Canadian Red Cross women's work committee supplied over $19,000 worth of new clothing to UNRWA in 1958, and other significant contributions have been made by the Canadian Lutheran world relief and the

Starred Questions
committee on overseas relief of the United possibly can on rehabilitation as being exChurch of Canada. All these and other volun- tremely important, possibly even more im-tary organizations in Canada deserve our com- portant than relief, so that the difficulty in mendation for their work in this and many this trouble spot in the Middle East may soon other important fields abroad.	be resolved.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be welcomed by all hon. members in this house. It is, of course, a continuation, as he would be the first to recognize, of a policy that was adopted a number of years ago by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he served as secretary of state for external affairs. Then milk, codfish and other forms of food assistance, including flour, were given to the United Nations relief agency in addition to the $500,000 which Canada as a member of the United Nations had allocated to her.
I may be permitted, as one who recently visited some of these refugee camps under the United Nations relief and works agency, to confirm what the minister has said about the extremely important contribution which supporting and contributing countries are making to the maintenance of some one million refugees in the Middle East area. As the minister has said, it is not only a matter of the contributions that are being made by the governments concerned but of voluntary contributions, notably those made by a number of Canadian organizations which were properly referred to a few moments ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
This whole question, however, points up the consideration which this government and other nations must give when this assignment under the United Nations terminates in 1960. The house will hope that the minister will be able at some early date to give some indication of the policy of the government with regard to the future operations of UNRWA and the ultimate disposition of this extremely serious and difficult refugee problem.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the group in this section of the house-and I intend to be very brief indeed-may I say that we were pleased to hear the announcement made by the minister. We are particularly pleased with the emphasis the minister placed on his hopes for rehabilitation of the refugees. However, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the situation with regard to these refugees has become gradually worse over the years, and that our expectations of earlier years have not been fulfilled. We hope the government will continue to place as much emphasis as it 66968-9-116


Sidney Earle Smith: In view of the remarks that have been made, Mr. Speaker, I would just add this comment. With this gift of $1,500,000 worth of flour, Canada will be the third largest contributor to UNRWA. First there is the United States, then the United Kingdom and then Canada.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Mcllraiih: 1.	Did the Prime Minister meet with the president of A. V. Roe Canada Limited or any of the officials of A. V. Roe Canada Limited between September 24, 1958 and February 20, 1959?
2.	If so, where were any such meetings held and with whom were they held in each case?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes. On February 5, 1959.
2.	A meeting was held with Mr. J. S. D. Tory, vice president and director of A. V. Roe Canada Limited in my office here in Ottawa. With respect to the other meetings with officials of Avro, an order for return was directed and it will be available either today or tomorrow.


PRINCE ALBERT, SASK. BRIDGE
Mr. Caron: 1.	Has the federal government built, agreed to build or made any contribution to the cost of building a bridge across the Saskatchewan river in the city of Prince Albert?
2.	If so, what proportion of the cost of the said bridge will be paid or has been paid for by the federal government?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes; under the roads to resources program.
2.	Fifty per cent up to a maximum of $1,250,000.


PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES, NATIONAL DEFENCE  POLITICAL ACTIVITY
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Are prevailing rate employees of the Department of National Defence allowed to take part in partisan political activity without endangering their employment?
2.	What regulation of the department, if any covers this point and when was it passed?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The answers are as follows:
1.	No; although there are certain exceptions defined in departmental regulations.
2.	Department of National Defence regulations governing this matter were first defined in 1951, incorporated into the civilian personnel administrative and accounting manual in 1956, and issued in present form as article 7.16, in 1958.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Morris: 1.	Were atomic waste materials recently dropped in the North Atlantic, Lat. 34 deg. 14 mins. N. Long. 45 deg. W.?
2.	Is Canada a signatory of any international convention or agreement covering the disposal of atomic waste materials at sea?
3.	If so, has the federal government made any representations concerning atomic waste materials being dropped in Lat. 34 deg. 14 mins. N. Long. 45 deg. W.?
4.	Has any analysis been made recently of the Canadian off-shore waters of the Atlantic coast to determine whether atomic waste disposal at sea affects the Canadian fishery?
5.	If so, what was the nature of the findings?


MOTION FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION NO. 56-599 Motion No. 69-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of the civil service poster advertising competition No. 56-599.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this is a more lengthy question than I would like to ask, but I have given the Minister of Trade and Commerce notice and have discussed it with him, and I think he is ready and willing to give the answer. I would like to ask the minister the names of the Canadian oil companies which in the last year exported crude oil to the United States under the voluntary control arrangement to limit exports to the United States. I would also like to ask the amount exported to the United States by each of the companies, and the voluntary quota which each company accepted. Finally I would like to know the names of the oil companies which, according to President Eisenhower, exceeded their quota and thus brought on mandatory controls.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of this question, but I
[Mr. Hellyer.l
regret that we cannot give him all the information he would like. There is no official information in the possession of the government as to the names of individual Canadian oil companies which have participated in shipments of oil to refineries in the United States. Alberta oil is marketed under a prorationing system within which each producer of oil of the specifications demanded by a United States importer shares in any shipment to that importer.
In reply to the second question, there is no information in the possession of the government as to the amount of oil exported to the United States by each individual Canadian oil company. The total exports of oil by pipe line were 21,467,000 barrels by Interprovincial pipe line, and 8,846,000 barrels by Trans Mountain pipe line.
In answer to the third question about the quotas, no Canadian company has a quota set for it in relation to exports to the United States. The United States government asked refineries in the United States to accept voluntary quotas for imports of oil from all sources, and the refineries arranged their purchases of oil from various sources within this quota.
As to the names of the companies, we have no information with regard to the names of the companies which President Eisenhower had in mind in the reference in his press statement to companies which had exceeded their import quotas. They were, of course, United States companies, not Canadian companies.


MANDATORY CONTROLS ON EXPORTS TO U.S.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce any comment to make on the new and mandatory restrictions placed by the United States on imports of Canadian oil?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary South had spoken to me respecting this matter, and I wish to advise that, as hon. members are aware, the President of the United States yesterday proclaimed the institution of a system of mandatory controls on imports of petroleum and petroleum products. These replaced the voluntary oil import program which had been in effect since July, 1957, and which apparently had been fully considered prior to June 10, 1957, and the decision as to the course to be taken determined.

This note brings to the attention of Canadians a matter of grave concern to Canada. This government has vigorously and repeatedly protested the application to Canada of any United States restrictions on imports of oil, whatever their form. As was pointed out to the United States government in our recent note of February 19, we believe there is no justification on the ground of security, or for that matter on any other ground, for restrictions on oil imports from Canada.
The text of the new regulations has just been received; therefore there has not been time to study their implications. However, in his statement yesterday to the press the President referred to informal discussions which are taking place between Canada, Venezuela and the United States. The position of Canada was made clear to the United States cabinet secretaries at the meetings with them on January 5 and January 6. On January 19 and January 20 some of our of-ficals participated in informal discussions in Washington. On each and every one of these occasions it has been urged that whatever restrictive measures the United States found necessary to adopt, those measures should not apply to Canada.
In the course of his press statement yesterday the President indicated a desire that further conversations should be held. The government will seize every opportunity-and I want to make this very clear-to obtain unimpeded access to the United States market for Canadian oil. In this or in other ways which may be necessary our determination is to safeguard the interests of the Canadian oil industry.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a
supplementary question arising out of the statement made by the Prime Minister with reference to President Eisenhower's announcement. In view of the very serious damage which will result to the Canadian economy because of this very regrettable step, can the minister say what consideration the government is giving to the building of a pipe line to the Montreal area, and if the government has decided whether such a line would help provide a market for western oil?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
always has a solution for all the problems. May I say in respect to his question that the course of action to be followed by the government will be determined in the light of the fullest study.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister always has an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that 66968-9-1164
Inquiries of the Ministry the last note of protest by the government in this matter was on February 19, before the President had asked for an extension of time to enable him to consider this question, if he took advantage of a suggestion which was made from this side of the house that he himself should communicate directly with President Eisenhower before March 10, so as to avoid the imposition of these curbs on Canadian oil imports.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact the suggestion had been made long before it was ever thought of by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house. There are from time to time, and will continue to be, representations made to the President with respect to these matters which we believe are detrimental to Canada and, in particular, to Canada and the United States because of the relationship which exists between the two countries in respect of defence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister may possibly have misunderstood my question. May I ask him again whether representations were made directly by the Prime Minister after the last note of February 19?


John George Diefenbaker: Representations were
made, of course, during the visit of the President here with regard to this and other matters, and from time to time the fullest representations are made, all of which come to the attention of the President. Some of them have been made in very recent weeks and months.


U.S. IMPORT CONTROLS ESTABLISHED DURING TERM OF LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to Hansard of March 3, 1959, at page 1550, where during a passage between the Leader of the Opposition and myself the following summary is reported. The Leader of the Opposition asked me if I would mention any of the other materials exported to the United States in respect of which notes had been sent to the United States, to which I replied:
At the moment I am unable to Indicate the exact ones, but I have a list of them available. It covers agricultural products and other commodities, and I will give it to the hon. gentleman.
Then there are some references to Mr. Howe which have no application here. Then the Leader of the Opposition said:
What commodities?
To which I replied:
Well, as I said a moment ago, I can look this up, and I will place them on the record since the hon. gentleman has probably forgotten.

Inquiries of the Ministry Then there are some further references that and the hon. gentleman then said:
I think I can help the Prime Minister. The protest he is talking about was against the export
of barley that went into rye whisky in the United
only on three occasions were protests made with regard to minerals, and on each occasion these were letters protesting against the possibility of such restrictions. Restrictions were not in fact imposed at that time.
States.
To which I replied:
Oh, it was more than barley going into rye whisky. X will give the hon. gentleman the list.
The other day the same question was again asked. I now have before me the list of formal representations to the United States on trade matters for the period February,
1953	to June, 1957.
The list is as follows:	Dairy products,
February 11, 1953; a note protesting extension of import restrictions under the United States defence production act to include dried milk products. Cheese and dairy products, June30 1953; note protesting decision of the United States to continue import restrictions on cheese and other dairy products under the agricultural adjustment act when the authority under the defence production act had expired. Oats and groundfish fillets, July 20, 1953; the note referred to the tariff commission investigations conducted on oats and groundfish fillets. Lead and zinc, May 28, 1954; the note referred to the tariff commission's recommendation that the tariff be increased on lead and zinc imports. Groundfish fillets, May 28, 1954; the note referred to the tariff commission's recommendation that the tariff be raised and a quota imposed on imports of groundfish fillets. Alsike clover seed, June 4, 1954, and again on June 25,
1954	The next one is hardboard, July 19, 1954 Then on July 27, 1954, lead and zinc. September 29, 1954, oats; a note referring to the tariff commission's recommendation to impose quotas on imports of oats. Barley and barley malt, October 7, 1954. Crude oil, March 8, 1955. Lead and zinc, March 31, 1955. Alsike clover seed, May 13, 1955. Hardboard, June 1, 1955. Surplus disposal of agricultural products, June 2, 1955. Rye, June 27, 1955. Then August 23, 1956, regarding imports of hard fibre cordage. September 4, 1956, wheat disposal. October 16, 1956, groundfish fillets. January 8, 1957, synthetic rubber. May 15, 1957, alsike clover seed. May 29, 1957, lead and zinc.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister, in view of the lengthy list he has just put on record in Hansard, whether he is aware that my intervention arose out of a discussion of restrictions on defence products such as oil and other minerals. I asked if any restrictions had been placed on oil and other minerals during the years we were in office. The list he has read indicates


John George Diefenbaker: I am not entering into any controversy about this matter now. The record is there.


Mr. Pickersgill:: It certainly is.


John George Diefenbaker: I was answering the Leader of the Opposition who said it was only in respect of rye going into whisky, and I thought the record would enlighten him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the study the Prime Minister has now been able to give to this matter of restrictions, may I ask whether he has discovered any restrictions which were imposed by the United States on the import of oil and base metals from Canada during the period of office of the former administration.


