1960-06-08

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1961, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, has any medical doctor attached to, or working under the jurisdiction of, any department of government made a special request that the Department of Veterans Affairs purchase a pharmaceutical known as chlorathiozide from Merck Sharpe and Dohme?
2.	If so, what is (a) the name of each such
doctor:	(b) the reasons for each such request;
(c) the date upon which each such request was made: (d) the amounts for each such pharmaceutical purchased upon such request?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (for the Minisler of National Health and Welfare):: The department is collecting the information for this question. Would the hon. member let it stand for the present.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.


PURCHASES OF PLAYS BY C.B.C.
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	How many plays (texts and copyrights) have been bought each year by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since the French network was set up?
2.	How many of these texts bought by the said corporation have been used each year?
3.	What has been, for the same period, the total amount paid each year for the texts actually used?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: There is considerable detail in the reply to this question. It has been collected but has not yet been transmitted to the head office of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, so I am not able to make a reply today.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



FLUORIDATION


Mr. Carter: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare carried out any study of the effects of the fluoridation of water on dental decay?
2.	If so, has the department at any time, as a result of this study or for any other reason, endorsed the fluoridation of water supplies?
3.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare, at any time, given counsel or expressed any official opinion with respect to the fluoridation of water supplies?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The answer to part 1 of this question is that the Department of National Health and Welfare, working in co-operation with the Ontario department of health and with the local health authorities of Brant county, Lambton health unit (Sarnia), and the municipality of Stratford, has conducted a study during the past 14 years of the general effects of water fluoridation.
The answer to part 2 is that the Department of National Health and Welfare has limited its work on fluoridation to research and to official statistical reports of the findings. It has made no official recommendations for or against the adoption of this measure.
The answer to part 3 is that the department has not given any counsel or expressed any official opinion with respect to fluoridation. However, the department has made public the fact that its studies indicate that fluoridation reduces the incidence of tooth decay by about two thirds among those brought up from birth on a water supply containing about one part per million of fluoride.



DESERT RIVER WHARF, MANIWAKI, QUE.

Mr. Leduc: 1.	What was the cost of the Desert river public wharf built in 1959 in the city of Maniwaki, county of Gatineau?
2.	What was the cost of the land on which the public wharf is built?
3.	What amount was paid as wages?
4.	What amount was paid for construction materials?
5.	Who was the superintendent of the work and what salary did he receive?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to part 1 is $4,763.65.
The answer to part 2 is, no cost; this was a province of Quebec water lot.
The answer to part 3 is (a) wages, $1,457.17; (b) rental of equipment, including operators, $1,124.75.

Orders for Returns The answer to part 4 is $2,181.73.
The answer to part 5 is that Mr. Albert Chenier, of Maniwaki, was the foreman. On the basis of an hourly rate of $1.75 per hour, he received a total gross pay of $582.12.



BOND ISSUE SALES, SEPTEMBER 1959

Mr. McMillan: What was the amount of each of the following bond issues sold in September, 1959, (a) 51 per cent bond issue due October 1, 1962; (b) 51 per cent bond issue due October 1, 1960; (c) 3 per cent bond issue due May 1, 1961?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: The answer to the question is as follows:
(a) $250,000,000; (b) $135,000,000; (c) $125,000,000.



INSURED HOUSING LOANS BY BANKS, MUNICIPALITIES UNDER 10,000

Mr. Benidickson: Between January 1, 1960, and April 30, 1960, which chartered banks made insured housing loans to dwellers in municipalities with populations under 10,000?


David James Walker: The Canadian Bank of Commerce; the Imperial Bank of Canada.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue any ports, outports, or preventative stations which are not on or immediate to the international boundary, or on the Pacific or Atlantic oceans?
2.	If so, what ports are they?
3.	Which of these ports, etc. took in less than $60,000 annual total revenue in each of the last four fiscal years?
4.	What was the staff, maintenance and other costs in total of manning these latter ports for the last fiscal year?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have the reply to question No. 395, in the name of the hon. member for Port Arthur. Because of the mass of detail I ask that it be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Godin: 1. In all the offices of ministers of the crown combined, how many positions on (a) June 1, 1957; (b) March 1, 1960, were filled in the job classifications (i) executive assistant; (ii) news or press secretary or public relations officer; (iii) private secretary; (iv) special assistant; (v) associate private secretary; (vi) assistant private secretary? 
2. For the office of the Minister of Finance, what was the amount of salaries paid in (a) the fiscal year 1956-57; (b) 1959-60, for services to the minister in the job classifications enumerated in paragraph 1?



