1959-05-20

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the exchange which took place last night with regard to parliamentary business. Can he give the house any indication whether we are to follow the order of business mentioned last night, or whether it will be possible to have a change made in order that the business of the house may be more effectively and expeditiously carried out?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I looked over the record last evening and considered the arguments which were advanced by the hon. member for Laurier. I am at all times desirous of having that spirit of co-operation which has been apparent in the last few days, during which the legislation has received full though somewhat more accelerated consideration than heretofore.
The measure dealing with the national energy board is a very long and important bill, and one which we should like to get through as soon as possible, or as soon as it is convenient. It is a bill which is important to the people in the areas covered by its provisions, but I feel that if the house would agree there should be some further time during which the opposition may acquaint themselves with this very comprehensive piece of legislation. We are all desirous of having it implemented at the earliest possible date, and I suggest that if hon. members have tomorrow to work on it we may proceed on Friday with the consideration of this measure and then carry on next week until it has received the approval of the house or otherwise.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in
English and in French copies of an aide mem-oire regarding pilotage on the great lakes which was delivered to Washington on Saturday, May 16.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to continue its sugar beet price support on the 1959 crop of sugar beets, with the prescribed price being the same percentage of the 10-year average price as for the 1958 crop, that is 93 per cent. The 1958 sugar crop is not all marketed, but it is expected that there will be some payment since sugar prices have declined in recent months.
For the 1959 crop the amount of payment, if any, will be calculated as the difference between the average gross market price for sugar delivered from each producing area and a prescribed price for Alberta sugar of 9.79 cents per pound, for Manitoba sugar 9.26 cents per pound and for Ontario sugar 7.90 cents per pound. As indicated above, this prescribed price is based on 93 per cent of the 10-year average in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, and is about one tenth cent per pound lower than for the 1958 crop due to the fact that the 10-year average has declined. In the case of Quebec, provision has again been made for similar payments per unit, if any, to those made in Ontario.
Present indications are that there will be an increased acreage planted to sugar beets in Ontario and Manitoba this year, with about the same or slightly reduced acreages in Alberta and Quebec. At present it would not appear that sugar prices would improve to any great extent during the current year.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the statement the minister has just made will, I think, bear further examination. I note that while it is based on 93 per cent of the 10-year average the price will be about one-tenth cent per pound lower than for the 1958 crop, and one would want to examine the whole statement in detail.
May I ask the minister if he hopes to be able to pursue this generous mood he has begun today by a statement on soybean prices and on Ontario wheat, perhaps tomorrow?

Starred Questions


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we are glad that the government is continuing to support sugar beet prices. This, however, seems to follow the consistent pattern of recent announcements, namely that the support prices are often lower. We are pleased that the lowering of the price has not been more than one-tenth cent per pound, but with the continuing increase in the cost of agricultural production we are looking to the time when the government will implement its policy of providing floor prices based on the farmer's cost of production and therefore floor prices that would increase as the farmer's cost of production increases. The government is following the opposite policy from that which we were led to expect, in that it continues to reduce support prices.


Mr. Churchill:: You are out of order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think you will find that the sugar beet growers are very well satisfied.


Hazen Robert Argue: In response to that interjection I might say that I have found-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -that many of the minister's interpolations in the past have been highly inaccurate.


Mr. Ricard:: It is impossible to satisfy that hon. gentleman or the party he represents.



INDUSTRY


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-51, to provide for the development of certain provinces by the distribution of industry and for the reduction of unemployment therein.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is twofold, to encourage the development of industry in the four maritime provinces and to reduce high-level unemployment by the development of industry in areas in those provinces where unemployment persists. The method used is to adapt the facilities of the Industrial Development Bank Act, which is general to all Canada, to the specific economic needs of the maritime provinces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Hardie: 1.	For what total acreage, if any, were exploratory oil and gas permits issued between July 1, 1957 and March 31, 1959, on the mainland of

northern Canada i.e. in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon?
2.	What percentage of any such acreage under permit rights is held by (a) Canadian corporations: (b) United States corporations; (c) Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations; (d) British corporations; (e) Canadian subsidiaries of British corporations; (f) others?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is 60,942,006 acres.
The answer to the second question, part (a), is 29.32 per cent (17,918,074 acres); part (b), 33.22 per cent (20,203,085 acres); part (c), 30.06 per cent (18,294,054 acres); part (d) nil; part (e) nil; part (f), 7.40 per cent (4,526,793 acres).
These figures, Mr. Speaker, refer just to the mainland of northern Canada, that is, the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. In answer to a previous question on April 29, asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), a set of figures were given. To get the total for the whole of the northern part of Canada these two sets of figures should be added together.
So there will be no misunderstanding as to the figures which were reported at that time, and for the interest of the house, the percentages are as follows: Canadian individuals and corporations for the whole of the north since July 1, 1957, 55.54 per cent (81,912,041 acres); United States corporations, 22.34 per cent (32,941,271 acres); Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations, 20.22 per cent (29,828,608 acres); British corporations, nil; Canadian subsidiaries of British corporations, 1.90 per cent (2,777,452 acres).


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege, since my name has been brought into the answer to the question. The minister in answering the question sought to refer to an answer given to a question I asked some days ago. He did not give the full answer. He repeated only part of it. In that case the answer given did not deal with permits issued at all, and his present answer is therefore quite misleading to the house. Since it purports to involve information given to me I want to be dissociated in every way from anything he said indicating that the figures he has now given were given to me previously and are related to this question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am perfectly willing to have the hon. member for Ottawa West dissociate himself from these facts I have just given to the house.


George James McIlraith: Why mislead the house? No permits were issued at all.
ILatenl
On the orders of the day:


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This afternoon the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources answered a question of mine, which is No. 74 on the order paper today. I asked for the oil acreages on the mainland of Canada, and he has attempted to mislead the house by adding to the answer he gave me-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: -acreages which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would like to remind the hon. member who is stating a question of privilege that it is one of the privileges of all members of this house that members do not have imputed to them a deliberate attempt to mislead. While it is very often said that members have misled the house, it is not in order to say that an hon. member deliberately misled the house, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement and proceed with his question.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I withdraw that remark, sir; but in any event the minister in answer to my question added acreages in the Arctic islands as though permits had been issued for those acreages, when no permits to date have been issued. My question dealt with permits issued on the mainland of Canada. I am sure the minister would tell the house that no permits have been issued for the Arctic islands, and if he were to-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure I understand what the question of privilege is which the hon. member is raising. I take it he is dissatisfied with the answer of the minister, but surely that is a matter for debate and discussion at the appropriate place.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: He misled the house by adding-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The part he added was not relevant to the question I asked.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a point of order which the hon. member might have taken at the time. I noticed that the minister's answer went beyond the question, and for future guidance I doubt whether that is in accordance with the practice. But points of order of this kind ought to be made at the time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he considers acreage taken up for oil and
Starred Questions
mineral development, which was the subject of a question on April 29, the same as exploratory oil and gas permits, the subject of a question today, both of which he lumped together in his answer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think this question posed by the Leader of the Opposition can best be answered by letting our minds run back to that unfortunate episode in this house when the Leader of the Opposition took advantage of a question about a partial acreage to try to establish a certain position for the whole north. What I have done here today is to make absolutely certain that there is no misunderstanding about asking for percentages in a certain area, and so I gave the percentages over the whole area. If it is a question of quibbling over permits for oil exploratory licences and oil exploratory permits as related to mineral exploration, I do not think that is the real issue at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I now ask the minister if he would answer the question whether he considers acreage taken up for oil and mineral development the same as exploratory oil and gas permits? Perhaps he would answer that question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If I were a Philadelphia lawyer I could probably spend two or three hours in answering this question. It is one which is yes and no at the same time.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: May I direct
a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In his answer to question No. 74 this afternoon, did the minister include in section (a) as Canadian corporations those corporations in which the majority of common shares are held outside Canada?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into debate here as to the definition of a Canadian corporation, but I think the one we have assumed is the obvious one. If the Canadian corporation is formed in Canada and operated by Canadians with its stock on the market, I do not think I have to go out and examine who owns a major proportion of the common shares, which proportion changes from day to day. I think the sensitivity of the opposition on this subject indicates the tremendous regret they have for the episode of two weeks ago in this house.


REGULATIONS GOVERNING OFFICERS' MESSES
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence any regulations governing the use that can he made of officers' messes?

Starred, Questions
2.	If so, is there any regulation governing their use for political purposes?
3.	Was a meeting recently held in the officers' mess of the 44th field regiment at St. Catharines. Ontario, and presentations made by the president of the Ontario young Progressive Conservative association?
4.	If so, on whose authority?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the third and fourth parts of the question is as follows. A member of the mess, not an officer of the unit, asked the mess president whether he might invite some guests on a certain day to the mess. He did not say who the guests were or the purpose of the meeting. He has since apologized and expressed his regret at any embarrassment which might have been caused.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question; was not there-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member defer his question until we reach the orders of the day.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: There was something in the papers on that.
[Later]:
On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was the minister aware when answering starred question 81 that the meeting in the armouries at St. Catharines was advertised in the local press as a meeting of the Ontario young Conservative association?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker.


PURCHASE OF LAND FOR PUBLIC BUILDING, FORT COULONGE, QUE.
Mr. Dumas: 1.	Has the federal government purchased land at Fort Coulonge for the construction of a public building?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	How much did the government pay for this land?
4.	When was the payment made?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	The Department of Public Works has given approval for the acquisition of lots 258, 259 and a portion of lot 260, located on Main street, Fort Coulonge, as a site for a federal building.
2.	Payment is to be made to Mrs. Marie Marion.

3.	Agreed payment to be $4,000.
4.	Payment has not yet been made.


C.M.H.C. APPROVAL OF LOANS AND MORTGAGES LOW-COST HOUSING
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved any loans or mortgages for houses in the low cost, minimum standard group, the plans for which were announced in 1958?
2.	If so, how many and to what total value for each office of the corporation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as
follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Loans approved as of April 30, 1959, for houses in the low cost, minimum standard group (plan No. 2,000 and adaptations thereof).
Loan
C.H.M.C. Office	Units	AmountsFredericton	1	$ 7,665Halifax	1	8,160St. John's, Newfoundland 1	4,590Chicoutimi	54	386,417Quebec	1	6,866Kitchener	3	20,094North Bay	3	24,668Peterborough	6	49,080St. Catharines	7	54,299Sault Ste. Marie	40	411,700Sudbury	2	17,020Edmonton	2	18,855Lethbridge	10	81,059Regina	7	64,397Prince George	68	618,827206	$1,773,697Note: Loan amounts	shown	are based on
the lending value of house and land.