John George Diefenbaker: That is why I gave the list, so the hon. gentleman might be able to study the information which he asks me to compile and add to his knowledge which, he said, was restricted to the case of rye going into whisky.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I tell the Prime Minister what the answer is; there were none.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I wonder if the minister could indicate what action, if any, the government has taken with respect to the request for the disallowance of certain pieces of Newfoundland legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there is really nothing I can add to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. As a matter of fact, to the best of my knowledge we have not yet received from Newfoundland the official copy of the legislation which the British North America Act requires to be sent to us. One or two other hon. members have inquired about this matter, including the hon. member for Hamilton South. I know the Secretary of State has written officially requesting it to be sent as soon as possible, but the last time I asked about it the copy had not reached that office. Until the matter is before us we are not able to make any decision, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday.


Frank Howard: I wonder if the government will do everything it can to speed up the forwarding of a copy of this legislation, recognizing that each moment's delay will aggravate the situation down there and contribute toward further unfortunate and inexcusable violence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. member heard me say that we have asked for the official copy of this bill to be sent with all dispatch. So far as I am aware, until it arrives there is no official action that can be taken in connection with it.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister soon be in a position to give the house the statement on civil defence for which we are waiting so eagerly?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DELIVERY AND QUOTA POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Muir (Lisgar):: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house as to the present position in the prairie provinces of our wheat board delivery quotas?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to thank the hon. member for advising me that he intended to ask this question. The quota delivery system in the prairie provinces is in a very favourable position, and reflects the activities of the Canadian wheat board in disposing of our grain. Last year the quota of 2 bushels per specified acre applied at 706 stations. The improvement this year is such that only 80 stations are on that 2 bushel quota. Last year there were 771 stations on the 3 bushel quota. This year there are 968. Last year 559 stations were on the 4 bushel quota per specified acre, and this year there are 633. Last year at this period, March 8, there were no stations whatsoever on the 5 bushel quota, and this year there are 348. The picture represents a vastly improved situation for the marketing of grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the good progress which has been made-the minister has suggested that it reflects the
Inquiries of the Ministry activity of the wheat board, but I might add it also arises because of short crops in certain areas where wheat is not available-


An hon. Member:: Sour grapes.


Hazen Robert Argue: -does the minister have sufficient information available at the present time to enable him to say whether or not there is any possibility of having open delivery quotas in western Canada at the end of the crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member will recall that before the end of the last crop year all the stations out west were on either 6 or 7 bushel quotas, and it is obvious from the situation now prevailing that this situation will be repeated this year and that perhaps an open quota will prevail.



FURTHER STATEMENT ON SALE OF OIL AND GAS PERMIT RIGHTS IN NORTHERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made a statement in the house regarding the sale of oil and gas permits in northern Canada, and I pointed out that we would be accepting cash bonus bids to the value of over $6,500,000. The Leader of the Opposition asked how many of these bids were made by United States corporations or by Canadian subsidiaries of such corporations.
I have had a check made of the status of the various successful bidders. There were ten successful bidders, of whom two were United States corporations and four were Canadian subsidiaries of such corporations. One corporation is owned by United States, Canadian and British interests, and there were three Canadian firms. As I said yesterday I shall be making a full statement before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. At that time I hope to make it clear that the Canadian public interest will be protected in the development of these resources.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa West questioned a statement I had made on March 6 when I was tabling the investment intentions for 1959. My statement was:
-increased capital outlays are indicated for each of the three levels of government.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In the same paragraph I went on to say, as reported at page 1673 of Hansard for March 6:
Outlays made directly by federal departments are estimated to increase by 10 per cent-
The hon. member drew my attention to page 17 of the booklet entitled "Private and Public Investment in Canada-Outlook 1959" and thought perhaps there was an error. There was no error at all, Mr. Speaker. My statement referred to the capital investment intentions of government departments, which may be found in subparagraph 3 on that page. If the hon. member will check again he will discover that the investment intentions of federal departments this year exceed those of last year by $38.9 million.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister go a little further in correcting this matter? I find myself unable to understand his explanation. He made the statement when tabling the document that increased capital outlays are indicated for each of the three levels of government; that is, the federal, provincial and municipal governments. The information as I have it from the booklet indicates that the total capital expenditure by the federal government will be $863.1 million in 1959 as against $893.7 million in 1958, or a decrease of some $30 million. It is that point I want cleared up, because the figure the minister now gives to the house for government departments is only one part of the capital outlay of the federal government. The same point would arise with the figures for municipal and provincial governments.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can explain that very briefly. Under each of the headings dealing with federal, provincial and municipal governments there are three subheadings, one for enterprises, one for housing and in one instance one for institutions. The sentence that has been quoted here today referred to the subparagraph dealing with government departments and not housing, enterprises or institutions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that when the minister said that increased capital outlays are indicated for each of the three levels of government, he was really meaning each of the three levels of government departments?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that is quite right, Mr. Speaker. It was explained in a subsequent sentence in the same paragraph.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not think it would

be much better just to table documents of this sort that all hon. members can read for themselves?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There will be a further opportunity to debate this matter, of course.



PUBLIC SERVANTS INVENTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 10, consideration in committee of Bill C-33, to amend the Public Servants Inventions Act -Mr. Churchill-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Time within which liability may arise.
Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if at this stage the minister has anything to add to what he said yesterday. I do not want to labour the point I was raising. Has the minister anything to say?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the co-operation of the hon. gentleman. We covered the ground rather fully last night, but perhaps I may summarize for the benefit of anyone who is a bit confused.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Before the minister continues may I ask those hon. members who are talking to please lower their voices, and especially those who are sitting anywhere near an area where one of the microphones is open in front of someone who is speaking, because background noises can be heard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The explanatory notes set out in the bill which I read last night show the necessity for the amendment in this phrase:
-the moneys received from royalties are to be used by the corporation for the purpose of this act and the purpose for which the corporation was established.
I also indicated it was done at the suggestion of the comptroller general. There may have been some misunderstanding with regard to the purpose served by the corporation, which perhaps could be explained in this way. The corporation was established under the national research council for the following purposes:
1.	To examine any invention referred to the corporation and to evaluate it.
2.	To determine if the invention is new and decide as to its patentability.
3.	To determine if the development has any value commercially.
4.	If, after careful examination of 1, 2 and 3, it is decided that the invention is new, that it has a commercial value, and it is patentable, the Canadian Patents and Development Limited proceed to apply and process the securing of a patent.
5.	If a patent issues the Canadian Patents and Development Limited endeavour to interest industry in its production.

6.	Costs of the above are paid for by the Canadian Patents and Development Limited on the understanding that they will recover their costs from royalties received.
Under the act as it stands at present the royalties received are payable to the consolidated revenue fund, and as Canadian Patents and Development Limited receive no vote from parliament it is impossible for them to operate. This amendment is to correct this situation. I continue:
7.	In addition to the above, the Canadian Patents and Development Limited would be authorized to make awards to the inventor in accordance with section 11, subsection 1 of the public servants inventions regulations on the recommendation of the appropriate minister.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, I am sure those hon. members of the committee who followed the debate last evening welcome this explanation, and I think perhaps I played a small part in eliciting this statement from the minister. However, I am going to ask this question once more. Is it not a fact that the explanatory note referred to one corporation as being the corporation mentioned, while as a matter of fact there may be a number of corporations that will have the power to receive and retain these moneys and use them for their purposes in addition to Canadian Patents and Development Limited?


Gordon Minto Churchill: As I mentioned last night, Mr. Chairman, it was the intention that this would refer to Canadian Patents and Development Limited. I queried the Department of Justice people with regard to that, and they would prefer to have it stated as it is now so that if necessary some other corporate agency may operate under the limitations of this particular act.


Jean-Thomas Richard: That is the point I have been trying to make all along. Following the first three subsections of section 9 it is clear that other crown corporations will be eligible to operate under subsection 4, and may receive moneys and disburse them for their purposes. I understand the minister to agree with what I have said up to this point. The balance of my remarks relate to the general aspects of the law, and I could refer to this again for details when the estimates are before us.


George James McIlraith: In so far as the explanatory notes are concerned, and as to what is being sought to be done in this legislation, I have no objection at all. In so far as the remarks of the minister pertaining to Canadian Patents and Development Limited, are concerned I well understand the situation and I am in accord with that he is seeking to do pertaining to that company but what concerns me
Public Servants Inventions Act is this. The legislation as drafted is not confined to Canadian Patents and Development Limited at all, and we have had no information at any stage of this bill as to how many other patents which are not being administered by Canadian Patents and Development Limited are now held by other ministers under the act. How many other corporate agencies of Her Majesty are now holding patents? We have no explanation on that point at all. I do not propose to delay the matter longer but I wonder whether the minister is able to give us some information on this because it is this point which concerned me when the matter was up yesterday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No other crown corporations are handling patents in the way which this organization handles them but there might be patents held by various government departments. We have not that information in front of us at the present time. I presume it could be obtained.


George James McIlraith: Take a corporation such as Polymer, does it hold any patents?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I believe it does.


George James McIlraith: As I see the legislation there is a weakness in it in that the patents having to do with one department and its activities could be referred to another crown corporation that is wholly unrelated in its work. I am wondering whether the minister has thought through the draftsmanship of the section in the light of what was said about it last night and the questions that were asked.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I fully appreciate the suggestions that were put forward. It may be that next year we might have to look at the entire act to which the hon. member for Ottawa East raised some objection. But I think it would not be unwise simply to adopt this amendment now which makes regular what has been done during the last three years. If it does not go far enough, I think perhaps we can have a look at it. In fact, I think the hon. member for Ottawa East would rather prefer, would he not, that we examine the whole act in addition to this slight amendment which is suggested on this occasion?


George James McIlraith: I will not pursue the matter further but I do want to be on record as indicating disapproval of the draftsmanship of the amending bill, to achieve the purposes set out by the minister. I think it is quite desirable that the legislation he is seeking for Canadian Patents and Development
1836	HOUSE OF
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act Limited be granted and approved, but I do question the form of this bill to achieve that end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the clause passes may I ask the minister whether he has the number and date of the order in council under the transfer of duties act that I asked about?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member was asking for the date of the order in council which transferred-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will refresh the minister's memory. I pointed out that the functions of one department could be transferred to another department only under the transfer of duties act or by statute and since it has not been done by statute I was wondering on what date and by what order in council the administration of this act has been transferred from the Secretary of State to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry, I have not that information in front of me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to press it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will get it and relay it to the hon. member privately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would not mind putting it on the record some time by tabling the order.
Mr Churchill: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal - Provincial Tax - Sharing Arrangements Act to extend for a further period of one 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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Mr. Benidickson:: Is the minister not going to make a statement on introducing this resolution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is very clear and


very simple. It is to extend for another year the increase which was made a year ago in the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax from the 10 per cent rate which was established in the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act to 13 per cent. The whole subject of dominion-provincial fiscal relations was very fully discussed in this house in a two day debate on February 9 and 10. I take it there is no occasion to cover today ground that was then very fully covered.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance was extremely brief in introducing this resolution. However, in view of the fact that it relates to our federal system and our relationship with the provinces, notwithstanding the debate that we had on February 9 and 10, there is involved in the matter a great deal that the minister has not referred to. I would hope that before we pass this stage he will feel prompted to say something to the committee in explanation of some of the queries which I am sure are in the minds of a great number of members.
It is true that I was one of those who participated in that debate on February 10. In consideration of all of my colleagues I do not want to be unduly repetitive. On the other hand, under our rules the debate was limited by time and the minister was permitted to speak only once. Unlike the present occasion, he was not enabled to reply to subsequent questions, questions which are of very great merit. I hope that before we move on to the next stage we may get some further enlightenment from the minister. Despite what the minister may say it cannot be denied that we are again facing something that he himself was most vigorous in criticizing in the past, that is, any suggestion that in our dealings with the provinces there might be something in the nature of a unilateral decree. I cannot think of anything more deserving of the description, "unilateral decree", than the telegram type of notification the minister sent late in January of 1958.
I feel that this particular subject is very deserving of the attention of the committee because I am quite sure that in the last few days the minister is finding-the evidence has been put before some of the rest of us also-that there is quite a harvest of disenchantment with respect to the equation of promises with performance. I cannot think of any area where this is more noticeable than in the matter of federal-provincial relationships.
As I have said before, and I think it is worth repeating, in this new parliament we have a great number of members who were