MOTION FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
WHARF CONSTRUCTION, MALARTIC RIVER, QUE. Motion No. 83-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person, in connection with the reconstruction, during 1959, of a wharf located on the west bank of the Malartic river, range 4, in the township of Malartic, Quebec.
David James Walker: Perhaps my hon. friend would be good enough to remove this motion from the order paper pending completion of the investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, on my assurance that the moment the investigation is over I will notify my hon. friend so that he may return it to the order paper and it will be immediately answered.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I think it would be preferable to let the matter stand until the hon. member is here.


David James Walker: Oh, I am sorry; I did not know he was not here.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Bomarc.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister have a report for the house in respect of the Bomarc missile which burned yesterday at McGuire air force base?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I was advised yesterday afternoon that there had been a fire at a Bomarc launching shelter at McGuire field, which is an operational field, not a testing field. The fire started at 3.15 and was extinguished by 4 o'clock. No Canadian personnel were involved. Some damage was done to the missile.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of National Defence any information as to the cause of the fire?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no information as to the cause of the fire.

Inquiries of the Ministry
bomarc missile-inquiry as to storage of me that the matter might be more appro-nuclear warheads in Canada	priately brought up at another time.
On the orders of the day:


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Canadian government to store nuclear warheads in Canada in connection with the Bomarc squadrons which may be installed in this country?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what has already been said in that connection. There has been no determination made regarding the storage of nuclear warheads.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. I have just received a document which I hold in my hand entitled "Hydro Power in British Columbia-1960", which contains proposals for a Pacific international power pool and so on and also includes a map showing the proposed plants on the Columbia river as feeding power to the main line of the Peace river power project when it is built. I have received this document with the compliments of Mr. W. C. Mainwaring, president of the Peace River Power Development Company Limited. It appears to me after reading this prospectus, based on engineering studies and reports by persons employed by the company-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am quite in order-that there is a desire on the part of this company to intrude into the development of the Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. From following the hon. member up to this point it would seem to me that he is making a speech. Has he a question to ask about this document?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, I have a question, but one has to lay the groundwork in such a complicated international matter. I am concerned about what I read on page 2 of this prospectus.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It reads as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely if the hon. member has a question to ask he can present it without so much preliminary. It seems to 79951-0-294


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter and I am directing my question to the Minister of Justice because I seek his opinion on this very disturbing sentence.
Unquestionably, agreement will be reached eventually but it is unlikely that any power will be available from the Columbia before 1970.
Would the minister mind giving his opinion of that statement?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I also have received a copy of this document entitled "Hydro Power in British Columbia-1960". While I make no comment on the preface which the hon. member put ahead of his question, I do agree that the question itself is very important. With respect to the sentence in question at the bottom of page 2 I can only say that this appears to be a continuation of the unfortunate and inaccurate propaganda which has been directed against the possibility of Columbia river development by those primarily interested in Peace river development. The misleading effect of the phrase "unquestionably agreement will be reached eventually" cannot be too strongly condemned.
We are close to agreement now, and provided there is a real determination and desire to agree by the parties to the negotiations there is no reason why agreement cannot be reached in the near future. Given the fact of agreement in the near future, it is an inaccurate statement to say that power will not be available from the Columbia before 1970. Power can be made available from the Columbia river under international agreement an appreciable length of time before 1970.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am proven right again.



LAKE NIPISSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which I was able to send him earlier. In view of the dangerously high water level in lake Nipissing, and since flood conditions in the lower French river have improved slightly in the past few days, will the minister issue instructions today to commence opening the new portage dam which will further increase the outflow from lake Nipissing in direct proportion to the lessening of flooding in the lower French river, it being understood that this increased outflow will be to a degree which will not result in water in the lower French river being raised
4660	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry above certain high levels agreed upon by his department and the areas concerned during recent discussions?


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. I fully appreciate his concern, and I would advise him that our engineers have been watching this situation constantly. In fact, over the week end I sent the chief engineer for Canada up there. As the hon. member knows, we have met with the people of North Bay and we have met with the emergency committees.
The full natural flow from the lake has been maintained ever since the lake levels reached the flood stage, and as soon as the flood levels downstream on the French river will permit an increase in the outflow from the lake, the department will take immediate action. We are keeping close check on downstream levels, and instructions have been issued for this action. The department does have to keep in mind the need to protect the people downstream along the French river, about which the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has expressed concern, because to reduce the level of lake Nipissing by one tenth of a foot would increase the flood level of the French river by as much as two feet.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if I might direct a supplementary question to the minister, without in any way suggesting that there has been any lack of co-operation. Since the federal government has control over the outflow from lake Nipissing, will the minister use his influence in making representations at the appropriate level to Ontario hydro and the Ontario department of lands and forests with a view to ensuring that the flow into lake Nipissing, which they control, will be reduced to the absolute minimum until this emergency has passed?


David James Walker: As the hon. member probably appreciates, this matter is under the control of Ontario hydro. We would be very glad to co-operate with them in any way, but as my hon. friend appreciates they, like the federal government, are a very efficient organization and I understand have this matter constantly under consideration.