TOMISLAV BEZIC


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Is Tomislav Bezic of Toronto a landed immigrant, and, if so, on what date was he landed and from what country?
2.	Has the said Tomislav Bezic applied to the immigration branch to sponsor his wife as an immigrant and, if so, on what date?
3.	Has the said application been rejected? If so, for what reason?
4.	How many immigrants were admitted from Yugoslavia between October 1, 1958 and March 31, 1959?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of this question is yes, on February 13, 1958, from Yugoslavia. The answer to part 2 is yes, on March 28, 1958. The answer to part three is no; the department is still awaiting completion of necessary inquiries. The answer to part four is 550.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 105-Mr. Hellyer:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or any official of the department, and any person or persons since January 1, 1958, regarding the option, sale, lease or other disposal of any of the lands comprising the Chippewa Indian reserve, near Sarnia.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 106-Mr. Hellyer:
For a copy of contract, option or agreement for sale of part of the Chippewa Indian reserve, between the Chippewa Indians and Dimensional Investments Limited.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 107-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of agreed charges entered into by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, pursuant to section 32 of the Transport Act, and posted at the headquarters of the railways as set out in general order 818 of the board of transport commissioners.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, by agreement with the hon. member for Assiniboia I would ask that question 309 be dropped, as it involves information that cannot be given out by the department.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed to
dropping this question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and question dropped.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with a press report concerning a United States proposal for a new billion dollar international development association. I should like to ask whether Canada has agreed to this proposal, as reported, and if so what capital contribution can be expected to be made to the resources of the proposed development association by this country.
66968-9-243
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is in the negative. Canada has not agreed to the establishment of any such fund. As a matter of fact no proposal has ever been made to us in concrete form. There were discussions of a preliminary nature last year on the proposal to establish an international development association, but these have never passed beyond the preliminary stage.



IMPROVEMENT OF COMPETITIVE POSI- TION OF CANADIAN PRODUCERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Any such amendments that are determined upon will be announced in due course.']
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that finished sails enter Canada under special duties of 15 per cent British preferential and 22J per cent most favoured nation, while Canadian sailmakers must pay on sailcloth a duty of 22J per cent plus 25 per cent and 30 cents per pound most favoured nation, will the minister advise the house if any action is contemplated to improve the competitive position of Canadian sailmakers?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this
question is rather like the one with which I dealt previously. Taxation problems are properly budgetary matters. However, as has been pointed out the budget has been passed, and perhaps the minister is willing to comment upon it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this matter is within the scope of the reference to the tariff board and is before the board.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether or not the report in the Toronto Telegram of Tuesday, May 19, to the effect that the United States has agreed to lift its ban on Canadian trucks transporting imports of Red Chinese foods over United States highways, is in fact true; and if so, can he indicate when an official announcement may be expected?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government has no information on this matter as yet. Representations were made to the United States but there has been no indication of any final decision. As soon as a decision has been made the house will be made acquainted therewith.

Inquiries of the Ministry
AIRPORTS	GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the many criticisms that have appeared in the Montreal press concerning delays in the completion of Dorval airport? I wonder whether the minister would tell the house when he expects the airport to be in use. Perhaps he might also be good enough to make a statement as to the progress of construction of the terminal.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I should like to tell him that during the years I was in the opposition I used to read regularly the complaints in the Montreal press about the delay in connection with this airport. Upon receiving his question this morning I made inquiries of my air services branch and received from them the following report.
The substantial delays that plagued the Dorval airport terminal building during the early years of its construction-and I might remind my hon. friend that those were the years when the government of which he was a member had responsibility for these things -have now been substantially overcome, and progress has been satisfactory and indeed rapid in the completion of the interior of the building over the last year and a half-and I might say that is the period during which we have had responsibility-so much so that the main building is now well advanced toward completion.
Mr. Speaker, I see no reason to vary my earlier estimate that the building will be ready for occupancy next year.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the non-political answer the minister has made may I put this question to him. In the two years during which his government has been in office, what progress has been made toward the opening of the terminal which, after all, the air-minded people of Montreal are anxious to have?


George Harris Hees: When we took office I would estimate that the terminal was about five years from completion. We have been in office for two years. It is now one year from completion. Therefore, by simple arithmetic, we have gained two years over the progress made by the former administration.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether progress similar to that being made in the Department of Transport can be made in the minister's own department in the bringing in of a better system of box car allocation? What further consideration has now been given to the report of the Bracken commission? My specific question is this. What action is contemplated to remove this festering sore?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, these are
rather extravagant statements, especially the talk about the festering sore. The situation with regard to box cars is not nearly as difficult as it was a few years ago under the former administration, when grain congestion plagued the prairies. Under the active measures taken by the Department of * Trade and Commerce and the wheat board, equal to those taken by the Department of Transport, grain is being moved off the prairies to such an extent that there is no problem in connection with box car allocation such as there was a few years ago.
With regard to action concerning the report of the Bracken inquiry, I have purposely delayed any action in order to give every opportunity to those people who made representations to Mr. Bracken to study the report and make their comments upon it. I have been receiving comments from interested individuals over the past few weeks, and I think it is rather important that everybody have a full opportunity to study that report. I have only just heard from the Canadian wheat board their comments concerning that report. These steps must be taken before a policy can be formulated and an announcement made in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary
question. In view of the government's willingness to lay before parliament its legislative program, can the Minister of Trade and Commerce say whether any amendments to any existing acts will be necessary this session as a result of the report of the royal commission?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Any such amendments that are determined upon will be announced in due course.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware of a news report last evening to the effect that a series of aerial radio towers are being established across Canada to be operated in part by the United States and in part, I believe, by Canada, following a lease of the ground rights for the construction of the towers from Canada to the United States? Is the minister able to enlighten the house on whether that report is accurate?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, the report is
not accurate.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the Minister of Agriculture yet had any advice from the Department of Justice as to whether an amendment or amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act are required in order to put certain limits on the quantity of goods which may be accepted on which deficiency payments may be made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the great urgency to have Dr. Clark's report made available, can the minister say if any action has been initiated on the basis of that report?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Clark's report has been available for some weeks, and the department is now in the process of giving it very close study.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there any possibility that the government will bring forward legislation this session based on that report?
Income Tax Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not anticipate any.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Another promise not carried out.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Fortin (Monimagny-L'Islel):: In
the absence of the Minister of National Revenue I should like to direct a question to the acting minister.
On May 7 the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere asked the minister certain questions pertaining to a television program which appeared on the French network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on May 3. My question is, can the minister tell the house whether the inquiry promised by the president of the C.B.C., Mr. Ouimet, has been conducted, and if so, what disciplinary action if any has been taken against those who were responsible for the production of that program?
Hon.	Donald	M.	Fleming	(Minister	of
Finance): I shall be glad to bring this question to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue on his return.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Donald	M.	Fleming	(Minister	of
Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. C-48, to amend the Income Tax Act.
['Mr. Speaker, our support for this bill was expressed at the resolution stage yesterday. In view of the fact that the bill is to go before a committee, where it will be thoroughly discussed and explained, there is no necessity for further debate at this stage.']
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, members of the C.C.F. group are far from satisfied with this bill at the present time. We feel that it is bound to hamper the successful operation of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. We feel also that the minister has not given satisfactory answers to questions which were addressed to him at previous stages of the debate on this bill.
This is a matter which we consider to be of urgent importance. We all realize that for 40 years there has been procrastination as far as health insurance in this country is concerned. We have had 40 years of Liberal and-yes-Tory promises on this subject. We all realize, also, that this is no new idea which has suddenly dawned upon the world. Germany, to give only one illustration, has had health insurance for the last 90 years. We all realize, further, that it took two elections within the short period of nine months in order to bring to a termination

Income Tax Act
the 40-year gestation period of this legislation and, of course, we all saw last year the birth of this sickly child, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
This was a child which should have been given every encouragement. It was a child which needed every encouragement if it was ever to grow up strong and healthy. This bill certainly provides no such encouragement. On the contrary, it tends to sentence this hospital insurance scheme to years of sickness and possibly even to death from malnutrition. We realize that the insurance companies have fought this legislation ever since it was first suggested, and we feel that certain of the amendments in this bill might very well have been written by some of these insurance companies. We feel they lean very heavily in their favour.
We feel that the bill penalizes those provinces which were progressive enough to take part in the hospitalization scheme. We feel that it penalizes the people who live in those provinces. In short, we feel that it is unfair and discriminatory; and, holding this view, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier):
That Bill No. C-4S be not now read the third time but that the said bill be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8 thereof.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I speak for a moment on a point of order. It is of course competent for a member to move on third reading that a bill be referred back for the purpose of amending a clause, but according to my understanding the proposed amendment to the clause indicated must form part of the motion. This particular amendment does not have that effect at all. It simply says in general terms that the bill should be referred back for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8 thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give some consideration to that point while the debate on third reading is proceeding.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Before I make the remarks I wish to make on this subject I should like to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to section 418 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition, where it is stated:
The question for the third reading is put immediately after the report from the committee of the whole. All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
I believe the motion submitted by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) has followed the prescribed form.

I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Timmins make this motion, because I feel the house has not given sufficient consideration to the discriminatory effect of clause 8. As the hon. member for Timmins indicated, our new national hospital insurance venture ought to be nursed along rather than have obstacles thrown into its path which will hinder its normal growth and acceptance by more and more of our Canadian people. I regret very much that a large number of our people-I believe some 30 or 40 per cent-are not yet in a province whose government has decided to make an agreement with the federal government under which its citizens would have the blessings of a national insurance plan.
I feel that this clause 8 as it now stands is a slap in the face to the progressively-minded people of Canada. It certainly offers no inducement or encouragement to other provinces of Canada to enter the plan at this time. One of the attractions of the plan in days gone by was that if there was illness in a family some compensation was obtained, in that payments made on a family's behalf were deductible for income tax purposes. I feel that the people of Saskatchewan, the people of Alberta, the people of Ontario and the people of one or two other provinces are not going to look with much favour upon clause 8. I believe they will form the opinion that this is one more instance of the Conservatives taking one view when they were in opposition and quite a different view and course of action once they are in office and faced with the responsibility of government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say briefly that this amendment should surely appeal to the Minister of Finance, particularly in view of the position he took when these matters were discussed when we were on the other side and had the happy responsibility of presenting to this house the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
This measure has now been accepted by practically all the provinces of Canada. There are still two to signify their intention of participating. It is hoped that the government is taking steps to persuade the province of Quebec, the second largest province of Canada, to enter into this worthwhile scheme.
As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said when speaking at the resolution stage, it is regrettable that the government, particularly at this initial period, should jeopardize the happy circumstances in which this great hospital insurance plan has been inaugurated by a measure of this sort. The minister has not given sufficient justification for this course, which I believe at this stage in the early

operation of the hospital insurance plan, which our party had a lot to do with in terms of bringing it about, is receiving the discouraging attention which the minister by this particular clause in the bill accords.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point the minister made was that the amendment which the committee of the whole was to consider ought to be specified.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The amendment that may be made must be an amendment that could be made in committee. That is the purpose of reference back. There is no amendment to the bill proposed in the amendment now introduced. It simply proposes that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8. It proposes no amendment to clause 8 at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the house to Hansard of April 10, 1957, at page 3381, when a similar amendment to another bill was moved in these words:
That Bill 320 be not now read the third time, but that the said bill be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 2(e) thereof.
That was the amendment that was considered, debated and allowed by the house. This had to do with the definition of the word "hospital" in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I might say that the amendment was moved by one of the outstanding authorities on parliamentary procedure in the house, the hon. member for Eglinton, the present Minister of Finance. I believe the hon. gentleman was very much in order at that time, and I might add that in bringing this amendment before the house today we were very careful to follow the appropriate precedents.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts about the amendment on the very grounds the minister raised, because the committee of the whole house has dealt with this bill and has no authority to deal with it again unless the house directs it to do so. This amendment does direct it to deal with it again but gives the committee no specific power. It just asks the committee to reconsider clause 8. However, in the face of the precedent cited I think I should accept the amendment, though I want to indicate that I do have some misgivings about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to say a few words on the subject itself. We feel that this provision discriminates very greatly against the person who is unfortunate enough to be confined to hospital. If we had in Canada a complete system of health insurance that 66968-9-244
Income Tax Act
covered all medical expenses, then I could see some substantial argument on behalf of the minister's change in this bill. But even if that were the case, when a breadwinner was confined to hospital he would sustain a substantial loss of income. In other words this kind of tax exemption in such circumstances would have some considerable merit.
Even in provinces that have the hospital insurance act in operation it means in ordinary circumstances that when a person goes to hospital, while the major portion of the hospital account is paid under the act there are special costs which would not be met. Very often a person must obtain a semiprivate or private room and is required to pay additional costs. The other important factor is that medical expenses are not covered. I know from personal experience that when one is confronted with heavy medical and hospital costs there are substantial amounts outside the act that must be paid by the individual even in a province where the hospital insurance act is in effect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This does not preclude a claim being made for those medical expenses.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate that. What the minister's change means is that when an individual who has had heavy medical and hospital expenses files his income tax return he will receive either a smaller rebate or none at all because of the reduced exemption. For people who have medical expenses totalling hundreds of dollars it is of some assistance to have their burden of income tax somewhat reduced, as has been the case in the past; but we feel that this move is an attempt by the government to bring its budget into better balance by increasing the taxes in this way, against the people who are unfortunate enough to have to incur very substantial medical expenses.
We think the provision in the act is wrong and will create hardship for the people who now have to pay heavy medical expenses. In view of this government's repeated promises to reduce taxes it is completely baffling to us that the government should move to increase its revenue by this means, thus working a hardship on people who are unfortunate enough to be confined to hospital and who have to pay out of their own pockets heavy medical expenses.
For that reason we are pleased to have been able to move this amendment, which we feel should commend itself to hon. members of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this amendment and the reasons advanced for it by members of the C.C.F. who have spoken