not here when the basic statute was introduced in 1956. At that time the Minister of Finance, who is introducing the measure now before us, and the present Prime Minister had a great deal to say. I am quite sure that members of the house, including the heavily weighted government party, are fully aware of the promises of the Prime Minister in both the 1957 and 1958 campaigns. But I am not so sure that one could expect them to be equally familiar with the positions taken and the commitments made by the present Minister of Finance and Prime Minister when federal-provincial relations were discussed in 1956.
When we had an opportunity to debate this matter in 1956 at this very stage, the first speech made by a member of the opposition was made by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew. He took violent exception to proceeding with a matter that had a great effect upon our provinces in the absence of what he thought was adequate consultation with those provinces. I am going to speak about consultation with the provinces but I want to draw to the attention of the committee, particularly to the attention of new members, what I think is a very decided contrast in what we are being asked to do today.
On July 16, 1956, during debate on the resolution stage, the very same stage we are in at the moment, Mr. Drew had this to say with respect to the proposals of the previous government as to tax sharing, as found on page 5999 of Hansard:
A government that fails to seek a solution of this problem and puts this matter into rigid statutory form before there has been approval is a government that is unfit to govern.
A year has elapsed since we were asked to do exactly what we are asked to do today. When the present Minister of Finance was in opposition in 1956, in his usual vigorous manner he had some very stern criticisms to make of the procedure, and I want to recall his words to his mind today. With respect to the matter of whether or not we have got the cart before the horse, the Minister of Finance had this to say as found on page 6296 of Hansard for July 23, 1956:
A new conference . . . is . . . desirable. There is no use. so far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition is concerned, asking us to approve a form of dominion-provincial fiscal arrangement which has not received the approval of a single provincial government.
Before we conclude debate at this stage I think the minister should indicate whether or not his views have changed in this respect. The minister went further on second reading. I do not want to anticipate that stage, but on February 10 the minister felt that the 66968-9-117
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act statute itself was undesirable, unwise and was incomprehensible. He described it as a maze. Yet when he amended the statute last year he simply wanted to make one slight change. He said that where the statute then read "10 per cent'' it should from then on read "13 per cent". There were no alterations to remedy those things which he described in the most derogatory terms when he was sitting on this side of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think my hon. friend should be fair enough to recognize that in the meantime agreements had been signed by nine provinces with the federal government under the terms of that legislation. We are not the kind of people who propose to repudiate such agreements.


William Moore Benidickson: I am coming to that very point. My main point is that 24 months ago he and his leader assured the country in the election campaign of 1957 that there was nothing they were more concerned about if they were given the responsibility of administration than calling the provinces together and arriving at something that would not be a unilateral decree, as he described it, but on the contrary would be something that would result in benign satisfaction to all concerned.
I simply want to make the contrast I indicated earlier between the arrangements that were made before the introduction of this taxation statute in 1956 and what preceded the introduction of the minister's amendment in 1958, now repeated here. As I said, at that time the present Minister of Finance, the present Prime Minister and the then leader of the opposition were so vigorous in their criticism that they said any government was unfit to govern if it introduced a statute without being able to tell the house that it met with the approval of the other participants, the ten provincial governments.
What is the history of the taxation proposal of 1956? In April of 1955 there was a federal-provincial conference. It was followed by a conference in October. The then prime minister of the country had the courtesy to send to all those associated with him in the conference a very informative and descriptive indication of the thinking of the federal government resulting from the two conferences. There was no telegram, none of this "brinkmanship" which we saw last January when the provinces were told so abruptly, "this is it, you have it and that is all." That was followed by a conference in March, 1956, and it was after all these preliminaries that the former government felt disposed to ask parliament to make certain changes in the federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements.

Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act
At each of these stages the record shows that as a result of the friendly consultation between the federal government and the provinces certain amendments or certain changes were made beneficial to the provinces beyond what might have been the position taken at the first conference on the part of the federal government. I will be most sympathetic to the Minister of Finance. In conference of this kind, with the bargaining that is involved in a matter of this kind, I do not think everybody can go away completely satisfied. However, what I am saying is that we had conferences and notwithstanding those conferences when in 1956 there was before this house the proposition that increased benefits to the provinces by 25 per cent, the Minister of Finance appearing with us again today was one of those who said that without proof that the provinces agreed to the proposition this parliament should not be asked to legislate by statute.
What is the contrast. I indicated that I felt that all hon. members would be quite familiar with the proposals of the Prime Minister in the last two election campaigns. There will be no lack of understanding there and no need on my part to remind any hon.. member about the extremely firm statements made by him which I do not think any member of this house any more than the most humble member of the electorate would have any difficulty in any way in interpreting. I have the sources, the times and places where statements of this kind were made. This is the kind of thing that was stated in the ringing voice of the Prime Minister with respect to federal-provincial matters and I underline this. He said that one of the first steps-


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the date of this?


William Moore Benidickson: The date of this was in April 1957.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is two elections ago.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, two elections ago. But the conference is all the more delayed when one recalls the time that has elapsed between this firm commitment and the failure to live up to the promise that was made in such unequivocal terms at that time.


Mr. Stinson:: Before the hon. member goes on to another part of his address, will he permit a question?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Frederick Coles Stinson: Is it or is it not a fact that this administration has given to the provinces a better deal than that which they enjoyed under the previous government?


William Moore Benidickson: I will answer my hon. friend in this way. The present administration in January of last year, in a most arrogant fashion, sent telegrams indicating that it was prepared to change the formula from 10 per cent to 13 per cent with respect to personal income. They gave most misleading figures to the p#ess and to the public at that time, figures which have proved to be completely unsound.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Using a provincial official for that purpose.


William Moore Benidickson: It was never answered in the last debate on February 9 or 10. The Minister of Finance has never indicated whether or not the suggestion, indeed the assertion of the hon. member for Essex East was correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Martin bureau of statistics.


William Moore Benidickson: The figures actually came from the chief treasury official of the department of finance in Toronto, from the department of finance of the province of Ontario rather than from his own department. In consequence, the rest of the country is wondering whether or not Ontario is getting undue consideration in strategy and matters of this kind. However, I go on to say that these were the kinds of words used at that time by the Prime Minister, and I have not completed my answer to my friend the hon. member for York Centre.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have not even started.


William Moore Benidickson: The result of these conferences of which I have spoken was that the benefit to the provinces was increased by $105 million, which was about 25 per cent beyond the amount to which they had previously been entitled. In the fanfare, the type of thing that is so typical of this government, particularly when they use terse telegrams to express their views and get them out to the press, the indication was that this would have some benefit of the nature of $80 million. Hence the answer to my friend is that the specific amendment was not as worth while, financially or otherwise, as was the proposition of the previous year that brought to the provinces this substantial increase of 25 per cent of their revenue.
But in addition to that, everything that had been put in the agreement made by the former administration with the provinces was, as we say, stabilized. This particular thing in no way was included in the telegraphic agreement or proposition that

was sent out a year ago and, I imagine, the proposition that we are being asked to rub-berstamp at this time without a conference in the meantime.
What were the words that were used? They were words such as these: The federal governments grasping greed for dollars; taxes needlessly high; the municipalities were being pauperized; that we had outrageous rates of interest that were detrimental to the provinces and to the municipalities. We heard all that kind of thing.
A conference was held, Mr. Chairman. The conference was held in November 1957 and lasted for two days. The premiers were gathered together and they were given the benefit of the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, including some soothing syrup about unemployment conditions, which prophecies proved to be extremely poor ones indeed. I want to quote from the written record of that conference.	The Prime
Minister said:
We are not placing before you any "take it or leave it" attitudes; we are not taking any hard or fast positions.
Let everyone remember the telegram that came in January. However, he went on to say this:
When we have your views and suggestions we would like to study them in detail and prepare some specific proposals to put before you at a mutually convenient time in the new year.
That is the new year of 1958. I am certainly not going to criticize the government for being unable to fulfil that particular technical commitment of holding a conference in the new year of 1958. They, like the rest of us, were engaged in an election campaign and we all understand that predicament. But the thing I do not understand is why no conference was possible in the fall of 1958. If the Minister of Finance felt so strongly that a conference should precede the presentation of a statute such as that with which we are going to be faced in a day or two, why has he changed his views? I think he must indicate some substantial reason for changing his views. On hearing the minister on February 9 and re-reading the remarks he made at that time, I gathered the impression that he is again engaging in this business of blinding the house with a wealth and welter of words. The emphasis in this particular speech was the suggestion that attention should be concentrated on the fact that there is going to be a meeting of federal and provincial officials.
Again many members of this house may not realize that there is nothing new about this. As a matter of fact there has just recently been published in the Canadian Tax Journal
66968-9-1171
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act a report by the federal director in the Department of Finance who has responsibility for co-ordinating federal and provincial relations. This extremely efficient and well-thought of officer had this to say, as found in the Canadian Tax Journal of January-February, 1959, at page 13:
The federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal and economic matters had its first meeting in February, 1956. There have been five others, usually two a year, one in Ottawa and another at a provincial capital.
I suggest to the committee that in this interval of 24-odd months since the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in the first election campaign indicated that this was almost at the top of their list of determination to provide satisfaction, there has been plenty of opportunity to bring the political leaders together, and this has not been done. I say that the Minister of Finance, in making the speech which he did on February 10, is placing a very low opinion-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not speak on February 10.


William Moore Benidickson: On February 9-on the judgment of his colleagues in this house when he says that there is a possibility that this would take the place-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My hon. friend is undertaking to refer to a previous debate at the present session, which was a debate occurring on February 9 and 10 on an amendment introduced by the hon. member for Essex East to a government motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. That debate proceeded to its conclusion and the vote was taken. Now my hon. friend is seeking to continue that debate and make extended reference to it.


William Moore Benidickson: I will accede to the hon. minister's objection, but I will say that it is an objection which I do not think has been taken by anybody else so far this session. I have found that the minister has a thinner skin with respect to rules when he is introducing a bill than anyone I know. He never had the Queensbury rules suggested to him when he was on this side of the house, but he is perfectly correct.
However, it does not prevent me for a moment from saying in reply, without any reference to the debate which took place on February 9 and 10, let not the Minister of Finance attempt to put our wits to sleep with any suggestion that some conferences of officials which have been going on routinely since 1956 is any satisfaction or fulfilment of the kind of commitments which I have described and quoted to the house.

Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act
The minister on Februray 26, in answer to an order for return of papers, presented all the correspondence up to that date, which correspondence with the premiers of the provinces dealt with the subject we are now discussing. Although the return was very thin, I am a little curious why there is no correspondence from the premier of Manitoba or the premier of Ontario suggesting that we should have a conference of this kind. They were very vigorous in the past in asserting it would be very beneficial to their provinces. The premier of Manitoba said he was very disappointed that a conference had not been held. In fact, the other day, I think probably after the Arrow performance, which is out of the rules of course, the premier of Manitoba was getting disenchanted to the extent that on a TV program he said, "Yes indeed, we are getting rather unhappy about things going on in Ottawa".
The point I was intending to make, however, was, first, the slimness of the file of correspondence as presented on February 26, I wonder if the minister when he speaks subsequently will say whether or not he has carried out this commitment that he seemingly gave in a letter to the treasurer of Saskatchewan, Mr. Fines, in a letter dated January 29, when he said, "I will be writing you further on this within the next few days". As far as I know the provincial treasurers, up until a month ago, had still not been given an indication of the kind of things the minister had in mind which they might expect from the conference.
Now I refer to "brinkmanship". I say that in January, 1958 this administration carried out the typical attitude it has carried out all along, namely of stalling, delaying and creating confusion, and it was not until they knew that legislatures were likely to meet within the next two or three weeks that they did anything, which happened to be the sending of a telegram without any detail. I say the same thing is happening here. There was no conference throughout this interval, and then notification is given to the provinces by a short statement in the speech from the throne that the government simply proposed to introduce this three-line amendment to the statute in 1959.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not correct.


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend indicated that in deference to the house he had not prior to the convening of the House of Commons given any intimation to the premiers of the provinces, and there is nothing in sessional paper No. 188A to indicate that the minister even said to the provinces that he was intending to continue the proposition made at the end of 1958.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member knows that a letter was written to the provincial premiers on the day parliament opened.