John Richard Garland: I appreciate the minister's comments, but I wonder if he would comply with my request and use his influence in asking these people to reduce the flow to a minimum while this emergency exists.


David James Walker: I would be glad to convey to Ontario hydro the views of the hon. member for Nipissing.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I have a question I propose to ask the Postmaster General. The minister, in an address to the American federation of advertising in New York on June 6, was reported to have expressed concern over the repeal by the government in 1958 of the special tax on the advertising content of special Canadian editions of United States magazines. Is the minister in a position to say whether the government is giving consideration to the reimposition of this tax?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the minister considers that an appropriate question, but it seems to me to be a question relating to fiscal policy which could be more properly brought up on the budget or the estimates.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Unfortunately there is in this question an inference which I think should be corrected, because I should point out that the very story to which the hon. member refers said specifically that in the speech I made no reference to the tax. What I actually did say was that when United States publications begin to invade the field of our Canadian publications by seeking advertising dollars which would otherwise support genuine Canadian publications, we begin to have serious reservations because by so doing they inflict direct economic and indirect cultural damage in friendly countries such as Canada, which are proud of their own nationality and want to develop their own national characteristics. I added that the problem is now giving many Canadians cause for anxious thought and examination. However, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to make the speech again here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary
question of the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to do anything about this problem which has been emphasized by the Postmaster General?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As the hon. gentleman is aware, government policy is always announced at the appropriate time.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Finance share the concern of the Postmaster General?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I appreciate the chance to get in ahead of these giants, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Postmaster General. His remarks indicate that this matter recently has become crucial. Can he give us any evidence to support his reasons for making this judgment of the situation?


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: I do
not think anything I said indicated that it had recently become crucial. I certainly did not use those words. However, I pointed out to my audience that the spread of what are called split run editions, in which a United States publication will circulate in Canada with completely United States content but using advertising which is solicited in Canada, is a new development, and I referred to that development as invidious.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. Does he share the concern of his colleague the Postmaster General in regard to this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is a well-known fact that the Minister of Finance shares all the concerns of his colleagues and of all members of the House of Commons.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Never mind moralizing.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the unprecedented increase in the price which cheese makers are forced to pay for rennet, which has increased from $8.10 per gallon to $26.95 per gallon in less than a year? Will the minister ask the combines investigation authorities to examine the causes and report, as this has increased the cost of making cheese by approximately half a cent a pound?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: They read the new bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had not in fact had my attention drawn to this report. However, I shall be pleased to draw it to the attention of the director of investigation and research and ask him to give it immediate consideration.
79951-0-294J
Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



BILL OP RIGHTS-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF INTRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the importance of the matter and the lateness of the session, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the house some indication of when the bill of rights will be introduced?


John George Diefenbaker: Within the next couple of days, Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able in general to outline the legislative program we have in mind for the house. At that time I will deal with the item in question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Finance whether he could tell us if it is a fact that the Bank of Canada is now selling long term bonds held in the portfolio of the unemployment insurance fund and buying treasury bills with the proceeds?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. gentleman is not correctly informed in speaking about the Bank of Canada selling bonds in that regard. It is the commission acting through its investment committee that is in charge of any investment portfolio transactions in which they choose to engage. It happens that the governor of the Bank of Canada is a member of that committee. Perhaps that fact has led the hon. gentleman into putting his question in the form in which he has put it and which, of course, is not accurate. However, I should be glad to make inquiries as to the most recent portfolio transactions of the investment committee and acquaint the hon. member with the answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a question of the Minister of Labour. I thank the Minister of Finance for his answer to the question. Will the Minister of Labour give us-and he may take this as notice-information as to the investment transactions, that is the buying and selling of bonds and other securities and the losses and profits as a result thereof, of the unemployment insurance fund in the months of April and May of this year?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Hon. Michael Sfarr (Minister of Labour):: I should be glad to give that information if the hon. member would put the question on the order paper.
4662	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am not obliged to put it on the order paper. It is the privilege of a member of parliament, with regard to a matter he regards as urgent, to put the question in the way in which he wishes to put it. This is an important and urgent matter. I ask the Minister of Labour to give us a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is a point here which deserves attention. If a question is objected to as more properly being one for the order paper, I think it might be raised as a point of order-


Michael Starr: My reason for suggesting that it be put on the order paper is that it entails a great deal of research and the gathering of a great deal of data.


Mr. Speaker:: I am inclined to agree that the question is one which requires statistical information, and that it is more properly one for the order paper.


Murdo William Martin: May I deal with the point of order? The question has now been asked. It is a matter of record. The minister will be able to look at the question when the unrevised Hansard is presented; and because of the willingness of the Minister of Finance to answer the question previously put to him it will be difficult to understand why the Minister of Labour will not accede to my request.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rose on a point of order, but his remarks have a different trend; they are dealing with the attitude of the minister with respect to a reply. I did not stop the hon. member when he asked his question, but it is one of those questions which require statistical information to be collected; and while it may be urgent, it is in my view a question for the order paper.