Income Tax Act
this afternoon require only very brief comment. One would have thought that if the matter loomed in their view in proportions of such importance as they have attempted to assign to it this afternoon they would have had something to say about it in committee of the whole last night but only one member of the C.C.F. had anything to say about clause 8 in the committee last evening, and that hon. gentleman made only two brief interventions which were replied to.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you want a filibuster?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So what was not very important last night, not even sufficiently important last night to call for comment by more than one member, not sufficiently important to call for amendment last night, not sufficiently important to call for an adverse vote last night, suddenly this afternoon acquires an importance in the eyes of hon. members of the C.C.F. that they would have the house believe it assumed in their eyes hitherto, although it certainly has not appeared that way.
It was said by the hon. member who introduced this amendment that they had not had explanations of this matter. Mr. Speaker, they have had explanations now on I think four occasions, explanations at some length; therefore, the statement that there has not been explanation is just not a true one. They may not agree with it but they have not said so up until now. The first of those explanations of this bill, Mr. Speaker, was given in the course of the budget speech. It will be found in Hansard of April 9 at page 2421. It is there set forth very clearly. In Hansard of May 4 it will be found again, and in Hansard of yesterday, and if I am not mistaken in one other place as well. Therefore, the statement of the hon. member who introduced this amendment this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, simply does not fit the facts.
If we had not introduced the amendment that is contained in clause 9 of this bill we would have been inviting a situation to continue which would have contemplated a veritable hodgepodge in Canada. It was necessary to introduce some uniform and equitable rule. As I pointed out on previous occasions, the only way in which this situation could be dealt with equitably is in the manner proposed in clause 8, because there is no uniform way in which the provincial contribution to hospital insurance is covered in the different provinces of Canada. There are two provinces which have not yet become parties to any agreement in pursuance of the terms of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. In other provinces you have a great variety of ways in which the provincial share of the cost of the hospital insurance

scheme is provided. In some provinces it is by means of an individual contribution; in other provinces it is by means of a sales tax. In the light of this variety of conditions in different provinces, Mr. Speaker, it was necessary to find an equitable solution, and the one we have proposed is the only solution which offers equitable treatment to all parts of Canada.
We heard such a heart-rending expression from C.C.F. members this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Their hearts were not rent last night; their hearts were not rent on this subject on previous occasions but this afternoon, somehow or other, they seem to be taking time in putting on a show of broken hearts.
What is the fact, Mr. Speaker? They say that people who have the misfortune to incur medical expenses are, somehow or other, going to be deprived of their opportunity to claim the right to deduct medical expenses from their taxable income. That is not true, sir. Anybody who has medical expenses, apart from hospital bills to which the federal government contributes in accordance with the provisions of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, loses nothing of his present right of deduction under the terms of the act. This is the only way in which the present provision in regard to the deduction of medical expenses is affected by the bill now under discussion. What are we doing when they weep over the fate of persons who are losing something under this bill? The fact is, that the federal government is this year offering $160 million for the assistance of just those people, so that persons of the kind for whom the tears were shed, those crocodile tears, this afternoon are not going to have to pay for hospital services of the kind provided under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
In order to provide an equitable solution, in the face of this hodgepodge of conditions across Canada, Mr. Speaker, it was necessary in this way to say, and say very simply, that where those bills are paid under the contributions to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act they cannot be claimed twice over in this way; you cannot have the benefit twice over. All that this subtracts from the people of Canada is $3 million this year and $9 million in a full year. Against that we put up $160 million. That is our answer to these nonsensical crocodile tears.


Hazen Robert Argue: What a phony show.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingaie):: I had not intended to speak until I listened to this hypocritical speech. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) would come out honestly and say that he was doing

this to raise some more revenue there might be some sense to it; but it is absolutely ridiculous for the minister to say that it is all right to deduct your hospital bills if you pay a premium to the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company but it is wrong to deduct them if you pay a premium to the Ontario hospital insurance plan. This is plain discrimination in favour of the private insurer as against the public insurer and the minister knows it perfectly well. He has never attempted to reply to that argument although I have made it four times. I think it should be made once again. The government is doing this because it wants to raise a little extra money and for no other reason.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is utterly untrue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This phony and hypocritical explanation has nothing to do with the withdrawal of the concession.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: It is not
my intention to participate in the show we just had from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), but I want to make it clear again that I did object to this clause which is being discussed. I objected to it at the resolution stage of the bill and I objected again after second reading when it came before the committee last evening. I wish to repeat that the exclusion of medical expenses for income tax purposes is not a fair deal to the taxpayers of the province of New Brunswick. It will cost us more after July 1, when the hospital insurance plan comes into effect in the province. It is true that the federal government will pay 50 per cent of the total cost of the province. The total cost will amount to approximately $18 million, but only $8,500,000 or $9 million will be paid in full by the premiums of the taxpayers of the province of New Brunswick. I still insist that if the minister wants to be logical, 50 per cent of the medical expenses over and above 3 per cent of the taxable income of the residents of the province of New Brunswick should be deductible for income tax purposes.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I also did not intend to participate in this debate until the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) got into it. What we have seen today is probably an indication of the way in which the minister hires somebody to harmonize him one step further. We saw him getting theatrical instructions today. I would suggest that it was something like what we saw out in front of the building the other day. Probably he should be standing on that. He speaks of equality. There certainly is equality in so far as private plans are concerned. You get equality on additional payments
Income Tax Act
made to a private scheme, whether it be a pension fund or an amount paid to an insurance company, to the Blue Cross or whatever else there is. There is equality there, but there is inequality for those who make contributions in the regular way to the government.
The minister referred to some of the reasons why we did not object to this last night. I can speak only for myself. I would like to inform the minister that there was a committee meeting last night, which was a very important one, and I had to attend. It is not at all fair to say that we just thought of this today. We have an opportunity now to vote to indicate whether we are in favour of this unequal method of income tax deduction or the equal method. To vote in support of this amendment will indicate much more equality than the minister is giving the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken I wish to say a word or two. I recognized this difficulty at the time we were debating the resolution which was proposed on budget night. My point is that subsequent changes giving taxpayers advantages by way of inclusion in their over-all expenses of some other things such as the minister has introduced in this budget are a complete camouflage if he wipes out the basic cost which in most provinces is the cost of hospitalization. I said that last night and I said it on the resolution stage. I was surprised that there was very little support from the C.C.F. group yesterday on this point.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


William Moore Benidickson: It was not referred to. The point I want to make is that there is no substance to this section in the act henceforth if you remove from entitlement to exemption the natural, normal cost of substance, which is hospitalization. I am going to vote for the amendment.


['It was not referred to. The point I want to make is that there is no substance to this section in the act henceforth if you remove from entitlement to exemption the natural, normal cost of substance, which is hospitalization. I am going to vote for the amendment.']
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is the following: Mr. Fleming (Eglinton), seconded by Mr. Starr, moves that Bill No. C-48, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Hazen Robert Argue: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.



John George Diefenbaker: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the state treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic Austria signed at Vienna May 15, 1955, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I intend to restrict myself in speaking on this resolution. It will be remembered that on February 26 the late secretary of state for external affairs, the Hon. Sidney Smith, informed the house of the government's intention to request parliament to adopt this resolution. Hon. members will have had before them the state treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic Austria which was signed at Vienna on May 15, 1955 which terminated the four power occupation of Austria and permitted its re-establishment as a sovereign state. The allied and associated powers recognized that Austria was re-established as a sovereign, independent and democratic state.
The treaty was negotiated by Austria, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet

union and France. At the time of the negotiation other countries were not consulted, but provision was made for the accession of those countries which had participated in the war against nazi Germany. The Austrian government desires, and I think rightly, that as many friendly countries as possible should accede to this treaty and have invited Canada to do so. At the time of the announcement made by the late secretary of state for external affairs, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland and Yugoslavia had exercised similar rights of accession.
It is not my purpose to outline in detail the lengthy and difficult negotiations which preceded the signing of the treaty. In the years following the war numerous efforts were made, both by the western occupying powers in direct negotiation with the U.S.S.R., and in the United Nations, to persuade the Soviet union to conclude a peace treaty with Austria, but it was not until 1955 that a change of attitude by the U.S.S.R. became apparent. The treaty was signed by the five foreign ministers on May 15, 1955. Austria thus regained its sovereignty, as I said a moment ago, and in December of the same year became a member of the United Nations. Accession by Canada does not mean an increase in Canada's international obligations. Under section 2 of the treaty there is provision made whereby Canada would undertake to respect the independence and territorial integrity of Austria, but this in no way results in any additional obligations other than those which derive from the membership of Canada and Austria in the United Nations. No complication can arise either from the fact of Austria's neutrality, which was established by legislative action in Austria following the re-establishment of Austrian independence.
Under article 27 (1) of the treaty it is stated that the allied and associated powers intend to return Austrian property and that they will be prepared to conclude agreements with the Austrian government for this purpose. It might be of interest to note that the balance of Austrian assets still vested in the custodian of enemy property as of March 31 of this year was $36,604. These assets will be returned, or are being returned, to the former owners or to their respective heirs or successors at law, so that that particular section does not bring about any additional responsibilities.
The question might be raised as to the reason why there has been a delay. A number of countries have delayed acceding to the treaty pending the settlement of certain financial claims which those countries have against Austria. The satisfactory status of Canadian claims against Austria does not warrant any delay in acceding to the treaty.
Austrian State Treaty
I mentioned a moment ago that the Austrian authorities attach considerable importance to Canadian accession, and that desire on the part of Austria has been a major consideration in the decision of the government to take this action. Following the announcement by the late secretary of state for external affairs, the Austrian foreign minister wrote as follows:
The Austrian government has charged me to express to you its warmest gratitude for your government's action concerning Canada's accession to the Austrian state treaty. My government welcomes this step as a further confirmation of the friendly and most cordial relations between our two countries. I need not assure you that the statement you kindly made on that occasion is highly appreciated throughout my country.
The relations between Canada and Austria are on the basis of friendship and understanding, and this further step will but underline the emphasis on that friendly relationship. I think it is well to recall how Canadians as a whole felt in the fall of 1956 because of the manner in which Austrian authorities gave assistance to Hungarian refugees, a conspicuous demonstration of Austria's adherence to the humanitarian and democratic ideals which are emphasized in the treaty. The Austrian state treaty is the foundation for Austria's existence as a state. Canada has recognized it and has established with Austria a normal diplomatic relationship. The house in this resolution expresses, in the words of the late secretary of state for external affairs, our friendship and sympathy for a country whose achievements we admire.
With these considerations in mind, Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will agree that it is appropriate and fitting for Canada to accede to the Austrian state treaty.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we on this side are happy to support what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has just said and to accede to this resolution covering a state treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic Austria. A state treaty of this kind was required because of the fact that a normal peace treaty covering Austria could not in the nature of things be concluded as before the war Austria had no independent existence, since it had been annexed.
The preamble to the state treaty states: "Annexed on March 31, 1938 by Hitlerite Germany and incorporated into the German reich of that date." A special state treaty was therefore required in order to return to the happier situation which existed in Austria before that annexation.
The Prime Minister has mentioned, and I recall them, the reasons why there has been some delay in dealing with this matter. At