William Moore Benidickson: I said that, and I have no quarrel there. I said that no notification had been given them until after the speech from the throne, and how closely that approaches the convening of the provincial legislatures. Since then we have had budgets presented in most of the provincial legislatures. In the debate on February 9 and February 10 I think the hon. member for Essex East referred to the formula, whether it was 10 and 13 and 9 and 50. Then someone interjected that what you should say is that what they want is 15, 15 and 100. That has been demonstrated by the speeches by the treasurer of the province of Ontario, a Conservative government, and the treasurer of the province of Quebec, a government which some of us believe is pretty friendly to the present administration; I think you can call it a Conservative government.
I raised this point on the motion we have been discussing, which motion was made on February 9. I said that one of the real reasons why we should have a conference at this time is that we have a new administration. We have had it for 22 or more months now, and every utterance of the prominent members of this group when they were on this side of the house indicated that there was very little of the present set-up of which they approved. I quoted one example, and I cannot quote the other although I referred to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General on that occasion. But I think this is very significant. One of the architects of the Conservative party described-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
might I ask for your ruling? Reference has already been made to this matter of the debate which occurred on February 9 and February 10 on an amendment introduced on behalf of the official opposition by the hon. member for Essex East. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that at page 826 of Hansard of February 9, 1959, the amendment appears. It was seconded by the hon. member who is now addressing the committee. The amendment was in this form:
That all the words alter "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".
Debate, as I have indicated, proceeded on that resolution until the following evening when, in accordance with the rules, the question was put and the amendment was

defeated. My hon. friend started out to refer to the statements made in that debate in detail. He conceded that he was quite out of order in doing so, but now he is proceeding to debate this same question all over again. It is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that this is entirely out of order. If it can be debated today it can be debated half a dozen times in a session. My hon. friend and his party chose to introduce that subject at that time, and the house dealt with that subject, and in my respectful submission dealt with it conclusively as far as the present session is concerned. Therefore I submit that further reference to that subject, namely the calling of a dominion-provincial conference, is precluded as far as the present session is concerned. My hon. friend is obliged under the rules of the house to confine himself to the resolution now under discussion, which relates to a proposed amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.


William Moore Benidickson: May I speak to the point of order? I would be the first to confess that by the use of three or four words referring to the debate which took place on February 9 and 10 I probably had technically fallen foul of the rule, and I would be the last ever to attempt to meet the Minister of Finance in a dispute over these small technical matters. But without making any reference to what was said on February 9 and 10, and coming back to my main point, I expect the minister to indicate why he has changed his view that a conference between the premiers and the federal government should precede the request to the federal parliament for a reconsideration of the statutes.
I want to say that one of the reasons why I think that such a conference should precede the introduction of a step such as this is that the Prime Minister and other members of the present ministry-


Charles Edward Rea: I thought the hon.
member was going to speak on the point of order. Just to clear up that matter, I am sure I need not refer him to the appropriate citation of Beauchesne-section 148(3)-with reference to the supply motion we had on February 9 and 10. And as he has already conceded the point I am sure he will now stay within the relevant rule.


William Moore Benidickson: Quite. I will not make
any further reference to that debate. I will simply state in argument-and this is very sincerely meant-that having regard to the length of time which has elapsed between the previous conference and the introduction of this resolution and to the statements made by the hon. minister and by the leader of his party when we were last legislating on matters of this kind that the cart was quite
11, 1959	1841
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act clearly before the horse, we feel that this does represent the position. Moreover, we know that many members of the present administration have over the years-I believe the Prime Minister's rolling phrase is "all through the years"; he used it again on a television program the other night-advocated that the whole concept of federal-provincial relationships should be altered. This was most obviously set forth in a speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when, as reported on page 3647 of Hansard of May 10, 1955, when he had this to say:
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.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry, but I
must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: I was unfortunately out of the chamber when the Minister of Finance introduced this resolution. I understand the minister took about 30 seconds to perform this task, and I find this rather strange remembering the minister's eloquence on other occasions when this same subject was under discussion. This resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal - Provincial Tax - Sharing Arrangements Act to extend for a further period of one 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.
I must say that this resolution is an outstanding example of the tendency of the present government to conduct dominion-provincial relations on a unilateral basis, and certainly it reflects an approach which members of the Conservative party condemned in vigorous terms when they were in opposition. I think it will be appropriate at this time to place on the record some of the statements which were made by various members of the present cabinet on this subject. Let us take the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for example. That minister, speaking on July 7, 1956, as reported on page 6064 of Hansard, said:
The only way in which to approach this problem is by a conference which would deal with this crucial matter and deal with it not in 24 hours or in 48 hours but over a lengthy period.
Of course, we all recall that the conference which was called in the fall of 1957 lasted for only two days, November 25 and 26-

Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act Then again, the Minister of Justice, as reported on page 6335 of Hansard of July 23, 1956, had this to say:
What is needed is a meeting of all the governments with a view to assessing their needs and what if any exchange of constitutional responsibilities can be arranged by mutual consent.
I wonder what mutual consent there was about the telegrams which were sent out last January to inform the provinces what they were to receive, and, again, this year, when the announcement was made in the speech from the throne? What kind of mutual consent was there then? What steps were taken then to secure the consent of the provinces?
But in order to get a really good quotation we have to turn to the remarks of the Prime Minister himself as reported on page 6369 of Hansard of July 24, 1956 when he said:
I wonder often why this government has not taken the provinces into its confidence. Why these short-term meetings: why these gatherings of a day or two? Why do we not have a meeting of the federal authorities, the provincial authorities and the municipalities-designed to bring about the reconsideration of a problem which for the last 13 years or so has become increasingly complex?
I submit that the situation has become even more complex in the last couple of years. Then again, on July 24, 1956 the Prime Minister said these words as reported on page 6370:
I think it is fair to say that the attitude taken by the government at the last conference was an arbitrary one. The government simply said, "These are the terms". No opportunity was given for amendment or for amelioration of any term. The recipe for a division of taxation was as final as the laws of the Medes and Persians; and how similar that attitude was to the attitude of the government in the house which is that power makes perfect anything they do. There was no opportunity for negotiation; there was simply the attitude of a feudal lord bringing into being a modern feudalism and laying down the law to the vassals.
That is not the attitude, that is not the consideration to which the provinces are entitled under a constitution which allocates powers as between the federal and provincial governments.
How well those words could apply to the present government even more than they applied to the previous government. Then, of course, we come to what was said by the Minister of Finance. Speaking on July 23, 1956, as reported on page 6287, the hon. member for Eglinton had this to say:
The house is now asked to carry into legislative form and effect the formula which was the essence of the federal government's proposals. We are asked to do so with full knowledge that no provincial government has yet given its approval to those proposals and indeed with full knowledge that there has been widespread disapproval of the government's proposals on the ground of their inadequacy.

It seems so strange in the light of these words of the minister, spoken less than three years ago, to find now that the federal government's terms should be made known by telegram. And the Minister of Finance, speaking in the same debate, as reported on page 6289, said further:
-this rigid and inflexible, this hard take-it-or-leave-it attitude, is foreign to the spirit of confederation, and there has been altogether too much of that rigidity and inflexibility in the attitude of this government all through the years during which the problem of dominion-provincial fiscal relations has occupied the attention of all those governing the dominion and the provinces.
Certainly we can see very little difference between the attitude of the previous government and the attitude of the present government. If anything the attitude of the present government is worse than that of the former administration.
When the Prime Minister convened the dominion-provincial conference in 1956 he is quoted as having said:
We are not placing before you any take-it-or-leave-it attitudes. We are not taking any fast and hard positions.
From my observations of the present government I agree that it does not take hard and fast positions simultaneously; it takes them separately. I noticed that it took a very fast position when it came to increasing by 50 per cent the money accruing to moneylenders in this country but it reserves hard positions for the sake of the western farmers and the employees of Avro who were thrown out on the street.
We cannot criticize too severely the failure of the government to introduce proposals at the last dominion-provincial conference because it had been in office for only a few months. I do not know just how the impression was created or the undertaking given but it was clearly understood by the provinces on that occasion that the conference would be reconvened the following January in order to work out a satisfactory agreement between the federal and provincial governments. As we all know that January came and went and another January has come and gone and it is going on to a year and a half since the last conference concluded. Not only have we not had a conference but there is no indication of one in the offing.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I wonder if I may just remind the hon. member that on February 9 and 10 the house held a two-day debate on the first supply motion of this session in the following words:
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 was debated for two days and concluded by a vote of this house. I should like to refer to citation 148 (1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
148.(1) It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
The debate we held had reference to a dominion-provincial conference. I simply wish to draw that to the attention of the hon. member and ask him to bear it in mind in his remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order for information on that point. I agree of course with Your Honour that we cannot ask the government to call a federal-provincial conference now because that question was decided in the negative by this house but certainly that would not preclude any member of the opposition from drawing attention to the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite on other occasions when they were in opposition were strong proponents of the holding of such conferences and that is what I apprehended the hon. member for Timmins to have said.


Charles Edward Rea: Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not hear the last two or three remarks made by the hon. member for Timmins.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your ruling and I shall endeavour to keep my remarks well within the rules. The proposal before us at this time is a continuation of the proposal introduced last year when an amendment was made to the tax-sharing formula which provided an increase from 10 per cent to 13 per cent in the standard individual income tax in computing provincial payments under the taxsharing agreement. The provinces were given no opportunity to discuss this proposal or to suggest amendments or alternative proposals. The federal government indicated that this was to be an interim measure effective for a period of one year but now the government is proposing that the present arrangement be extended for another one-year period without having consulted the provinces and with full knowledge that the provinces do not consider this formula adequate. This attitude of the government is most certainly representative of the take-it-or-leave-it attitude which hon. members of this administration so vehemently condemned while in opposition.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made reference to the rosy picture that
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act was painted by the Minister of Finance at the time this arrangement was introduced. This would be an increase only if the revenue stayed the same as before or if it were increased. What was accomplished was that the government raised the ceiling but did not raise the floor. A certain amount of optimism should be allowed to the government from time to time but I suggest that there has been an excess of optimism which is particularly noticeable on the part of the Minister of Finance. Many of the announcements made by that hon. gentleman lead us to believe that the country is being administered through the processes of government by mirage rather than through the processes of a government that bases its activities on facts and figures.
Possibly I have said enough concerning the actions of the government in the past. What I believe is of concern to Canadians as a whole is what the government will do in future. Will it continue to wallow in the same bog of indecision which characterized the previous administration which fact was so frequently and vocally deplored by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in opposition? On the other hand will the government clear the decks and endeavour to establish a reasonable and just understanding with respect to these matters that would prevail from coast to coast?
Eight years from now in 1967 Canada will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding. Certainly that would be an excellent time to conduct a complete review of the situation in the country in order that each segment could contribute its full share to our development and perform its proper duties. It is essential that the federal government should retain its taxing powers so it can maintain the responsibility of establishing monetary and fiscal policies throughout the country. The taxing field should be left to the federal government. If this were not done how could it possibly meet national emergencies? It would have no money with which to meet these problems if the taxing authority was removed from its hands.
On the other hand the provinces have grown to have responsibilities that were not even dreamed of in 1867. They require federal assistance to meet their growing responsibilities. This line of thinking is not new. May I refer to a statement made by the former hon. member for Dauphin, Mr. Zaplitny, as reported at page 6333 of Hansard of July 23, 1956:
If there were a constitutional conference, and if those who participated took a good look at things, had expert advice, decided what from now on could be more efficiently handled on the provincial level and what in the national interests could be more efficiently handled on the federal level, and

Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act then suggested to parliament and eventually to the parliament of Westminster further amendments to our constitution based upon the results of that conference and arising out of common agreement among the representatives of the provinces and the dominion, we would do away with a great many of the difficulties that arise at a time when we are wondering how best to share these revenues.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the. measure before the house now is more a matter of expediency than it is of any particular benefit. In fact, more and more people in this country are beginning to believe that the policy of this government is nothing more nor less than what the Prime Minister says is expedient to do each morning when he rises. That becomes the policy of the present government. If we are going to accept the responsibilities in this country of ours we cannot and we must not permit this to continue. I would say, let us fix 1967 as the target date for maturity in this country. One of the biggest steps in that direction would be to make some honest effort to solve this problem which unfortunately this government appears to have avoided so far.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, in introducing the measure under discussion this afternoon the Minister of Finance was exceptionally brief. He stated that the purpose of this resolution was clear and simple and all that it intended to do was to extend for another year the federal-provincial taxsharing arrangements which were passed in this house last year.
In introducing the measure amending the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act last year on January 27 the Minister of Finance made it clear to the house that this act provided an interim measure only and that in its application to the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 1958, the definition of "standard individual income tax" in the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act shall for the purposes of that act and any agreements made thereunder be read and construed as if for the words "10 per cent" therein there were substituted the words "13 per cent". As I have just said, the resolution before us at the present time resolves:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal - Provincial Tax - Sharing Arrangements Act to extend the present act for a further period of one year-
This is an interim measure. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is really in accordance with the present government's policy, which is a short term policy of introducing interim measures after interim measures.
On January 27 of last year, in introducing the resolution which provided the extension

from 10 per cent to 13 per cent of the individual income tax share of the equalization formula under the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, the Minister of Finance said, as reported at page 3847 of Hansard:
Mr. Chairman, to the present resolution and to the bill which it is hoped will follow upon the passage of the resolution, the government attaches very great importance, for it looks upon this measure as one that will bring aid to the provinces and municipalities of this country, and effective also in meeting the problem of unemployment. The terms of the resolution. I think, are clear. It is the hope of the government that it may be possible after adoption of this resolution to proceed with the motion for second reading of the bill tomorrow.
I will agree with the minister that the terms of the resolution are clear, and I think the government looked upon this measure as one which should bring aid to the provinces and the municipalities of this country. The present economic condition of the provinces and municipalities justifies the need for more than an extension of the present tax-sharing arrangements for a period of one year. In the report of the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference of November 19, 1957 we find at page 5, the foreward of the report, the following quotation:
It was agreed at the end of the conference that a subsequent meeting be held as soon as possible in the new year in accordance with the proposals made by the federal government in calling the conference.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this report makes it very clear that it was the intention of the government to call a dominion-provincial conference at a later date early in the new year. It was made clear that a subsequent meeting would be held as soon as possible in accordance with the proposals. In tabling on behalf of the Prime Minister copies of telegrams dispatched by the Prime Minister to the premiers of the 10 provinces on the matter of dominion-provincial fiscal relations, which we are discussing today, on January 25 of last year the Minister of Finance is reported at page 3796 of Hansard for that date to have said:
It has not been possible, as we had hoped it would be, to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference in January. Therefore as an interim measure, and an interim measure only, we are asking parliament immediately to make available this additional sum of money for the forthcoming fiscal year. Then when there is opportunity it is the intention of the government to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference with a view, as indicated in the letter, to seeking fiscal settlements. This was put forward, of course, without prejudice to the freedom that the dominion-provincial conference will undoubtedly have to discuss the whole area of fiscal settlements.

The telegram which was read and inserted in Hansard on January 25, 1958, as reported at page 3795, said in part:
This is interim measure pending reconvening of dominion-provincial conference to seek fiscal settlements.
These are exactly the same words as were used by the Minister of Finance. The last sentence of this telegram signed by the Prime Minister reads as follows:
The government of Canada hopes this additional assistance aggregating eighty-seven million dollars in fiscal year commencing April first will be useful in helping provinces and municipalities to meet unemployment and other problems.
There again, Mr. Chairman, it was made clear that this measure, which we are asked to renew today for another period of 12 months, was introduced as an interim measure only, pending the reconvening of the dominion-provincial conference in January of last year. Last year the session which was then under way ended on January 31. An election was held and it was followed by a second session of parliament which ended on September 7. Over a year has since gone by and today we are being asked by the Minister of Finance, not to make an improvement in the act or in the arrangements which we were asked to pass last year but just to extend the same agreement for a period of another year. In repeating his pledge to distribute more federal revenues to the provinces and municipalities the Prime Minister said at St. Patrice de Beaurivage on May 30, 1957, as reported in the Montreal Gazette for May 31:
The provinces and municipalities are poor but the Ottawa government is rich.
Would it be true that conditions have changed considerably since May, 1957, because in June of 1957 a Conservative government took office in Ottawa? Would it be true that the federal treasury may not be in as healthy a state today as it was when the present government took over the administration of the affairs of the country? The fact remains, however, that the Prime Minister promised to make sure that the provinces and municipalities would have sufficient money to do the job they are supposed to do, and notwithstanding the charges which have been made on previous occasions in the house by the Minister of Finance blaming us of accusing the Prime Minister of not keeping his promises, we of the official opposition will make it our duty to remind the Prime Minister and his followers of the promises which they have made to the electors of the country, promises made to provinces and to municipalities, promises which they claim to have fulfilled but with respect to which the results so far are pretty insignificant.
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act
I wonder if any individual member on the government side could go before his constituents today and convince them that the promises made by the Prime Minister to the provinces and the municipalities have been fulfilled. I hear one hon. member say, "We could." Well, just for his information I will recall some of the statements which have been made by the Prime Minister in this regard. I recall first the statement made by the Prime Minister at a press conference in Winnipeg on May 14, 1957, when he said, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press:
The provinces have been placed in a starving condition. The municipalities have been placed in a position where property owners are laced with heavy burdens of taxation.
We all know that starving conditions were prominent in this country during the last Conservative government, the Bennett regime. Was the statement of the Prime Minister made on May 14, 1957 a prediction of worse days to come? Did he have a premonition at that time of the conditions which exist in Canada today after only 20 months of Conservative government?
The Minister of Finance clearly stated that the government had carried the principle of equalization further than any previous government. The fact is that only 12 or 13 months after the introduction of an amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act the government is already forced to back away from the principle established by the last amendment. In fact, when the estimates for the coming fiscal year were tabled in the house a few weeks ago it was revealed that six provinces will receive considerably less under the tax-sharing agreements than they received during the present fiscal year, and unfortunately the provinces most affected under the new agreement are those which are recognized as being the needy provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not correct at all. I do not know where my hon. friend gets a statement like that because it is just not true.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The statement I have made is based on the estimates for the fiscal year 1959-60 which have been tabled in the house by the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is not.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When the hon. member for Essex East stated on a previous occasion that an employee of the provincial government of Ontario, Mr. George Gathercole, had prepared the figures used in the telegram sent to the provincial premiers on January 24, 1958 the statement was not denied by the Minister of Finance. Therefore we must

Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act accept the fact that the Minister of Finance referred to an employee of the government of Ontario matters which were strictly within federal jurisdiction and this, Mr. Chairman, is nothing but an insult to the federal civil servants.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is utter rot.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The Prime Minister stated time and time again that the tax-sharing pattern used by the previous Liberal administration was niggardly so far as the provinces and municipalities were concerned. If the pattern was niggardly then when conditions were normal what must it be today when over 12 per cent of our national labour force are unemployed and seeking work?
It is true that the interim measure introduced in January, 1958, and the extension we are being asked to ratify today increased from 10 per cent to 13 per cent the individual tax share which the provinces will receive from the federal treasury. However, by failing to place a floor on the amounts which each province will receive, let us say based on the 1957-58 levels as asked last year by the then member for Montmagny-L'Islet, Mr. Lesage, the 1959 estimates now show, notwithstanding the denial of the Minister of Finance, that the poor provinces, the provinces which need it most today, may receive in the coming fiscal year substantially less than they were allotted for the year 1958-59 under the equalization method.
In fact, according to the figures we find in the estimates, to which I have just referred, New Brunswick, for example, is estimated to receive close to three-quarters of a million dollars less and Nova Scotia over $1,400,000 less and this at a time when unemployment in those provinces is at a record high, in fact, almost as high as during the hungry 30's. We are prepared to admit that the provinces were not completely satisfied with the fiscal arrangements made under the previous administration and they are definitely not satisfied with the present arrangements.
At the short 1958 conference which lasted only two days every provincial premier, without exception, asked for a more favourable tax-sharing agreement or more adequate fiscal arrangements. As late as March 26, 1958, as reported in the Halifax Herald for March 27, premier Stanfield, addressing a political meeting at Tatamagouche, said:
Unless the tax-sharing agreements between the federal and provincial governments were revised substantially, our revenues from Ottawa would fall sharply. Nova Scotia, he said, was in no position to absorb such a reduciton.
This is in fact exactly what will happen during the coming fiscal year, and it is one of the reasons why the convening of a

federal-provincial conference is urgent and the extension of the present arrangement for the period of one year will not be satisfactory. The former leader of the Conservative party, Mr. George Drew, when leader of the opposition and while addressing the house on July 16, 1956, clearly stated, as found on page 5993 of Hansard, that an arrangement should be made to reallocate to provincial governments and municipalities their share of taxes "which will make it possible for them to carry out the heavy responsibilities which they cannot ignore and cannot shirk."
I am sure that Mr. Frost, the premier of Ontario, would be pleased to hear those words repeated today. In the course of the same debate the present Solicitor General addressed the house and had this to say, as found at page 6031 of Hansard:
What is most required is a federal-provincial conference in which the federal government and the provinces will consider the steps to be taken for a fair distribution of taxation fields so that the provinces may play their part in their own sphere.
I am sure that Premier Duplessis would be pleased to hear those words repeated today. At a press conference in Winnipeg on May 14, 1957 the Prime Minister stated that "under a Conservative government the provinces would have a voice in deciding fiscal terms and the tax agreements would contribute to national unity". Where is that voice today? Has it faded because a Conservative government is in power in Ottawa? I am sure that the premier of Manitoba, Mr. Roblin, would be pleased to have those words repeated today. A few days later in Victoria the Prime Minister said this:
The time has come for a meeting of the provinces with the municipalities present, to discuss their problems. He intended, said the Prime Minister, to convene such a meeting in the spirit of confederation.
Again I am sure that Premier Bennett would be glad to hear those words repeated today. Here is a further statement of the Prime Minister when he said this:
If action is not taken, we shall find ourselves in a position in five years' time where the municipalities will be bankrupt or unable to carry out their responsibilities.
It did not take five years, Mr. Chairman, under a Conservative government for the prediction of the Prime Minister to be realized. The present government has been in power less than 20 months and already throughout the country numbers of municipalities are on the verge of bankruptcy or are unable to carry out their responsibilities. Where is the action promised by the Prime Minister to ease the present tax burdens of municipalities? Where is the action promised by the Prime Minister at the opening of the

short 1957 dominion-provincial conference when, in addressing the provincial premiers, as reported at pages 8 and 9 of the report, he said:
When we have your views and suggestions we would like to study them in detail and prepare some specific proposals to put before you at a mutually convenient time in the new year. This would be in accordance with the experience in one or other past conferences, and I believe it is the most acceptable procedure and the only feasible one under all the circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, the 1958 new year has passed and the 1959 new year is passing. Yet we are still waiting for the conference and we have no indication whatsoever-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I must rise on this point of order. My hon. friend keeps coming back again and again and asking for a conference. As was ruled some time earlier this afternoon by the deputy chairman of committees, that subject has been already concluded so far as this session is concerned by the vote of the house on February 10. It is therefore quite out of order for any hon. member to advocate the convening of a dominion-provincial conference. That matter has been concluded as far as this session is concerned by the decision of the house on February 10. That is the substance of the ruling made this afternoon by the deputy chairman of committees when he was in the chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. I was listening most attentively to my friend the hon. member for Gloucester, and he was not advocating the calling of a federal-provincial conference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, yes, he was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What he was doing, Mr. Chairman, was inquiring what had happened to the federal-provincial conference that was promised in 1957 by hon. gentlemen opposite. Surely that is a legitimate line of speculation and has nothing to do with the decision made by the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a line, all right.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What I was saying, Mr. Chairman, is this. The only answer we have, so far, from the present government is the assurance of a continuation of the federal-provincial continuing committee on the matter of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. We heard recently that a messenger from the minister's department had been sent around to contact the respective provincial secretary-treasurers of the various provinces.
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not a very kind remark to make about a very responsible official of the Department of Finance.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will accept the minister's remark, Mr. Chairman; and I would say that the very responsible official of the Department of Finance is now visiting the provinces in order to discuss the matter of federal-provincial relations and other matters with the provincial premiers and provincial secretary-treasurers. I reminded the minister of this matter a while ago and again I presume that we shall receive no answer.
If the municipalities were the "forgotten people" under the previous administration, what are they now under the present government? I have here the last report showing the municipal tax collections to December 31, 1958 in the province of New Brunswick. I feel that these figures should go on record. It shows that as of December 31, 1958 in the county of Albert, for example, only 81.5 per cent of the current taxes have been collected; in Carleton, 59.6 per cent; in Charlotte, 66 per cent; in Gloucester, 60.8 per cent; in Kent, 69.5 per cent; in Kings, 75.4 per cent; in Madawaska, 59.3 per cent; in Northumberland, 62.2 per cent.


Mr. Stewart:: May I ask the hon. member what he is reading from?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am reading from the New Brunswick Municipal Monthly for January, 1959.