Austrian State Treaty
the time the treaty was signed in Vienna on May 15, 1955, to enter into force on July 27, 1955, there was no obligation on the part of Canada to accede to it, though provision was made in the treaty for the accession of Canada and other allied and associated powers. If there has been delay in our accession it was due to a variety of reasons which,
I think, were legitimate ones.
I recall that some years ago the Austrian government invited Canada to accede-it was in 1956-expressing the hope that we might decide to do so at that time because, they stated, they attached considerable importance to the accession of a country such as Canada, feeling that this might encourage accession by other states and so strengthen the basis of the new state. At that time, however, there were a great many arrangements in the treaty governing assets, reparations and other matters arising out of the war which had not been satisfactorily concluded between the new state and certain other European states which were not at that time accessory to the treaty. These arrangements came under article 27 of the treaty, and it was our view at that time-and, I may say, this was reinforced by conversations we had with some of these other European countries at that time-that accession to the treaty might be delayed until these matters had been cleared up.
Now they have been cleared up, and it is entirely appropriate, I think, that we should accede to this treaty. Austria is, I believe, the first example in history since the second world war of a country, divided as a result of war, which has been reunified on a free and democratic basis. Perhaps it could be put this way: this is the first unfreezing of a situation in the cold war which was brought about by military arrangements concluded during and immediately after the war, which arrangements established boundaries which went, not around countries, but through countries. Another example of this type of division is, of course, Germany, which we have very much in mind at this time. Korea and Viet Nam are other examples. However, Austria has managed to extricate herself and is the only postwar country to have emerged from that unhappy divided position which is a source of danger to peace and security in those countries where that state of affairs still exists. This was the result of quiet, continued and patient diplomacy conducted by the four powers over a good many years in the face of great obstacles which at times appeared to be insurmountable. But success was finally achieved, and Austria became free from both division and occupation.

Of course, as the treaty indicates, there was a price which the Austrian people paid-and paid willingly-for this freedom. They accepted neutralization. They accepted the obligation-and I think this is embodied in the treaty-not to join in any power alliance. They accepted other limitations, including limitations on their right to use certain armaments, and they accepted one very important limitation which brings to mind a similar limitation in the treaty of Versailles after 1919-article 4 embodying a prohibition of anschluss with Germany, a prohibition which was contained in the treaty of Versailles but which, unfortunately was not maintained between the two wars.
This has been an encouraging and, indeed, happy development-a country freed from foreign occupation, from Nazi occupation and from communist occupation; a country which is now united on a free and democratic basis. In this regard it is interesting to recall that before the treaty was signed there was a plebiscite in that part of Austria which had been occupied for many years by the Russian communist forces. In spite of the pressure which must have been brought to bear on the people in that area and in spite of the indoctrination which must have taken place, I think some 94 per cent of the people voted to join the new unified and democratic Austria which is now, as the Prime Minister has said, playing a good part in international affairs and with whom we have the friendliest and most cordial relations.
I am glad the Prime Minister paid tribute to the part played by Austria in the reception of Hungarian refugees a few years ago. The actions of Austria at that time not only illustrated great generosity on the part of a small and not especially rich state, but also courage in the face of pressures both political and economic which must have been hard to bear at that time.
We hope this occasion will establish a new chapter in the friendly relationship between our country and this gallant and historic little state in the middle of Europe.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: On
behalf of this group I am very happy to endorse the remarks made by the Prime Minister with respect to this resolution for the approval of the treaty re-establishing an independent and democratic Austria.
This most interesting country has a colourful history. For centuries, during the period of the empire, it had power without authority or stability, and existed in a situation where compromise without agreement was a constant state of affairs. For 650 years under the Hapsburg dynasty the roots of these people were largely related to the Danubian basin.

That whole state of affairs was altered during the first world war, and among the changes introduced was the establishing of a more democratic form of government. Then, in 1938, shall I say at pistol point, German dominance was complete. There could be no question about it because of the might of the German armies. At the same time, Germany had established a psychological dominance for some years previous to 1938.
This very interesting country was a cultural centre in Europe for many years. Possibly the summit of that culture was reached in music. I never think of Austria without thinking of Viennese waltzes as they were played at very stately and formal dances which I witnessed as a boy when people liked to listen to good music and were not content to be satisfied with a collection of cow bells and kettle drums for the exercise of the waltz and other dances. Austria is a country which has enjoyed a great reputation with respect to medicine and which has, in addition, made a great contribution to world culture through its architecture.
It is one of the leading countries in Europe in terms of the signing of secret treaties in its past history. This is a treaty openly arrived at by the methods evolved in recent years and as a result of the painstaking effort of persons within and without Austria. It was a country known for its stately courts and dignified culture confined largely to a few at the top and supported by a very virile and capable peasantry who always have had strong democratic instincts. It is a country, as I said before, known for its music and, though I am no judge of this question, a country, according to history, known for its beautiful women.
It is interesting to me as a socialist and to all other hon. members of this group to know that the socialist movement of Austria has made a great contribution to the advance of democracy and toward bringing about the state of affairs that exists in Austria today. When the socialist party was first established I suppose it was what we would call very right wing in its outlook. It strongly supported the monarchy of the day. A reading of the record indicates that it had some very fruitful times and performed some very fruitful acts on behalf of those people.
When it comes to the question of the period of the second world war we realize that it was the socialist movement in Austria supported by those with strong nationalist loyalties that built the underground which effectively over a period of years did much to destroy the strength of the German forces within that country.
Austrian State Treaty
As a socialist I am proud to realize that it was a socialist who was the first chancellor in 1919, Dr. Karl Renner. In 1945 Dr. Karl Renner was again elected as chancellor of Austria and remained in that position until he died in 1950.
Austria occupies a unique position in history because although it was overrun by German forces and controlled by nazism for a period of years, in spirit Canada was never at war with Austria because of the circumstances.
The parliament of Canada is approving this treaty on behalf of the Canadian people. I am sure this approval receives the hearty endorsement of the Canadian people. In recent years Austria has been a member of the United Nations. I had the opportunity to be an observer with the Canadian delegation for a month in 1956, during and after the period when the Suez question was uppermost in everyone's mind and later the Hungarian question. Anyone having an opportunity to witness those debates and talk personally with some of the representatives would realize that the representatives of that country which is small physically but great in spirit were making a good contribution to that organization and, shall I say, a special contribution owing to the particular circumstances under which they live.
This group supports the confirmation of this treaty. These fortunate people are not burdened with the heavy cost of armament as are many other nations of the world. This is because of the obligations of this treaty and the circumstances under which they live. Before concluding I must say that this group wishes there were more central European countries who had the opportunity to live under the same circumstances without having imposed on them the heavy burdens caused by armaments, particularly in the central zone of Europe, not only because we wish these people to be free of such unhealthy costs but because we believe such an arrangement would add to the solution of our international questions and hasten the time when we will enter the era of peace which we all hope for in the future.
The members of this group extend their best wishes and all expressions of good will to the Austrian people for success in their support of freedom and democratic principles within and without their country. We trust that their happiest, most fruitful and glorious days are yet to come.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Veterans' Land Act VETERANS' LAND ACT
Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-50, to amend the Veterans' Land Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill was clearly discussed yesterday when the resolution was before the house. I do not intend to discuss it at any great length today except to again state that it is a very important bill as far as our veterans are concerned.
As I pointed out yesterday, some of the main features are increasing the amount of loans to veterans, the extending of the time in which a veteran may repay his loan and the enlargement of the scope of the loan to include not only land but equipment, stock and machinery. It also increases the amount of loans to fishermen and veterans who have small holdings. I would move that this bill be now read the second time and be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our support for the principle of this bill was voiced yesterday when we were discussing the resolution. There is no reason why I should say anything to delay its submission to a committee but perhaps I may be permitted to pay my tribute to the purposes behind this bill. I hope they will be accomplished by the bill.
While I am on my feet I should also pay tribute to the administration of the Veterans' Land Act in the past. It is one of the happiest examples of constructive administration we have experienced in postwar years. Those who are responsible for it are deserving of our thanks and our tribute. I merely say, without further words, we shall be glad to support the second reading of this bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, our support for this bill was expressed at the resolution stage yesterday. In view of the fact that the bill is to go before a committee, where it will be thoroughly discussed and explained, there is no necessity for further debate at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
[Mr. Herridge.)
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act to provide for the payment, out of the consolidated revenue fund, to the international monetary fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development of sums not exceeding in the whole an amount equivalent to the subscriptions thereto required from Canada, that is to say, thirteen hundred million United States dollars, and to authorize the necessary borrowing therefor in the manner provided by the said act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, will there be a statement from the minister on this resolution?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there will be, but things have moved so unaccustomedly rapidly that the minister is still in his office. I am not criticizing this speed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member for St. John's West will explain the resolution.


William Hector McMillan: We will await the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
may I express my apology to you and to the committee for delaying the proceedings of the committee. I have been in a session dealing with some other legislation; I will recover my breath in a moment.
Hon. members will recall that last July in this house the Prime Minister spoke in favour of expanding the resources of the international monetary fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I will use for purposes of brevity the designation "I.M.F." for international monetary fund and "I.B.R.D." for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He emphasized that an increase in I.M.F. quotas would expand substantially the liquid assets supporting world trade and that an increase in the international bank's subscriptions would give less developed countries greater prospects of the financial aid needed for developing and diversifying their economies.
The government, therefore, welcomed the proposal by President Eisenhower in August that consideration should be given to an increase in the resources of those two organizations. At the annual meeting of the bank and fund in New Delhi last autumn the United States secretary of the treasury, Mr. Anderson, proposed that specific recommendations for increases in national contributions be prepared promptly for consideration by governments. As the representative of Canada, I strongly supported these proposals.
In response to these resolutions, the executive boards of the two institutions

investigated this problem and recommended a general increase of 50 per cent in the I.M.F. quotas, and of 100 per cent in the subscriptions to the bank. In addition, they recommended special increases exceeding those percentages for certain countries, including Canada. In my capacity as the governor for Canada I voted in favour of submitting these proposals for consideration by member governments. The recommendations received virtually unanimous support, and governments are now proceeding to obtain the legislative authority for the proposed increases in their national contributions. The United Kingdom has already
Bretton Woods Agreements Act passed the necessary legislation. The United States and a number of other countries are now in process of doing so.
With the permission of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like now to insert a table showing the present and future national contributions to the I.M.F. and the I.B.R.D. I request that this be printed at this point in the report of my remarks.


The Deputy Chairman:: Will the committee give unanimous consent to the minister having this table printed in Hansard?
(Editor's note: The table above referred to follows.)



PRESENT AND PROPOSED NATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE IMF AND THE IBRD

[Stage Direction]
IMF	IBRD
Present Proposed	Present	Proposed
Country	quotas quotas(') subscriptions subscriptions^)
(Millions of U.S. Dollars)
Afghanistan	10	15	10	20Australia	200	300	200	400Austria	50	75	50	100Belgium	225	337.5	225	450Bolivia	10	15	7	14Brazil (2)	ISO	280	150	373.3Burma	15	22.5	15	30Canada (2)	300	550	325	750Ceylon (2)	15	45	15	60Chile	50	75	35	70China (Taiwan)	550	825	600	1,200Colombia	50	75	35	70Costa Rica	5	7.5	2	4Cuba (2)	50	100	35	93.8Denmark (2)	68	130	68	173 3Dominican Republic	10	15	4	8Ecuador	10	15	6.4	12 8El Salvador	7.5	11.25	1	2Ethiopia	6	9	3	6Finland	38	57	38	76France	525	787.5	525	1,050Germany (Fed. Rep.) (2)	330	787.5	330	1,050Ghana (2)	15	35	15	46 7Greece	40	60	25	50Guatamala	5	7.5	2	4Haiti	7.5	11.25	7.5	15Honduras	7.5	11.25	i	2Iceland	1	1.5	1	2India	400	600	400	800Indonesia	110	165	110	220Iran (2)	35	70	33.6	90Iraq	8	12	6	12Ireland	30	45	30	60Israel (2)	7.5	25	7.5	33.3Italy	180	270	180	360Japan (2)	250	500	250	666Jordan	3	4.5	3	6
66968-9-245
[Stage Direction]
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
PRESENT AND PROPOSED NATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE IMF AND THE IBRD-Concluded
IMF	IBRD
Country	Present quotas	Proposed quotas (')	Present subscriptions	Proposed subscriptions (')
		(Millions of U.S. Dollars)		

12.5	18.75	12.5	25
4.5	6.75	4.5	9
5	7.5	5	10T^" ^ 1	
10	15	10	20
25	37.5	25	5°
90	180	65	
35	52.5	35	70
275	412.5	275	550 6 133.3
7.5	11.25	3	
50	100	50	
100	150	100	200 0.4 6 35
0.5	0.75	0.2	
7.5	11.25	3	
25	37.5	17.5	
50	75	50	100
10	55	10	73.3 200
100	150	100	10	15	10	20
100	150	100	200
12.5	45	12.5	60
12	18	12	24
43	86	43	115
100	150	100	200 119.6 2,600 6,350 2160.5	99.75	59.8	
1,300	1,950	1,300	
2,750	4,125	3,175	
15	22.5	10.5	
15	150	10.5	140
12.5	18.25	12.5	25
60	90	40	80
Notes- (1) The table does not reflect the increases which countries having quotas in the IMF of less than $20 million may reques? L addition to the general 50 per cent increase in quotas The 19 countnes who have tins option may also request corresponding increases in their subscriptions to the ItSKU.
(2) The table includes, for these 17 countries, the special additional increases approved by the Boards ot Governors of the IMF and the IBRD.	__________________________________________________________
Donald Methuen Fleming: The bill to follow
the present resolution, if it is approved, seeks authority to amend section 5 and subsection
(1)	of section 6 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, 1945, to enable Canada to accept the proposed increase in our subscriptions to both organizations by raising the present statutory ceiling.
Members of the committee are, I am sure, aware of the important achievements of these two international institutions. The international monetary fund was set up to provide member countries with facilities for short term foreign currency loans required to meet temporary balance of payments difficulties. Its main purpose is the expansion of international trade through the promotion of exchange stability, the elimination of exchange restrictions and the establishment of a multilateral system of current payments.
The international bank has, by direct loans and by arranging for investment from other public and private sources, contributed to the long term economic growth of many countries, particularly those in greatest need of development capital. It has also provided a pool of competent technical personnel to assist countries in working out sound development programs.
This government has consistently supported these two world agencies in their efforts to strengthen the economies of the free nations of the world. Canada has been able to play an active role in the day to day management of the fund and bank since our quotas carry sufficient voting power to elect an executive director in both organizations. Mr. Louis Rasminsky, the very distinguished and, I may say, the very highly regarded deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, is and
[The Deputy Chairman.]

has for some years been the Canadian executive director for both the international bank and the international monetary fund.
Drawings of $15 million have been made from the international monetary fund in Canadian currency. In the case of the international bank authorization has been given to lend, without restriction, the 18 per cent of the Canadian subscription usable only with our concurrence. In addition, the bank has been able to place in the Canadian money market three bond issues totalling $50 million. Total disbursements in Canadian funds on international bank loans now amount to about $110 million. These outlays have, of course, assisted Canadian business in that they have enabled countries receiving loans from the fund and bank to finance purchases in Canada.
In the view of the Canadian government the successful functioning of these organizations is vital to Canada's economic and political interests. From a commercial point of view Canada, as a nation dependent for its economic welfare on the balanced growth of international trade, is as interested as any other country in the continued success of these agencies. The international monetary fund, by providing a second line of foreign exchange reserves, has contributed to a higher level of international trade than would otherwise have been possible. Member countries have, with the help of the international monetary fund, been able to overcome temporary payment difficulties without sharply reducing the level of their imports. Through the process of annual consultations the international monetary fund has been able to encourage countries to reduce substantially the maze of exchange and trade restrictions inherited from the war and the period of reconstruction. The international bank has also played its part in the development of trade through its program of loans and technical advice to underdeveloped countries. These activities contribute to a rising level of economic activity in these countries and in this way enable them to play an increasing role in the expansion of world trade.
While the bank and the fund are, of course, world institutions, the benefits derived by the commonwealth have been particularly impressive. The importance which commonwealth countries attach to the bank and fund was clearly reflected in the unanimous endorsation given at the Montreal conference last September to an expanded role for these two organizations. Since the inception of the fund until the end of February, 1959 member countries have obtained loans of foreign currency to a total amount of $3,238 million. Of this total
86968-9-245J
Bretton Woods Agreements Act $1,258 million has been made available to commonwealth countries. Of the total loans authorized by the international bank from 1946 until February of this year, amounting to $4,238 million, an amount of $1,386 million has been provided to members of the commonwealth.
Our interests in these institutions go beyond economic considerations. The I.M.F. and the I.B.R.D. have made a marked contribution toward the attainment of our central objective of world peace and security. By helping to stabilize the economies of the free nations of the world, by promoting a balanced expansion of world trade, and by channeling vast quantities of financial aid without political strings, the fund and bank have helped to remove potential sources of economic dislocation, social unrest and political instability in those countries which constitute the more exposed bastions of the free world.
For all these reasons it is important that the resources of these two institutions should be adequate for the continuation of their work. This is not the case at present. The original fund quotas were calculated in 1944 at the Bretton Woods conference in the light of conditions prevailing at that time. Since then there has been an enormous increase in the volume and value of international trade. Moreover, the circumstances of the past few years have led to very heavy commitments on the existing resources of the fund. As a consequence the uncommitted resources available to the I.M.F. are insufficient to meet potential future demands.
A similar situation exists with respect to the I.B.R.D. The main source of funds for the bank's lending activities is the sale of debentures to private investors. It is primarily the guarantee provided by the 80 per cent uncalled subscriptions of the United States, Canada and other economically strong member countries which enables the ready sale of international bank debentures in the private sector of the world economy. With total outstanding loans of $3,763 million at March 31, 1959, and current lending in excess of $700 million per year, the time may soon be approaching when additional guarantee would be necessary to ensure the marketability of international bank bonds.
I mentioned earlier that Canada, along with Germany, Japan and several other countries, will be increasing its quotas by more than the general percentage. The government considers that the particularly rapid economic growth of Canada in recent years is ample reason for a special increase in the Canadian subscription in the two agencies over and above the general increase. This special increase will enable Canada to continue to
3854	HOUSE OF
Bretton Woods Agreements Act play a role in the work of the bank and fund in keeping with our growing economic stature in the world.
In specific terms, it is proposed that Canada's quota in the international monetary fund be increased from $300 million to $550 million. This increase would involve outlays to the fund of gold to the value of $62.5 million and non-interest-bearing government notes in an amount of $187.5 million. For the international bank the proposal is to increase our subscription to $750 million compared with the existing figure of $325 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the United States increase?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The United States increase is set out in the table which I have placed on the record. The United States subscription to the bank will be raised from $3,175 million to $6,350 million; in other

words, it will be doubled. This increase on the part of Canada from $325 million to $750 million in its subscription to the international bank would call for payments of $1 million in United States dollars and $9 million in non-interest-bearing government notes, usable only with Canadian concurrence. The remaining $415 million will be in the form of a guarantee only. To clarify the financial implications of the increases in our contributions I wish now, with the permission of the committee, to submit a table showing these implications in detail.


The Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the house to agree to the table being included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: The table above referred to follows).
Financial Implications of Canada's Increased Contribution to the I.M.F. and the I.B.R.D.

Present quota	
Proposed increase . I.B.R.D.
Present subscription Proposed increase .
Payment in Canadian currency or
Canada's quota and Payment in non-interest-subscription	gold or U.S. $ bearing notes
(Millions of U.S. dollars)
Guarantee
300.0	75.0	225.0	250.0	62.5	187.5	325.0	6.5	58.5	260.0425.0	1.0	9.0	415.01300.0	145.0	480.0	675.0