An hon. Member:: I think the hon. member is reading his whole speech.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am reading from a report. I have said that the report is the New Brunswick Municipal Monthly for January, 1959. The figure for tax collections in Queens county is not stated. For Restigouche it was 73.7 per cent; for Saint John, 74 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. If we are going to have municipal statistics read into the record here, we can be here from now till Doomsday. Those statistics have no relevance to the matter under debate. The matter under debate is a resolution that contemplates the amendment of one clause of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act increasing from 10 per cent to 13 per cent the provincial share from the individual income tax. There is not a word about municipal revenues.


William Moore Benidickson: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I just say this. Surely the Minister of Finance recalls that when this particular statute was debated on previous occasions the present Prime Minister always indicated that in a discussion with

Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act respect to tax-sharing matters it was appropriate that the municipalities should be added as a third party to the negotiations and discussions.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I already put the following quotation on Hansard. The last paragraph of the telegram sent by the Prime Minister to the premiers of each province stated as follows:
Government of Canada hopes this additional assistance aggregating eighty-seven million dollars in fiscal year commencing April first will be useful in helping provinces and municipalities to meet unemployment and other problems.
What I am trying to do now is to prove to the minister that this new agreement is not meeting the needs of the municipalities. As an illustration of the urgent need of the municipalities, I should like at this time briefly to describe the financial position of my own municipality of Gloucester. The situation is serious and critical when a municipality like Gloucester is near the breaking point and has to petition the provincial government to pass special legislation to levy additional tax on liquor, beer, wine and luxuries to meet its obligations and to provide the public services expected by our population. The Gloucester municipal council also petitioned the provincial government of New Brunswick for a larger share of federal subsidies, a share which it is not receiving now.
The direct taxation in Gloucester county has reached its limit. The school taxes have increased by 80 per cent in the last 12 years.


The Chairman:: Order. I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester for the last few minutes and I must bring to his attention the fact that he is straying away from the resolution which is at present being debated. We cannot at the present time permit discussion with regard to the situation in each individual county or in each individual municipality. We are discussing a resolution which is clear. I must ask the hon. member please to confine his remarks to matters which are relevant to the resolution under study at the present moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, a very important question of privilege for all members of the opposition is raised by the observations Your Honour has just made. As we have been told over and over again by the previous government and by the present one, the purpose of these tax-sharing arrangements is to put the provinces in a financial position to carry out their constitutional functions by themselves. That is the reason why we have tax-sharing, and I believe it is the only valid reason. The municipalities are creatures of the provinces. One of the most important

historical reasons which has been given ever since the days of the Rowell-Sirois report on the principle of tax-sharing is that the provinces, and through them the municipalities, should be put in a financial position to carry out their functions. My hon. friend from Gloucester is showing, or attempting to show, that in his province, in one of the leading municipalities, the present arrangements which this government is asking to be continued are not being so continued. It seems to me that nothing could be more completely relevant to the subject which is before us.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order might I say I think there is relevance, because it is public knowledge that in the province from which I come, namely Ontario, the minister of planning and development, the member for Kingston, has stated within very recent weeks that every last dollar that might be forthcoming from this government to the province would be passed on to the municipalities.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order I would again recall to this committee the words of the Minister of Finance when he introduced this very same measure last year on January 27, as reported on page 3847 of Hansard. He said:
Mr. Chairman, to the present resolution and to the bill which it is hoped will follow upon the passage of the resolution, the government attaches very great importance, for it looks upon this measure as one that will bring aid to the provinces and municipalities of this country-
I cannot see how we can be prevented from bringing in municipalities, when the Minister of Finance himself mentioned it in introducing this bill last year. It is the very same bill we are being asked to amend this year, to extend it for another period of one year. I would like your ruling on this.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am not ruling out of order the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester in this sense, that he can talk about questions relating to municipalities in a general sense. But he cannot talk about questions relating to one particular municipality. If the chair permitted the hon. member to actually deal with such matter in a particular sense it would mean that all the hon. members of this house would then have a right to ask that their own problems in each municipality be discussed. Therefore I suggest that the hon. member confine his remarks in a general sense to the relationship of the municipalities, but not to bring in individual cases.
Moreover, in relation to the point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Finance concerning the discussion with regard to the resuming of a debate which has already taken place in this house, on which a vote was

taken, I would like to quote from Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 126, rule 148 (1), which states:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
Consequently, I must defer to the point of order which the Minister of Finance raises, and that is that we cannot return to a debate on which there has been a vote. It would be appreciated by the Chair if the hon. members of the house confined their remarks as much as possible to the item under debate.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The Prime Minister in Truro on May 1, 1957 promised that the Conservative government would immediately convene a dominion-provincial conference with representatives of the provinces and municipalities to restore once again the opportunity for provinces and municipalities to exercise their functions under the terms of confederation. Direct taxation in the different municipalities of the province of New Brunswick has reached its limit. Some of those counties may certainly be a good section of the country to live in, but we have reached the point where it is impossible to live and expect the same privileges as enjoyed in other sections of the country. I do not want to cite any specific examples concerning my municipality of Gloucester but, for example, owning a car in Canada is not ordinarily considered a luxury. In some counties in the province of New Brunswick the owner of a car has to pay from $36 to $70 a year municipal taxes if it is a small imported car like an Austin, or any of the others of similar make. If he is the owner of what we call a standard car, like a Ford or a Chevrolet, his municipal taxes are $54 to $110 a year. If he is the owner of a larger car, like a Buick or Monarch, his taxes are from $100 to $200 a year. I am not blaming our municipal councillors, because these gentlemen are doing the impossible to meet the existing demands of their respective municipalities. But nevertheless the situation is beyond their control and they have no other field of taxation from which to raise the funds required for the administration of their municipalities. This is why we feel that the purpose of the amendment which we are being asked to discuss and pass today would not meet the needs of the different municipalities.
I realize that there may not be permanent and realistic solution to the complex problems of fiscal relations. However, I feel that practical compromises should be marked out to meet changing social and economic conditions which also affect the responsibilities
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Every Canadian citizen is entitled to a certain reasonable minimum of services without having to bear a level of taxation more onerous than the average Canadian. All across Canada municipalities are finding their tax revenues inadequate for the rapidly mounting cost of their operations. Money is getting more and more expensive and difficult to obtain. During the last four or five years municipal expenditures have increased by over 50 per cent. The cost of financing education, health, welfare, roads, utility services and others have increased year after year. Some provinces, like Manitoba, have made available to municipalities a large share of the amount received under fiscal grants, or under federal-provincial tax arrangements, while others, like New Brunswick for example, have refused to recognize the urgent needs of municipal governments.
This is a clear example of unilateral decision where the municipalities did not have one word to say. The municipalities face the most critical conditions of all levels of government, and the municipalities are faced with the most widespread demands for expenditure; but they have nothing to say in getting their right share of amounts paid under federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. The federal government could also arrange for municipalities to borrow at a lower rate of interest, somewhere in the vicinity of the federal rate. We all know that the borrowing capacity of municipalities-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: With regret I must interrupt the hon. member; his time has expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Meunier:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take part in this debate in order to remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that he must now fulfil a promise he made during the last election in the province of Quebec, and which as a matter of fact, he had already held out in July 1956, when we were discussing the matter in this house. Here is what the Minister of Finance said in July 1956, as can be seen on page 6296 of the official record dated July 23rd 1956:
I ask the government to take a responsible attitude in this matter and recognize the imperative needs of the provincial and municipal governments. This formula is at best a makeshift; it is no solution of the problem. What is needed is a government with a realistic and sympathetic appreciation of the responsibilities and burdens and problems of the provinces and a wholesome respect for the constitutional position of the provinces and the constitutional rights they possess, as well as the responsibilities they bear.
Moreover, during the 1958 election campaign, the Minister of Finance came to the province of Quebec, and more particularly to

Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act my riding, on March 17th or 24th of last year, and, speaking on behalf of my opponent, Mr. Danis, he promised the final settlement of this issue with the province of Quebec. I am aware that the minister is a man of integrity, of talent, and a glutton for work, but I shall tell him that, when he promised to settle the problem of fiscal relations with the province of Quebec, he undertook a very hard task indeed.
At the 1957 conference, a meeting of the provinces had been called to explore their needs. They were then promised a further conference where the government would state its position.
I have no intention of repeating the statements made by previous speakers, but I can say to the Minister of Finance that, to settle a problem of such magnitude, he needs the co-operation of the authorities concerned.
When he proposes, as he now does, to grant to provinces, and particularly to the province of Quebec, 13 per cent of federal income tax, I say as other members have said that this is a poor solution as far as the province of Quebec is concerned.
I said just now that, to correct the situation and settle the problem, he needs the co-operation of the parties concerned. However, I wonder whether he can hope for the Quebec government to co-operate in this matter. If we look up the proceedings of the 1955 conference, on page 40, and the proceedings of the 1957 conference on page 31, we find that the premier of Quebec came to Ottawa to repeat the same thing in both circumstances. I quote his statement:
1.	Clarification and delimitation of the powers of taxation of both the federal and provincial authorities, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Canadian constitution, that is to say having regard to the past, the present and the future.
2.	Simplification of public taxation in such a way as to reduce its cost and facilitate its collection.
3.	Moderation in the domain of taxation to be arrived at by the collaboration of all public powers, in such a way as to ease the burden of the taxpayer so far as possible.
Those sentences were repeated at both conferences, and it is obvious that the necessary co-operation for the settlement of such a vast problem will not be easy to get.
The situation, in the province of Quebec, is quite special. If the Minister of Finance wants to settle the problem, he will have many prejudices to overcome, not because of the stubbornness of the premier of Quebec, but rather because of his puns and of his distorted mind.
Only a few days ago I heard the premier of Quebec say that the federal government was grabbing 75 per cent of taxes. However,
[Mr. Meunier.l

he made no mention of the equalization payments or of all that the province of Quebec receives under the constitution, or what the province gets in the form of grants for hospitals and for professional and technical schools. Without explaining the exact situation he prefers to insinuate that the federal government grabs 75 per cent of taxes, instead of saying that the federal government collects taxes and offers in turn the equalization payments, as is the case now. For the year 1957-58, the province of Quebec received $51,815,000 and this year, it will receive $55,809,000, and this is not taking into account the other amounts paid under certain statutes.
We are sure that the federal government is not grabbing 75 per cent of the tax dollar; it levies those taxes and then hands them back to the provinces. I then say to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, that he has a mission to fulfil, because in the province of Quebec the story goes-and people believe it-that the fiscal agreements of 1956 were agreed to with a knife held to the provinces' throats, and that the provinces, especially the province of Quebec, were forced to accept what was offered them.
Furthermore, during the last election campaigns, the Minister of Finance kept repeating that he would settle the problem to the satisfaction of all, as the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) also claimed here, for instance on October 18, 1957, when in reply to a question put to him by a member of the opposition, he stated:
I wish to tell my hon. friend that I am still opposed to subsidies such as were proposed by the former government.
And later on, he added:
I want to tell him that the proposals of the federal government are not yet known, but I am convinced that they will be made on a very different basis from those of the former government.
I understand the Solicitor General was not then speaking on behalf of the government, but what he said squares with what the Minister of Finance stated on various occasions, i.e. that the problem of fiscal relations would be solved fully and satisfactorily, in so far as the provinces, especially the province of Quebec, are concerned.
I am not reproaching him for his failure to call another conference, but I hope that within a year he will have called one and thus given satisfaction to the province of Quebec, since its population is now being deprived of considerable and badly needed income.

(Text):


Frank Howard: In rising to take part in this debate I think it would be well for us to review that part of the resolution which indicates that it is the intention of the government to extend the tax rate for one additional year. The words of the resolution say, in fact:
-to extend for a further period of one 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 so on. I think this is indicative of the type of government we have. It may be one is generous in saying that this is a year-to-year government. It would be more apt to call it a month-to-month government operating on a temporary basis without any clear idea where it is going in the field of long-range planning.
I think we had expected far more from the Minister of Finance than a mere attempt to extend for an additional year the change which was brought about by telegram shortly before the last election. It would have been far more acceptable to the house in my opinion, as well as to the provinces and to the municipalities, if the minister had been able to come here this session with some plan or scheme respecting provincial financial arrangements which would have been in keeping with the attitude taken by the Conservative party in the past. As long as the government continues to proceed on a haphazard basis, a month-to-month basis, it can expect all the criticism which it is possible to generate with regard to its actions. I wish to say a few words about municipalities. I hope that the minister is not going too far. I observe that he has gone out the back door.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will tell him what you say.


Mr. Hees:: We will pass it along.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the generosity of both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in promising to communicate my ideas to the Minister of Finance. I am sure they will not do it in the same fashion I intend to but I hope their representations to the minister will bear some weight. Indeed, it would have been better if these two hon. gentlemen had undertaken many months ago to make representations along this line to the Minister of Finance. It would be preferable if they would exert some of the energy they displayed when in opposition in urging the introduction of sensible proposals. Perhaps they are not on speaking terms of recent date with the Minister of Finance, I do not know.
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act


Mr. Walker:: How about talking about something you do know?


Frank Howard: The municipalities are an integral part of our dominion-provincial relationships inasmuch as they are the children of the provinces, as it were. The federal government has a financial responsibility toward them to a certain degree. While the 13 per cent approach may assist the provinces and municipalities in some small measure it represents a feeble effort in terms of offsetting the increased costs they have to bear as a result of the higher interest rates the federal government has forced upon them.
I wish to make brief reference to interest rates as they apply to a couple of municipalities in British Columbia. I choose these only because they are representative of the general pattern. I take this information from the 1958 red book on British Columbia municipal statistics which I have in my hand. These figures relate to borrowings guaranteed by the province of British Columbia and they would therefore bear a lower interest rate than would debenture issues floated by municipalities without such guarantees on the part of the province.
In 1947 the village of Burns Lake issued 20-year debentures at an interest rate of 3 per cent which even today would be a pretty high rate to have to pay. Eleven years later the same village issued 20-year debentures in the same amount and for the same purpose but the interest rate was jacked up to 4 per cent. The interest on the borrowings of another village municipality, Lumby, for 1958, was 5 per cent. In recent months the general trend has been that interest rates that provinces have to pay on their borrowings for the various works they enter into and those payable by municipalities have been steadily increasing. This is a direct result of the action of this government in its recent conversion loan program.
I believe it is disgraceful that the 13 per cent approach should be taken in an attempt to balance the scale of the drain that is made on municipalities and provinces for the borrowings they have to make at this time. We cannot continue for long this disgraceful method of dealing with the municipalities and provinces. It is long past the time when concrete action should have been taken by this government.
Recent statements made by the Prime Minister indicate that interest rates may go even higher. I should like to read some comments made by the Prime Minister-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this obviously is out of order. There is nothing in this present resolution that has anything to do with interest rates. I would ask that the

Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act hon. member be requested to confine himself to the matter that is before the committee.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, if I may comment on the point of order I would say that the minister is quite correct in that there is no reference to interest rates as such in the resolution but it deals with the financial relationships of the federal and provincial governments. Because of the system we follow the provinces occasionally have to borrow money and their borrowings are affected by interest rates. The payments of the federal government to the provinces under the tax-sharing agreements should take into consideration the question of interest rates and I believe reference to this is in order.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Crouse):: The
Chair does not wish to be too firm in this matter but I think the hon. member should confine himself more to the terms of the resolution and not pursue that line of thought.


Frank Howard: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will not pursue it too far. In fact, at your insistence, I will stop now. Your ruling has prevented my quoting some statements made by the Prime Minister that I know he would not like to have mentioned too often. They indicate that interest rates are going to go up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order, order.


Frank Howard: There is one other matter that I feel falls within the ambit of the resolution before us. I wish to refer to a statute that has been on the statute books for a number of years but of which no use has been made in recent years. This statute relates to the fiscal relationships between the federal government and the provinces and their children, the municipalities. The act is familiar, I am sure, to the Minister of Finance as its administration comes under his jurisdiction. It is chapter 183 of the revised statutes of 1952 and is an act designed to assist municipalities in making self-liquidating improvements. How are we to consider the activities of the government with respect to this 13 per cent proposal if we do not think in terms of the other relationships that exist between the provinces and the federal government? One of these, I suggest, is embodied in the provisions of this act which reads-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I have to raise a point of order again. The hon. member is proposing now to talk about an entirely different statute. This is clearly out of order. We are dealing here with a resolution that contemplates the introduction of


a simple amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. That does not open the door to discussion of other statutes.


Frank Howard: If I may discuss the point of order I would say that the minister is correct in saying this is a simple amendment. It is far too simple and I feel it should be extended. What I am attempting to do is illustrate how simple the amendment is and indicate that it should be far broader. I am seeking to point out the failure of the government in not dealing adequately with the financial relationships between the provinces and municipalities and the federal government. I suggest that this entire field should be considered if only in the light of what constitutes a failure on the part of the Minister of Finance to adequately cope with the problem.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Once again I would like to refer the hon. member to the resolution. It is true that what he is saying deals with a certain facet of this resolution, but it is not broad enough to take in his remarks and I will again ask him to confine his remarks to the resolution which reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act to extend for a further period of one 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.


Frank Howard: I appreciate your consideration of my position and of the position of hon. members in discussing this resolution. Originally I did not think it would be as confined as that, but I will certainly attempt to make my remarks in such a way that you will remain sitting in the chair and will not have to rise to draw my attention to being out of order and also the Minister of Finance will not get as much exercise in jumping up and down.
The beginning of the resolution says that it is expedient to do this. So far as I am concerned it is not expedient to do it. It would be far more sensible if the minister had some ideas as to where he is going, if he had some sort of plan, if he had been able to look a little bit into the future and see the desires and needs of the provinces under the federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements instead of just slipping along from one month to the next and hoping that by the time the end of the month comes around the problems will have solved themselves and he will not have to concern himself too much about the future. I think it would also be appropriate at this time if the minister could

give us some sort of information in a general way whether he expects to carry on from month to month and from year to year in this haphazard way, or whether he has really any thought of doing something beneficial for the provinces. Perhaps he might like to leave that until we get to the budget itself.
Can the minister indicate whether it is his intention to introduce any sort of legislation which will have a bearing on the financial position of our municipalities in order that we may be able to deal with that phase of it, in as much as I am prevented from doing so at this time.
I posed a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, which was to this effect. I wondered whether he could indicate that it is the intention of the government to take any concrete, definite steps with regard to easing the tremendous financial burden of the municipalities in order that we might discuss the plight of the municipalities and the federal government responsibility to them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that that matter is quite outside the scope of debate on the present resolution.


Frank Howard: I do not think it is quite outside the scope at all, Mr. Chairman. Reference was made to it in earlier discussions. Hon. members participating in this debate earlier mentioned the position of municipalities. The Minister of Finance himself is quite prone to glorify the attitude of this government toward the municipalities with respect to easing their position. I suggest he is merely trying to slide out from under a difficult case for which he has no answer because he has no policy toward it. I think I am entitled to insist upon a better type of answer than the minister has given us at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Frank Howard: I suppose I can take his silence as indicating he has no policy and he smiles, too.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, the resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act to extend lor a further period of one 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.
We are placed in the position of being asked to agree as to whether or not we should allow the provinces to have a little more money for one more year. I say that this resolution is inadequate; it is completely inadequate. I had hoped that after all the election campaigns, after all the pledges and
Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act after all the promises of the new deal that we have heard so much about, the minister would have introduced a resolution that certainly would have given a bit of indication of the new deal. However, in my opinion this resolution is something that is based upon expediency. This resolution contains no indication of the new deal for the lower levels of government that we have heard so much about over a goodly number of years now.
I am sure that in 1867 the fathers of confederation had no idea of what the functions of the various levels of government might be like in the year 1959. They made arrangements to meet the particular time and circumstances that they were faced with at that time. Today the function of the federal government and its responsibilities are relatively small in the light of the developing and growing responsibilities facing the municipal and provincial levels of government. The Conservative party pledged itself to do something to remedy the situation if the electors would elect it to office. I can well remember the Conservative party when in opposition moving an amendment calling for a rearrangement of the existing situation, in so far as the responsibilities, and especially in their opinion in so far as the revenues of the various levels of government were concerned.
I have obtained a little bit of information and I find that in the year 1958 the revenues of the federal government from only three tax fields amounted to $3,001.8 million. I hasten to add that these were not by any means the only sources of revenue of the federal government; the revenues of the federal government were much higher indeed. However, from only three main sources the federal government collected $3,001.8 million and the net revenues of all the 10 provincial governments of Canada totalled only $2,051 million. I am informed that in that year, taking all the taxes that the people of Canada paid, the federal government received 75 cents out of every dollar. Our provincial governments received 11 cents out of the tax dollar, and while many of us think that municipal taxes are very high, and they are, municipal governments were able to collect only 14 cents out of the tax dollar. In other words, the federal government collected 75 per cent, the lion's share of the tax payments of the Canadian people and the other levels of government had to be satisfied with a mere 25 per cent or with taking only one dollar out of every four.
It is hardly good enough that a new government pledged to a new deal should now ask the house to renew once again the old and inadequate arrangement arrived at in the past. The minister may well attempt to

Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act argue that he gave the provinces more money. Yet I think he will have to admit that statistics have proved that actually he did not give them any more money, that actually they are in receipt of less money than they received on other occasions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


Erhart Regier: I know that some of these
factors are beyond the minister's control. I know that tax revenues have been on the decline, something that the minister did not anticipate at the time he announced very proudly that he was making an additional $65 million available to the provincial governments. I do not think the minister expected at that time that events and circumstances in the year ahead would be such as to eliminate most of the $65 million increase announced by him.
We in our group realized at the time what was happening on the Canadian economic scene and we feel that the minister's advisers should have advised him that the increase of $65 million announced by the minister would at best only result in a very small increase to some provinces and in the case of others the result would be that they would actually receive less money than on other occasions.
The resolution before us is in very specific terms. The minister is asking that the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act be extended for one year. Surely that is far from satisfactory. If the minister feels that the existing formula is so realistic and has to be continued then he should be able to give the provinces some indication of what kind of a deal they can expect beyond one year. Our provincial governments have to do a lot of planning if they hope to meet their constitutional responsibilities and it is hardly satisfactory for the minister to ask the provinces to be satisfied with what is in effect an ad hoc arrangement whereby he says to them, "Let us go from month to month and see how we get along". Our provincial governments need more assurance than that.
I have mentioned how the federal government takes in much more money, although only from three tax fields, than do the ten provincial governments combined. However, I might take another approach to this matter. The responsibilities of the other levels of government have grown tremendously. The share of the tax dollar of the senior level of government has grown but at the same time its share of responsibility has, in the absence of war, declined substantially. Therefore we now have a situation where one government,

with a smaller percentage of responsibility than before, has the lion's share of the tax dollar while the other levels of government, whose percentage of responsibility has grown by leaps and bounds because of our changing society, find that their share of tax revenue has declined year by year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder whether
the hon. gentleman would permit me to interrupt? It is now about two minutes to six o'clock. I wonder whether the committee would be prepared to allow the resolution to pass so that the bill can be introduced. My hon. friend will have an opportunity to continue his remarks in the debate on second reading of this bill.


Erhart Regier: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The bill, I might point out, follows very closely the language of the resolution. From last year's bill the hon. member knows what form the bill will take, and I should think he would have full opportunity to continue on second reading of the bill or on the committee stage of the bill the type of argument he is advancing now. If the resolution were passed it would enable the house to have the bill forthwith.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, we know from past experience that the range of debate will be much more limited once the bill is introduced. The sole purpose of the resolution stage is so that members of the opposition may yet influence the type of bill that is going to be presented to the house. I have many other comments to make at this time and I regret that I cannot comply with the minister's request.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
leader of the house could let us know what the business will be for tomorrow and Friday.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall commence with the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and then take those of the Department of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all that is proposed for the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Well, if we get those both through tomorrow we will have a lot more business for Friday.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: How many men did the Canadian National Railways employ on section work between (a) Winnipeg and Redditt; (b) Redditt and Sioux Lookout; (c) Sioux Lookout and Armstrong; (d) Armstrong and Nakina; (e) Nakina and Hornepayne; (f) Longlac and Port Arthur, on (1) January 1, 1958; and on January 1, 1959?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that they do not assemble employment figures by districts, and consequently such a compilation would require a considerable length of time and the assignment of special staff.


CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE
Mr. Loiselle: Questions
1.	Have tenders been advertised by the national harbours board in connection with the construction of the future Champlain bridge?
2.	If so, in what manner, for what part, and what were the specifications and other directions submitted to those who tendered?
3.	Have tenders been received by the board? If so, how many, and on what dates were they opened?
4.	What are the names of those who submitted tenders, and what is the amount of each tender?
5.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest bidder? H so, to whom? If not, for what reason?
6.	Has a date been set by the board for the commencement of this work?
7.	If not, when is the work likely to begin, and what is the estimated time for its completion?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	Tenders for the superstructure of the drift span were invited by public advertisement, the specification limiting quotations to a structural steel through span structure with either concrete or steel grid gutters.
3.	(a) Yes, (b) eight, (c) February 12, 1959.
4.
Firm
Canadian Bridge division of Dominion Steel
and Coal Corporation	
Niagara Structural Steel Limited	
Dominion Structural Steel Limited	
Dominion Bridge Company Limited	
Ardelt Industries of Canada Limited	
Runnymede Steel Construction Limited ....
Amount Steel Concrete gutters grid gutters
$2,123,181	$2,284,046
2,132,548	2,280,873
2,222,765	2,370,535
2,239,000	2,391,800
2,311,084	2,463,283
2,320,500	2,502,500
In addition, the following firms submitted
tenders for a pre-stressed concrete structure rather than the steel structure specified:
Louis Donolo Inc	
The Foundation Company of Canada Limited
These two tenders include the roadway slab which is not included in the tenders on the steel structure.
5.	(a) The contract has not been awarded (b) a study is being made of the acceptability of an alternative design.
6.	No.
7.	(a) Shortly after approval of award of contract by the governor general in council (b) The completion date will be as stipulated in the tender of the successful contractor. Contractors' estimates range from 155 to 630 days.
$1,763,000	$1,774,000
2,093,240
"agreed charges" on rail shipping 
Question No. 143-Mr. Fisher:
1.	Have Canadian railroads established "agreed charges" arrangements with any Canadian shippers since July 1, 1958?
2.	If so. what railroads, with what shippers, for what goods in what amounts and quantities, between what shipping points, and at what rates?
3.	In each case, what was the scale of the adjustment in money terms per unit (e.g. cwt., ton, etc.) from the rates in effect before the agreed charges?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transpori):
1.	Yes.

Questions
2	and 3. The board of transport commissioners advises that agreements for agreed charges are being filed almost daily, and that since July 1, 1958, up to February 16, 1959, 156 agreed charges have been executed and filed with the board. These apply to 275 shippers from a minimum of 423 shipping points to a minimum of 593 destinations, and involve a minimum of 1,701 rates on at least 500 commodities. To furnish the detailed information requested would require a long period of time, as due to pressure of regular duties it would not be possible to assign staff specially to collate the data. As to that part of the question inquiring about the charges which would be in effect in the absence of agreed charges, the board advises that in some cases this would be impossible to supply, for example, one particular agreed charge applies to all commodities except explosives, household goods, livestock and live poultry, and applies from 110 shipping points to 110 destinations.
To pick out all the commodities that would be involved in many different rates, all of which are embraced in this one particular agreed charge, would in itself be a task of major proportions. In regard to the quantity of goods involved in the agreed charges, this information is not available in the records of the board of transport commissioners.


NATIONAL GALLERY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Argue: 1.	What was the annual budget of the national gallery for each year since 1935?
2.	Who is the director of the national gallery at present, what are his duties and administrative powers, his qualifications for the position he holds, and what rank in the government service does he have?
3.	What are the financial and administrative relationships between the national gallery and the department through which it reports to parliament?
4.	Is the national gallery administered in any way through a board of trustees?
5.	If so, what is the administrative relationship between the director and the board, the board and the department; who have been the members of this board for each year since its appointment, by whom are the members appointed, and what is the method of their selection?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Min	
isler of Citizenship	and Immigration):
1. Fiscal year	Budget
1935-36 			$ 73,000.00
1936-37 			 75,000.00
1937-38 			 75,000.00
1938-39 			 115,000.00
1939-40 			 115,000.00
1940-41 			 45,000.00
1941-42 			 43,720.00
1942-43 			 43,720.00
1943-44 			 66,546.00
Fiscal year	Budget
1944-45 			 68,330.00
1945-46 			 102,405.00
1946-47 			 105,000.00
1947-48 			 130,718.00
1948-49 			 181,158.00
1949-50 			 186,785.00
1950-51 			 338,954.00
1951-52 			 295,977.00
1952-53 			 621,368.00
1953-54 			 705,345.00
1954-55 			 382,185.00
1955-56 			 1,321,433.00
1956-57 			 498,217.00
1957-58 			 637,782.00
1958-59 			 658,600.00
2.	Mr. Alan Jarvis. Under the authority of the board of trustees, to be responsible for the direction and administration of the national gallery in pursuing its objectives, i.e., the development, maintenance, care and management of the national gallery, and generally the encouragement of Canadian public interest in the fine and applied arts; to be responsible for the custody and preservation and proper presentation to the public of works of art in the possession or care of the national gallery; to recommend and negotiate the purchase, lease or loan of master paintings and other works of art and industrial design; to give advice and information in connection with lectures on art and travelling exhibitions; to organize the exhibition of Canadian art abroad, and to negotiate with official institutions in other countries for art exhibitions to come to Canada; and to perform other related duties as required.
Born in Brantford, Ontario, in 1915, he attended Parkdale Collegiate Institute, Toronto, and the University of Toronto, where he took his B.A. with honours in philosophy and psychology in 1938. Later, at the University of Oxford where he was a Rhodes scholar, be specialized in philosophy with particular emphasis on aesthetics. He also held a fellowship at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, New York, and took additional graduate studies in art history at the University of Toronto. During the war he worked in the aircraft industry in England on training and industrial relations. In 1945, he was private secretary to the late Sir Stafford Cripps, who was then president of the board of trade in the United Kingdom government. His great interest in design took him after the war to the newly organized council of industrial design in England and he became its first public relations officer; he handled the publicity for the "Britain Can Make It" exhibition in 1946 which first brought contemporary British design to the attention of the post-war world. Later he became executive director of Pilgrim Films,

an independent film producing organization. From 1951 he was head of Oxford House in London, England. While residing in England he was actively engaged is many cultural activities including the post of editor of a series of design booklets "The Things We See" published by Penguin Books. He is a sculptor with works in collections in Canada and the United States and he has written and lectured widely in art and design. His cultural interests include drama and the stage and prior to returning to Canada in 1951 he was chairman of the board of governors of the Group theatre in London.
His classification in the government is senior officer 2, with responsibilities equivalent to deputy minister.
3.	No relationship. It reports to parliament as an autonomous department through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
4.	Yes.
5.	The director is the principal administrative officer of the gallery, and has the general management and direction of the gallery's affairs and of its officers, employees and servants, subject to the authority of the board. He presents a report on the activities of the gallery at each meeting of the board and has such further powers and duties as may be prescribed by the board. There is no relationship between the board and the department. Members of the board for each year since its appointment have been:
1913-1922: Sir Edmund Walker, Dr. Francis Shepherd, Hon. Arthur Boyer.
1923: Sir Edmund Walker, Dr. Francis Shepherd, Mr. J. Auguste Richard, Mr. Warren Y. Soper, Mr. Newton MacTavish.
1924: Dr. Francis Shepherd, Mr. J. Auguste Richard, Mr. Warren Y. Soper, Mr. Newton MacTavish.
1925-1928: Dr. Francis Shepherd, Mr. Newton MacTavish, Mr. Vincent Massey, Mr. Norman Mackenzie, Mr. J. O. Marchand.
1929-1932: Mr. N. S. Southam, Hon. Vincent Massey, Mr. Norman Mackenzie, Mr. J. O. Marchand.
1933-1936: Mr. H. S. Southam, Hon. Vincent Massey, Mr. Norman Mackenzie, Mr. J. O. Marchand, Mr. Elwood B. Hosmer.
1937-1945: Mr. H. S. Southam, Hon. Vincent Massey, Mr. Elwood B. Hosmer.
1946-1947: Mr. H. S. Southam, Right Hon. Vincent Massey, Mr. Jean Chauvin.
1948-1949: Right Hon. Vincent Massey, Mr. H. S. Southam, Dr. Robert Newton, Mr. Jean Chauvin.
1950-1951: Right Hon. Vincent Massey, Mr. H. S. Southam, Mr. Jean Chauvin, Dr. Robert Newton, Mr. Lawren Harris.
Questions
1952-1954: Mr. H. S. Southam, Mr. Jean Chauvin, Mr. Lawren Harris, Mr. C. P. Fell, Mrs. H. A. Dyde, Dr. W. T. R. Flemington, Mr. John A. MacAulay, Mr. F. Cleveland Morgan, Mr. Jean M. Raymond.
1955-1958: Mr. C. P. Fell, Mr. Jean Chauvin, Mrs. H. A. Dyde, Dr. W. T. R. Flemington, Mr. Lawren S. Harris, Mr. John A. MacAulay, Mr. F. Cleveland Morgan, Mr. Jean M. Raymond.
1959: Mr. C. P. Fell, Mrs. H. A. Dyde, Dr. W. T. R. Flemington, Mr. Lawren Harris, Mr. John A. MacAulay, Mr. F. Cleveland Morgan, Mr. Jean M. Raymond.
Members are appointed by order in council and the general practice has been for new members to be selected from recommendations submitted by the board of trustees.


NATIONAL ART GALLERY CHAUFFEUR
Mr. Murphy: 1.	Is there a chauffeur employed by the national art gallery?
2.	If so, to whom are his services available?
3.	Does the national gallery have an automobile for the use of the director?
Answer by:	Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	No. A truck driver whose civil service classification is designated as chauffeur will be added to the establishment effective 1st April 1959.
2.	The truck driver's services will be available to the national gallery for general delivery purposes.
3.	No. The national gallery does have a city delivery van especially fitted to transport works of art.


CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICES, QUEBEC
Mr. Roberge: 1.	Since the beginning of the 1957-58 fiscal year, in what city, town or village municipalities of the province of Quebec, has the government built post offices, the cost of which was less than $25,000? What was the total cost, upon completion, in each case?
2.	In what city, town or village municipalities of the province of Quebec, is the government at present building post offices, the estimated cost of which is less than $25,000, and what Is the said cost in each case?
3.	Have arrangements been made by the government to erect post offices in the province of Quebec before the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960, the cost of each not to exceed $25,000?
4. If so. in what city, town or village, and at what estimated cost in each case?
Answer by:	Hon. Howard C. Green
(Minister of Public Works):
1.	Location	Estimated cost
Napierville	 $14,654.00
Questions

2. Location	Estimated cost
Bromptonville 		$16,200.00
Contrecoeur		13,613.00
Campbells Bay 		19,500.00
Dunham 		11,678.00
East Broughton 		16,035.70
Grenville 		11,224.00
Herbertville 		13,800.00
Lac au Saumon 		14,000.00
Montebello 		21,784.00
Rougemont 		10,317.00
St. Thecle 		14,966.00
St. Paul l'Ermite 		13,483.50
St. Barthelemy		14,445.00
St. Hubert 		15,552.00
Ste. Marguerite 		11,700.00
St. Ambroise de Chicoutimi .	13,800.00
3.	Consideration is being given to a winter works program for 1959-60 for the construction of standard plan post offices.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT, 45 YEARS AND OVER
Mr. Rouleau: 1.	How many persons forty-five or more years of age are at present seeking employment in Canada?
2.	How many of them are female applicants?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):
1.	In the week ended January 17, 1959 the estimated number of persons without jobs and seeking work, 45 years of age and over, was 143,000.
2.	In the week ended January 17, 1959 the estimated number of females without jobs and seeking work, 45 years of age and over, was less than 10,000.


FARM LOAN APPLICATIONS, SASK.
Mr. Argue: 1.	How many applications for loans have been received by the Canadian farm loan board in each year since 1950 for persons giving their addresses in Saskatchewan as the following post offices: Killdeer, Wood Mountain, Rockglen, Scout Lake, Lisieux, Canopus, Strathallen?
2.	How many loans have been made by the
Canadian farm loan board in each year since 1950 to persons giving their addresses in Saskatchewan as the following post offices:	Killdeer, Wood
Mountain, Rockglen, Scout Lake, Lisieux, Canopus, Strathallen?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1 and 2. The Canadian farm loan board does not maintain records respecting applications and loans by municipalities as it does not require to do so for administrative purposes and the information requested is therefore not available.

Thursday, March 12, 1959