Donald Methuen Fleming: The payments in gold and U.S. dollars in respect of the fund and the bank will be made from existing holdings in the exchange stabilization fund. No other cash payments will be required. The increases in Canada's quota in the fund and in our subscription to the bank will appear as loans and investments in the public accounts and accordingly do not affect the level of the net national debt.
The amendment that I am proposing involves not only an appropriate increase in the ceiling on funds to be provided for our subscriptions to these two international institutions but also a change in the form of the ceiling. This is really a technical matter but a word of explanation may perhaps be helpful. As hon. members will see from the first table which I have submitted, all subscriptions are, under the Bretton agreements, denominated in terms of United States dollars. In other words, the United States dollar is the yardstick used. Therefore the amendment which I am proposing expresses 
the ceiling on Canadian funds to be appropriated in terms of United States dollars. The actual sum is $1,300 million United States dollars. In this we are following the practice of the United Kingdom and other countries.
When the original act was passed by parliament the ceiling was expressed in Canadian dollars. The sum named, $700 million Canadian, was higher than the amount actually required at that time. The excess provided, shall we say, a cushion against the possibility of a fall in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar. Parliament at that time, in effect, made provision for a possible depreciation of 12 per cent in the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the United States dollar. The size of any such "cushion" must be rather arbitrary, particularly when taking into account the fact that our dollar, which was then fixed in value in terms of the United States dollar, is now free to fluctuate on the market. Accordingly, under the new circumstances, it seems expedient to follow the terms of the agreements themselves

and make provision for our subscriptions in terms of United States dollars. By doing so we make automatic provision for any possible movement in the exchange rate.
Mr. Chairman, I have been asked certain questions concerning the international finance corporation and I think perhaps it might be of assistance to hon. members if I say a brief word on that subject at this time. The international finance corporation is an affiliate of the international bank for reconstruction and development with membership open only to governments which are members of the bank. Its objective is to further economic development by encouraging the growth of productive private enterprise in its member countries, particularly in the less developed areas. It seeks to accomplish this end by:
(1)	Investing in productive private enterprises, in association with private investors and without government guarantee of repayment, in cases where sufficient private capital is not available on reasonable terms.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Might I ask the minister a question there?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask whether this international finance corporation about which he is now speaking has any relationship to the proposed international development association?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are quite separate from each other?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. There is no relation between them. To continue:
(2)	Serving as a clearing house to bring together investment opportunities, private capital-both foreign and domestic-and experienced management; and
(3)	Helping to stimulate the productive investment of private capital both domestic and foreign.
The corporation has an authorized capital of U.S. $100 million. Of that total $93.7 million had been subscribed by March 31, 1959. Fifty-seven countries are members. The corporation began operations in July, 1956 and has so far made nine effective operational investments totalling $9.2 million. Commitments have been made in connection with five other projects. These investments were for the manufacture of rubber products, automotive parts, motor vehicles, cement, steel products and cotton textiles, also for flour milling and steel forging. The projects were located in member countries in Latin America, Asia and Australia. Because of the fact that the organization has a very short history and has been able to make relatively
Bretton Woods Agreements Act few investments, it has been able to rely entirely upon its subscribed capital for the necessary funds. It has, however, the authority to borrow funds by the sale of its own bonds or obligations.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, perhaps a brief review of Canadian legislation in relation to the international finance corporation might be of interest to hon. members. Authority for Canadian participation in the two main Bretton Woods organizations-the international monetary fund and the international bank for reconstruction and development- was, of course, given by the Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 1945. Special legislation was necessary in their case because of the undertakings regarding national monetary and exchange policy involved in the acceptance of membership in these two organizations. No such undertakings were required in connection with the international finance corporation and it was, therefore, evidently decided by the government of that day that the simpler procedure of an item in the estimates would be sufficient to authorize Canadian participation in the international finance corporation. I am informed that before making this decision the then minister of finance, my predecessor, was assured by the Department of Justice that such procedure would be sound legally. Accordingly an item was inserted in the estimates for the fiscal year 1955-56. This item, No. 789, was discussed in the estimates committee on July 5, 1955.
Although the Canadian ambassador to Washington, under authority from council, signed the articles of agreement of the international finance corporation on October 25, 1955, sufficient signatures to bring the corporation into existences were not deposited until the summer of 1956. The authority for payment of the Canadian subscription having lapsed on March 31, 1956, parliament was once again asked to provide in the estimates for the purchase by Canada of shares in the corporation. This was done by means of item 731 in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1956-57. This item, if I may remind hon. members of it, read as follows:
731. To authorize the purchase of 3,600 shares of stock of the international finance corporation being Canada's subscription as a member thereof for the amount of $3,600,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1956 (Revote).
This item was passed on August 14, 1956.
To my knowledge there has been no discussion in parliament of the international finance corporation, although a section on the corporation has been included in the last three annual reports to parliament required under the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.

Bretton Woods Agreements Act
I may say to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that my predecessor Mr. Harris was, while minister of finance, the Canadian governor on the board of governors of the international finance corporation and that I succeeded him as Canadian representative on that board of directors in the summer of 1957. The three reports to parliament to which I have referred were tabled in the house by myself on October 28, 1957; June 23, 1958; and April 20, 1959, respectively.


William Hector McMillan: I was greatly interested to hear the Minister of Finance give us this survey today. I might say that we all know that the international bank and the international monetary fund were established under the Bretton Woods agreements in 1945. Considerable debate took place in this house at that time; it was carried on for a good part of December of that year. All the parties in the house at the present time supported these agreements. In fact the hon. member for Greenwood, the former financial critic of the opposition-now Minister without Portfolio- spoke highly in favour of these agreements as did the leader of the C.C.F. party at that time. As the minister has said, membership in the international monetary fund is a prerequisite for membership in the international bank. Many of the same governors, executors and directors control both of these funds as well as the international finance corporation. I heard the minister this afternoon refer to the international finance corporation and I do not think he gave the status of that fund. Perhaps he might do so later.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The status of what?


William Hector McMillan: The status of that particular fund, whether they are making money, how much they are making and so forth.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I gave the figures on their operation.


William Hector McMillan: I was always under the impression that the bank was established primarily to give assistance to the more underprivileged and underdeveloped countries. I think this was true more in the earlier years than it is today. In those earlier years this was done by sending experts to these countries to help them with their development. They sent in technical assistance and they also lent money under supervision to implement the development programs in those countries. I notice that in the last three or four years there is more of a tendency to lend money to member countries, advancing them money in their development for productive purposes, thereby promoting the long range growth of international trade and the improvement of the standard of living in those countries.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).J
The bank, of course, tries to promote foreign investment by guarantees and participation in loans, and when private capital is not available at a reasonable rate they lend money from their own resources, whether it is borrowed or provided by the bank itself. I realize that bank loans to member governments, government agencies, to authorities or private membership in the territories of member governments have to be guaranteed on a government level, but that is not true, as I think the Minister of Finance said in connection with the finance corporation. They do not require government guarantees. Loans are made for productive purposes, must have good prospects for repayment, and these loans are not competitive with private investment money when it is readily available. I notice loans are made for agricultural development, transport facilities, such as roads and railways, and also for communications and power development. But as I said earlier, in the last three or four years I notice that money is being loaned to member countries for industrial development.
I might say here that our party is very much in favour of supporting these agreements. I could not help but notice, in passing -I do not utter this by way of criticism- that I think we are probably doing our share in backing loans to countries in order to build them up industrially to compete directly against us in trade. Some of these countries, and I have one in mind, borrowed a considerable amount of money from the bank and they have a low wage scale and are very competitive in our markets. In fact, we have had delegations here in Ottawa because certain products from one particular country were more than competitive with our own in our own markets. I would like to make the observation that I am not saying it is a fact that this particular country or any other country has built up industry with money from the international bank to which we contribute, and produced products which undersell our own in our own markets. This is one aspect of these comparatively cheap loans, however, that I would like the minister to comment upon.
As the minister has said, the authorized capital of the bank is $10 billion, of which $9.5 billion is already subscribed. The capital subscription of each member is divided into three parts; the 2 per cent, the 18 per cent and the 80 per cent parts. I am not going into that at this particular time. The capital structure is designed to provide the bank with lendable capital up to 20 per cent of its subscribed capital, but I do not think, probably because of the restrictions under the

18 per cent subscription, that much over three-quarters of the members have given permission to use this part of their subscription, and I do not suppose that the bank has available much over 15 per cent of the useable subscription from each country.
As the minister said, the business has gone up by leaps and bounds and I think if we add together what they have loaned it would amount to close to $4J billion. The bank has to depend upon borrowed money and bond issues for most of its lending money, and since most of the bonds are sold in the United States the average bond buyer-and most of the bond buyers come from the United States- looks to see how much of these particular bonds are guaranteed by their own government. I take it then that for this reason in particular, and also to obtain greater amounts from member countries, a decision has been reached to recommend a 100 per cent increase in the capital structure. As the minister has said, our increase in the funds of the bank goes up from $325 million to $650 million, and because of the special increase of $100 million it goes up to $750 million, which means we have to put up in connection with this particular fund $1 million in gold from the exchange fund plus $9 million in the form of non-interest-bearing government notes plus the rest in guarantees.
I would like to ask the minister how this particular increase is arrived at and why Canada, more than some of the other countries, has to put up a special increase. I think the minister can probably tell us something about that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say at this point that Canada does not have to, but for the reasons I gave we thought Canada should choose to.


William Hector McMillan: 
Erhart Regier: It is a number of months now since the Prime Minister announced the intention of the government with regard to the question now before the committee, and the members of our group were very pleased indeed that the Prime Minister in this instance and also in a number of other instances involving arrangements of this kind is supplying a little leadership along lines we have advocated over a number of years.
As hon. members will recall, we have from time to time advocated that we carry out the recommendation of the United Nations that the more privileged nations of the world should be prepared to spend up to 1 per cent of their annual gross national product for the purpose of assisting the "have not" nations in order that they may arrive at a state of industrial and other development which will enable them to look after themselves. We have noticed that since the

Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have held office they have raised the contribution made by this government under the Colombo plan. I believe they have also raised the contribution of the government to the various agencies operating under the auspices of the United Nations. They are now asking the agreement of this committee to amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act whereby we shall in a fairly large measure take another move in the direction of supplying aid to areas of the world which have not been as blessed as we have.
We certainly intend to support the amendments for which the minister is asking. At the same time, we are pleased to note that the international finance corporation is not a part of the Bretton Woods agreements, and that endorsement of the amendment of this legislation does not automatically put our group on record as having endorsed either the intent or the activities of the international finance corporation. I think the minister made that point very clear, namely that he has only used the occasion of his report on the Bretton Woods Agreements Act to supply a report on the international finance corporation.
With regard to the latter, we find it difficult to understand exactly how the international finance corporation was first established. I listened with some care to the explanation the minister gave us half an hour ago, but I hope he may find an opportunity to deal with this question in somewhat more detail. Canada belongs to this organization. Canada is a shareholder in it, yet the only legislation which we have-if it is legislation at all- is an item in the estimates. This matter of legislating by way of inserting an item in the estimates has been the subject of considerable controversy in this house on a number of occasions and I should like to recall to the minister that on January 6, 1955 the hon. member for Algoma East, now Leader of the Opposition, had this to say as reported in Hansard on page 546 when speaking on the North Atlantic treaty. He was replying to the then hon. member for Saskatoon.
The hon. member for Saskatoon must know what this practice is, namely that the government takes the responsibility for signing an agreement, then brings that agreement to parliament for approval before ratification. Ratification is not given-this is now constitutional practice-without such approval.
It seems to us that this parliament has never been asked to ratify this agreement signed by our government to become a member of the international finance corporation. I am only making this point now because this may be the only opportunity we shall have to raise this matter. How can the government have made the expenditure of money in

the absence of any legislative authority under an agreement which was never ratified by the Canadian House of Commons? I recall again in this connection the words of the former minister for external affairs when he said:
Ratification is not given-this is now constitutional practice-without such approval.
By that he meant approval by this House of Commons. So we have here an agreement which has involved the expenditure of money but which has never been ratified by the House of Commons. As I indicated earlier this is not a part of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
One reason for my wanting to participate in this debate is that there is a fairly substantial political movement existing in Canada- although as indicated by the hon. member for Welland some moments ago it is no longer represented in this house-which operates the governments of two of our ten Canadian provinces. This movement in my opinion has misled the Canadian people to no small degree with respect to the purport, intent and operations of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. Hon. members of that party on many occasions and most frequently in little meeting places where there are not likely to be in attendance those who know very much about the act have charged that in 1945 when this act was first ratified by this parliament the Conservative, Liberal and C.C.F. parties enslaved the people of Canada to dark and sinister influences which they allege are in existence in the world today. In some of their literature this influence is referred to as the illuminati.
I know that I should not be taking up the time of the committee with this but for the sake of the record-and there are readers of Hansard in Alberta and British Columbia- I should like to read the purposes of the international monetary fund as I understand them. They are as follows:
The purposes of this organization are to promote international monetary co-operation-
They would have us believe it seeks to promote international monetary dictatorship. I continue:
-to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, to promote exchange stability, to assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments in respect of current transactions between members and to shorten the duration and lessen the degree of disequilibrium in the international balances of payments of members.
I think it was absolutely essential after the war for those nations that emerged with a sound monetary system to join hands with each other in order to enable the other parts of the world to carry on and rebuild their economies and continue to purchase those
Bretton Woods Agreements Act things that we had for sale on the export market. If some move in this direction had not been taken the recovery of those countries would have been much slower if indeed it could have been undertaken at all. The possibility is that revolutions might have been more widespread had the western nations and notably Canada and the United States not taken this step at that time. It is also possible that our markets would have been less than they were at the time.
On behalf of this group I endorse all the efforts the nations make to establish organizations designed specifically to enhance world trade and to assure economic stability in all areas of the world where our help can be effective. I wish to express the wish that the criterion concerning whether or not a loan shall be granted or aid given shall be purely based on economic considerations and that political considerations will play a lesser role than they obviously have played on a number of occasions in years gone by.
I am sure that if political consideration had not blocked aid in regard to the Aswan dam in Egypt we would have avoided the crisis that developed there at the time. The reason I mention that now is that yesterday a serious political move was made by Nasser and the problem of the Aswan dam may again be dumped into our laps before we have reached a decision concerning how to deal with the situation.
The United States has supplied approximately one-third of the money that has been placed in the international monetary fund and I believe its contribution would be higher in terms of percentage in respect to the international bank. I believe that Canada has agreed to raise its percentage share. This fact ought to have some little effect on our being able to persuade the United States not to misuse these funds for political purposes.
From our own point of view as well as from the point of view of others I believe we should do these things because they are right and not because they help supply us with markets. If it is right to do this we should be prepared to do it under any appropriate circumstances. Canada's contributions through the Colombo plan, United Nations agencies, the international monetary fund and the international bank are effective contributions to the cause of world stability, world prosperity and world peace and are perhaps more significant in these terms than are expenditures on armaments.
The issue that is becoming increasingly apparent today is this. The rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting less poor.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Right back to Karl Marx.

Bretton Woods Agreements Act


Erhart Regier: The area of division is wider today than it has ever been before in history. Although we may have relative peace and although modern technology and automation are rapidly advancing standards of living in the western world we must be mindful of the fact that we are not necessarily advancing toward world peace. We in this group would like to see the day come when the Canadian government would adopt the United Nations recommendation and our over-all contribution would be 1 per cent of our annual gross national product. Merely for the sake of the record may I say that this year our contribution would have been in excess of $300 million. That sum expended in this way would in our opinion be more effective than a similar sum expended through the Department of National Defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word or two about this resolution which deals with a matter of very great importance even though the immediate impact on the treasury may not be considerable.
I have been listening with interest to the remarks of the last speaker and I hope that when the minister winds up this discussion he will remove any anxiety in the hon. member's mind that any irregular procedures were followed in our membership in the international monetary corporation or that we in any way violated what I think is an important convention of our constitution-if not a law- that no treaty that imposes any obligation on the Canadian people should be ratified without having been approved by the House of Commons. I do not think-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that that principle is violated in any way in our activities and association with and membership in this international financial corporation.
We support, as my colleague the hon. member for Welland, has said, this amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. We support it because it will I think, make stronger, two international institutions which have played a useful part in the world since the Bretton Woods agreement. They have done something, though of course not enough, to reduce the gap which my hon. friend has talked about between the developed and the underdeveloped nations, between the peoples in those nations and which I agree, though, is perhaps increasing rather than decreasing.
We used to have many discussions on this subject in the House of Commons and the minister, I know, will be relieved on this occasion to know that we will be saved a great many hours of long debate on the iniquities of international finance because of


the absence from the House of Commons of some gentlemen representing another political party who are not here at the moment, especially one gentleman who would be good for at least three 40-minute speeches on this particular subject.
However, as I have said, I think the step which is being taken now is a useful one. Indeed, perhaps in the present circumstances, as the minister pointed out, it is a necessary step. This increase in the strengthening of those two international organizations is required not only by the increased value of international trade, which the minister mentioned, but also by the increase in price levels.
I have no complaints of any kind to make on Canada's increasing participation in these international organizations. I think in the past we have played a very good part in the bank and the fund, not only in the contributions we have made to them but in the intelligent and devoted direction that has been given to their affairs by the Canadian representatives, and I am not thinking only and perhaps not even primarily of ministerial representation.
The Canadian increase, as the minister has stated, is higher than that of the general percentage applied to certain other countries. I am not in a position, Mr. Chairman, at this time, any more than my hon. friend from Welland was, as he indicated, to come to any conclusion whether we have been fairly and equitably treated in this percentage increase or not. I feel pretty certain that the minister and his officials can look after our interest very effectively in that regard. I am also aware of the fact that we are one of the strong economic countries of the world and perhaps, on the principle of the graduated income tax, we may at times be expected to give a little more than our per capita percentage. I do not complain about that.
These agencies have been useful, as the minister pointed out, and I hope they will be even more useful, not always directly but certainly in an indirect way, in the expansion of international trade, which is so essential for the developing prosperity and indeed the economic stability of our own country.
As the minister pointed out, this expansion of trade which was discussed at the commonwealth conference in Montreal last year was also discussed in a broader, and perhaps even more imposing way at the meeting which followed in India when the representatives of the bank and the fund were present. The international monetary fund, I think, has been successful over the years in stabilizing currencies, strengthening exchange rates and helping countries out of temporary exchange difficulties. That, I take it, has been its main purpose and on the

whole I think it has succeeded in achieving that purpose. The international bank has been of value in international economic assistance. If there has been criticism of the bank on that score it has usually been directed to the fact that the bank has been very cautious, conservative, if I may use the word, in its approach to lending policies. Perhaps I should not complain about this too much, in view of the type of international organization it is and the provisions governing it. Yet perhaps it has been, from the point of view of international economic assistance, guided too much by hard commercial considerations in the loans that it has been able to make.
In recent years the bank has moved into other activities which are financial in character but have had some indirect political importance. One has been mentioned, namely the relationship of the bank to the Aswan dam financing and the activities of the bank -I think I am correct in saying this, although I have not been following these matters in detail recently-in the relations between India and Pakistan in the allocation of border waters, where the governor of the bank played a very helpful and constructive part. This international institution can do things as a financial institution which have important economic effects; but it will only be able to establish itself in that field if it maintains and retains its reputation as a genuine international undertaking not under the pressure or domination of any one country.
I am sure the minister knows the danger here in the case of an international organization which gets so very much of its support from the United States government which has acted with great generosity in this and in other matters but which has at the same time, because of the magnitude of its own contribution and the necessity of raising that contribution from its own legislature, exercised a good deal of influence and pressure on the organization in question. At times and not only in connection with this organization this has been a helpful development in terms of the help given but it has also affected the activity of the organization itself. The minister probably cannot say-I am sure he cannot say, any more than I could if I were the minister-but I have the feeling, based upon experience, that the Canadian representation on the board of these organizations has been very helpful in taking what steps could be taken by friendly persuasion to avoid that kind of difficulty.
There is one thing that worries me, namely that in this field of international economic assistance there is now almost a proliferation of international agencies. Perhaps
Bretton Woods Agreements Act the time will come when there will be a certain amount of confusion and overlapping amongst these agencies. They deal in a broad way with the same problem. Their approach may be by different methods. There is the United Nations expanded program of technical assistance; there is the United Nations international development fund; there is the Colombo plan, which in a more limited way is in the same field and doing very fine work. There are the two agencies we are talking about now, namely the bank and the fund. We now have this international financial corporation and there is a proposal now for an agency which I mentioned this afternoon in the house, and which the minister said in reply was not in existence. I think he said there had been no decisions taken by the Canadian government in respect of it and that no formal proposals had been advanced. This agency is the international development association, a new agency, presumably a billion dollar international development association, which, according to a report in the New York Times of May 19 from its Washington financial correspondent will be ready for approval in principle by the world's finance ministers in September, presumably at the annual meeting of the bank and the fund.
This report says that support must be secured for this organization, the purposes of which I am not too clear about, particularly from the hard currency nations of western Europe and Canada and Japan, and that the United States has been successful in its overtures to these countries. The article also goes on to say that the new agency would be an affiliate-that brings it right within the ambit of this resolution-of the international bank for reconstruction and development. Presumably it would be empowered as an affiliate to make what I might call loans that would be softer in character than those which the bank normally makes, and perhaps this may be a very desirable and useful development.
The article goes on to say that according to present expectations of United States officials the basic outlines of the plan would be approved by the world's finance ministers when they meet in September for the annual meeting of the international bank and international monetary fund, that the charter, if all goes well, should be ready for presentation to the next session of congress, and that in respect of this proposed organization or institution or association, whatever you wish to call it, all members, not only the United States and other hard currency countries, will have to make contributions in gold or in dollars.
3862	HOUSE OF
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
When the minister replies perhaps he might have a word to say with respect to whether this is a serious development and what would be the attitude of the government toward it in principle. In any event, if it takes place it will mean the addition of another economic and financial aid institution to the number I have already mentioned. Perhaps the time will be coming pretty soon when we should have a look at all of these institutions and see if we cannot pull them together in some way which will prevent overlapping and possible confusion. But I do wish to repeat what I said a few moments ago, that it is of first importance to make these agencies genuinely international if they are going to play the part in this field that they should play and for that purpose they should be kept in as close relationship to the United Nations as possible.
I know the difficulties in that and I know there are times when this work can perhaps be done more effectively by, if I may call them such, regional organizations like the Colombo plan, but if we are going to remove these activities from any taint of political suspicion or pressure the more international we can make them the better and the best way normally, though not always, is to bring them into as close association with the United Nations as can be done.
There is one other matter that I think is of some interest. It will be noted that in all the agencies I have mentioned, including the ones referred to in this resolution, neither the Soviet union nor any communist satellite of the Soviet union plays any part in this great international work of extending economic assistance which is going on in the world today. The Soviet union, which talks so much and so often at international meetings about its desire to help underdeveloped and "enslaved" nations and all the rest of it, that country which boasts about its economic and financial strength, is playing no part in this particular international activity. Perhaps it is just as well to remind ourselves of that fact now when a country like Canada, without the resources of the Soviet union, this great superstate, is being asked and has agreed, I presume and hope, to make additional contributions to these two agencies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. members who have spoken in this debate for the support they have indicated will be given to the measure on behalf of the parties for whom they have spoken. I shall be brief, Mr. Chairman, confining myself to answering questions which have been asked or endeavouring to supply information for which members have expressed a wish.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the necessity of preserving the international character of these institutions, the international monetary fund and the international bank for reconstruction and development. In that regard I think the best evidence I can cite is the fact that at the meeting at New Delhi last October, at which I had the honour to represent Canada, 68 countries were represented at that very important international meeting and more countries are continuing to join these two international bodies all the time. In the year and three-quarters that I have had the honour to represent Canada on the board of governors of both of these institutions there have been a number of additions to their membership.
Next, Mr. Chairman, may I comment on the question asked by the hon. member for Welland as to the basis upon which Canada's increased subscription to both of these institutions was arrived at. The basic increase, as I have indicated, was a 50 per cent general increase in the subscriptions to the international monetary fund and a 100 per cent increase in the subscriptions to the international bank. In addition, an opportunity was sought by a number of countries to increase their subscriptions to one or both institutions. This was sought by certain countries because of the fact that in their case they considered that the original subscriptions had been much too small in relation to their growing importance in the world, particularly in world trade, and in every case it was a matter of individual choice and individual application on the part of the country concerned. There was no coercion put upon any country to increase its subscription beyond the basic percentage of increase.


William Moore Benidickson: That would be done by the directors later. Is that so?


Donald Methuen Fleming: First of all, it went through the hands of the executive directors and then came to a vote on the part of the governors. 1 have emphasized the fact that there was no coercion and that it was a matter of free choice on the part of each one of the countries which sought an increase in excess of the general rate of increase. In all, 17 countries obtained permission to subscribe on a larger basis than the general increase.
As one would expect, perhaps the most notable increase has been in the case of the Federal Republic of Germany. Having regard to the increasing importance of West Germany in the economy and trade of the world, it is not surprising that her subscription to the international monetary fund is being increased from $330 million to $787.5

Bretton Woods Agreements Act
million and her subscription to the international bank is being increased from $330 million to $1,050 million. Her subscription to the international bank is being more than trebled at her request and with the approval of the governors of the bank.
Similarly, Japan has obtained permission to make a substantial increase. The increase in her subscription to the international monetary fund is from $250 million to $500 million and her subscription to the international bank is being increased from $250 million to $666 million. I could give other figures. The countries which are taking increases in subscriptions in excess of the general percentage are Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Ceylon, Cuba, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Iran, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela. In the case of Canada we have proposed and received permission to subscribe for $100 million in excess of the basic increase of subscriptions in the case of each of the institutions. It was regarded on the part of Canada, and now with the concurrence of the governors of both institutions, that this is a reasonable increase having regard to the growing importance of Canada in the economy of the world.
The next question on the part of the hon. member for Welland was this: Would Canada share in the profits of the bank? The answer, of course, is yes; if the profits should be distributed, Canada would, of course, receive her appropriate pro rata share.
The next observation by the hon. member for Welland was that Canada is holding in the exchange reserve fund too much in United States dollars and not enough in gold. Mr. Chairman, there has not been any great change in this respect now for some time. It is also worth observing that the portion of the fund that is held in United States obligations is not entirely held in United States dollars. We hold part of that fund in United States treasury bills which can be quickly turned into United States dollars if the need should ever arise, and on which we can earn some interest whereas our gold holdings, of course, are not productive of any interest return.
The hon. member held out the prospect of an increase in the price of gold. I may say that we have been talking to the United States administration about this matter for the last two years and we have not yet found any indication that there is any such intention on the part of the United States administration.


William Moore Benidickson: At New Delhi what did the United States representative say on this point?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nothing was said in the open meeting at New Delhi on that subject.
The next question I was asked was about the basis of our subscription to the international finance corporation. I think the hon. member for Welland will find, if he reads Hansard, that in my remarks I dealt with that subject rather fully. Canada has subscribed for 3,600 shares of the capital stock of international finance corporation. That is out of a total of 93,277 shares at September 1, 1958. In other words, Canada holds 3.86 per cent of the total subscribed capital stock of this corporation. He asked about the balance sheet. I have before me the balance sheet for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1958. I will give the figures. The total income to the corporation was $3,507,721. Expenses were $1,149,445. Net income, accordingly, was $2,358,276. The net income in the previous fiscal year was $1,675,382. It is worth noting that most of the income to date is from investment of unused capital in United States government obligations owing to the fact that investments in projects are very recent.
I think that hon. members will find the answers to most of the other questions that they have asked in the remarks I made and in the tables which have been made a part of Hansard.
I now come to the point that was raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. He raised questions as to the authority for Canada to subscribe for stock in the international finance corporation. If the hon. member will examine the remarks I made, when they are recorded in Hansard, I think he will see that there can be no doubt whatever as to the regularity of the step taken in this respect. In the form of an estimate in two successive fiscal years parliament authorized the purchase by the government of 3,600 shares of the capital stock of the international finance corporation. That subscription, of course, required parliamentary sanction. If the hon. member will look at my remarks he will see there that I dealt with the difference between the situation when an act of parliament was required to permit Canada to become a party to the Bretton Woods agreements and accordingly a member of the international bank and the international monetary fund, and the changed situation with respect to Canada's joining the international finance corporation.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as to the international development association concerning

Bretton Woods Agreements Act which the Leader of the Opposition asked several questions, may I say that this has no relationship to the international finance corporation, as I pointed out this afternoon in reply to his question in this regard on the orders of the day. This particular proposal is one which originated in Washington last year and was known as the Monroney plan because it was first put forward by Senator Monroney. It was designed to assist the less developed countries or the soft currency countries by means of loans. It was a feature of the plan that repayment, when the loan is obtained in hard currency originally, should not necessarily be exacted in hard currency but that provision might be made for repayment of the loan in soft currencies.
This proposal did not take a definite form at any stage in 1958. There had been some indication that this proposal might be placed in reasonably definite form before the meeting at New Delhi, but it was not placed before that meeting in any concrete form and the matter has not been publicly discussed since then. In the press today there was an indication that perhaps matters had moved further now at Washington, and that the United States administration may be proposing to place before the international bank a concrete proposal in this respect, with the thought that this new institution would be an organization related to the international bank. I think the house will agree that we should see the proposal in reasonably definite form before undertaking to make any statement as to our position on it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the resolution carry?


Erhart Regier: We still have a number of questions that we should like to ask. May I call it six o'clock?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. It being six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might put this suggestion to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. If the resolution could pass, the bill could be introduced and hon. members could see it. The bill is quite short. It is only two clauses in length. As to whatever questions the hon. member wishes to ask about the fund and the bank, if he will give me his questions I will endeavour to supply the information when the matter is before the house on second
reading or in committee following second reading. However, the bill is extremely short and simply follows the terms of the resolution now before the committee.


Erhart Regier: In all fairness, Mr. Chairman, I ought to explain to the minister that some of our questions have to do with the attitude of the government in reference to the price of gold. The minister also made reference to that matter. The other has to do with the international finance corporation. That is not going to be a part of the bill. Therefore we shall be excluded from getting anywhere on that matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I may say that
anything that is relevant to the resolution would be relevant to the bill because of the fact that the bill does this one thing that is contemplated by the resolution and nothing further. If the hon. member wishes to ask questions at that time on the international finance corporation, I will be prepared to try to answer them. While the proposed increases in the subscription to the international bank and the international monetary fund do not directly relate to the international finance corporation, nevertheless it is an institution which is related to the international bank; and I am sure it would not be the wish of the committee to draw too sharp a line differentiating them.


Erhart Regier: I am pleased that the minister has assured us that he will not be on his feet on points of order as readily as he has been in the past. I shall therefore accede to his suggestion.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-52, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the estimates of the Department of Labour and then commence the estimates of the Department of Public Works.


[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. Denis: 1.	Each year to date since the inception of the Trans-Canada Highway Act, what amount has the
Questions
federal government paid to each province of Canada, including the province of Quebec, under the Trans-Canada Highway Act?
2.	What further amounts to date, if any, have been agreed on to be paid to each province, including the province of Quebec, in connection with the trans-Canada highway?
3.	What mileage has been constructed in each province to date, including the province of Quebec?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Payments made by Canada under the Trans-Canada Highway Act and agreement:
Province
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 1950-51	1951-52
Fiscal Year 1952-53
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia....
$	957,843.79
134,135.43
2,749,328.63
273,958.99
392,169.26
193,055.70
2,504,392.39


$ 1,002,522.00 400,015.44 1,109,876.95 5,023,506.78 839,701.96 905,267.38 895,981.49 2,614,769.30 S 623,334.46 428,816.09 649,482.30 4,103,752.94 963,258.26 1,701,244.69 2,774,951.45 2,707,705.25
[Stage Direction]
Totals
$ 7,204,884.19	$12,791,641.30
[Stage Direction]
Province
Fiscal Year 1953-54
Fiscal Year 1954-55
Fiscal Year 1955-56
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia...
$	877,203.43
111,505.26
283,730.37
2,486,859.69
1,500,706.88
2,056,487.65
2,732,116.80
3,330,388.16
[Stage Direction]
Totals
$13,378,998.24	$18,133,982.10
[Stage Direction]
Province
Fiscal Year 1956-57
Fiscal Year 1957-58
Fiscal Year 1958-59
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia...
[Stage Direction]
4,855,053. as 3,124,305.23 2,652,471.90 1,945,462.47 6,455,013.07
$	861,313.26
1,232,516.42
3.531.597.02 3,557,974.73
12,381,361.51
2.729.336.02 3,346,041.71 5,289,623.17
16,418,285.58
[Stage Direction]
Totals
[Stage Direction]
$49,348,049.42	$51,129,958.11
Note: The province of Quebec has not entered into an agreement with the federal government under the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
2.	Based on the estimated cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in each of the nine provinces that have entered into agreements under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, and amendments thereto, the amount of Canada's total contribution to the cost of constructing the highway is limited to $350,000,000. There is no limiting agreement covering the amount that may be paid to any one province. Payments are made as claims are received from each province on account of costs incurred in constructing the highway as provided for in the trans-Canada highway agreements.
3.	Grading	PavingProvince	completed	completedNewfoundland	.... 277	35Prince Edward Island	.... 71	70Nova Scotia	.... 108	26New Brunswick	.... 148	94Quebec 	-Ontario	.... 719	535Manitoba 	.... 244	289Saskatchewan	.... 406	406Alberta	.... 278	276British Columbia ....	.... 434	292Totals	.... 2,685	2,023

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the government made any contribution towards the construction of a new wing to the Prince Edward Island vocational school at Charlottetown?
2.	If so, what is the total amount of such grant or grants?
3.	What is the total amount of construction grants made to said school in the years 1945 to 1958?
4.	What amounts have been contributed to the technical and vocational programs of Prince Edward Island, in each of the years from 1946 to 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of
Labour):
1.	The Department of Labour has made contributions toward the construction of a new wing to the Prince Edward Island vocational school at Charlottetown.
2.	$165,094.
3.	$155,399.
1945-46 			 $ 10,000
1946-47 			 85,300.
1947-48 			 10,000.
1948-49 			 32,092.
1949-50 			 19,249.
1950-51 			 45,000.
1951-52 			 32,393.
1952-53 			 25,500.
1953-54 			 119,559.
1954-55 			 25,500.
1955-56 			 25,500.
1956-57 			 25,500.
1957-58 			 53,312.
1958-59 			 99,924.


CANADIAN NURSES' ASSOCIATION
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from the Canadian Nurses' Association or any other body requesting continued financial assistance for students who wish to enter the nursing profession and for graduate nurses who wish to continue their studies in order to qualify for senior nursing positions?
2.	If so, what answer has the government given to such representations?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	Yes. Representation has been received from the Canadian Nurses' Association.
2.	This matter was placed on the agenda of the meeting of the dominion council of health which met on April 22 to 24 last. Representatives of the Canadian Nurses' Association were invited to attend this meeting and presented their views to the council. It was also suggested that arrangements be made for representatives of the Canadian Nurses' Association to meet with the technical advisory Group concerned with hospital insurance.
In relation to student nurses the position is as follows. Under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act the federal government shares in the operating costs of listed hospitals, including the costs of training student nurses, when such costs are approved by the provincial authorities.
With respect to graduate nurses who wish to continue their studies in order to qualify for senior nursing positions, assistance is available at provincial request under the national health grants program.


END OF VOLUME III
[Stage Direction]
\
\


[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 10, 1959