Murdo William Martin: The minister has this information at his disposition now.


Michael Starr: In order to correct any wrong impression which may have been gathered, I think I should put this straight. There is no intention not to supply this information. I am perfectly willing to do that, but I think the proper procedure is by the way of the order paper, not on the orders of the day. If the hon. member seeks this information, statistical in its nature as it is, the proper procedure would be to put it on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already given my view that the question is one for the order


paper, and I hope the hon. member will agree to follow that course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Essex East referred to what he called my unwillingness to give information-


Some hon. Members:: No; he said "willingness".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very well, I withdraw the question of privilege at once. I am happy now that the hon. member has taken due note of the extensive information I gave in my answer, which the form of his question indicated he needed.


Murdo William Martin: I want the Minister of Finance to know that he would be the last person in this house that I would criticize.



CANADA-NETHERLANDS INCOME TAX AGREEMENT ACT AMENDMENT TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Donald	M.	Fleming	(Minister	of
Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. S-2 to amend the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Agreement Act, 1957.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Donald	M.	Fleming	(Minister	of
Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-70 respecting the International Development Association.
Mr. Speaker:: Are copies of the bill
available?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am informed that copies in English and French have arrived and are being distributed.
At the resolution stage yesterday there were indications in all parts of the house of approval of the principle and purpose of this measure as well as of the procedure that was suggested, and in view of that fact I think it may be assumed that the bill does meet with the approval of the house and that the house has welcomed the suggestion that immediately following second reading of the measure it should be referred to the banking and commerce committee. I think hon. members who spoke yesterday were agreed that this would afford an excellent opportunity not only of studying the form of the proposed new

association but also of acquiring all the information they might think necessary about the relationship of this proposed new association to the international bank for construction and development and other international organizations of the kind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Support by this party of the principle embodied in this bill has already been indicated. It is not my intention to take up any time this morning. This is a bill which provides for Canadian participation in an initiative which will mean economic aid to underdeveloped countries of a kind which cannot be properly advanced at present through the world bank. Therefore its aims appeal to us all.
We' approve the principle of the bill, and we approve the procedures which have been outlined by the minister as to dealing with the bill in committee.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: also wish to support the proposition now before us, and I also want to compliment the government on submitting this proposal by way of legislation to the House of Commons.
As the minister knows, Canada also became a member of another international corporation-the International Finance Corporation, I believe, was its name-which is also affiliated with the international bank. That was only done by way of a vote in the estimates. There was no debate, and no acceptance by the House of Commons of our participation in that international organization other than the acceptance of the estimate. I always like to see legislation carried out by way of a bill or resolution which can be debated in the House of Commons rather than merely by an estimate in the blue book. I should like to compliment the government for deeming it advisable to obtain the formal approval of the House of Commons of Canada for this proposal.


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

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

[Stage Direction]
Resolved,-That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide:
1.	That the sales tax on electric heating equipment, designed for use on a system using 230 volts or greater, for permanent installation as part of an electric heating system for buildings, be repealed, but not including electric wiring or other materials leading to or connecting such equipment to the electric power supply.
Excise Tax Act
2.	That ducts for warm air systems for heating buildings, but not including materials used in their manufacture, be exempt from sales tax.
3.	That the sales tax on laryngeal speaking aids and parts therefor, including batteries specifically designed for use therewith, be repealed.
4.	That the sales tax on prepared surgical sutures be repealed.
5.	That the sales tax on goods enumerated in customs tariff item 692a, that is, "articles presented from abroad in recognition of the saving of human life", be repealed.
6.	That the sales tax on perlite be repealed.
7.	That portrait photographs of individuals be exempt from sales tax.
8.	That the exemption from sales tax for,
"perforated bituminized fibre pipe for drainage
purposes not exceeding four inches in inside diameter"
be changed to read,
"perforated pipe for drainage purposes not exceeding four inches in inside diameter".
9.	That the exemption from sales tax for feeds and feed supplements be extended to include feed supplements for addition to feeds for fur-bearing animals, and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture thereof.
10.	That hardware for doors and sash not specifically mentioned in schedule III be excluded from the sales tax exemption for articles and materials to be used in the manufacture of building materials.
11.	That the exemption from sales tax for,
"septic tanks"
be changed to read,
"septic tanks and grease traps therefor".
12.	That the exemption from sales tax for,
"Usual coverings to be used exclusively for
covering goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of such coverings" be changed to read,
"Usual coverings or containers to be used exclusively for covering or containing goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax and to be delivered and sold with the goods, and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of such coverings or containers".
13.	That the exemption from sales tax for. Materials for use only in the construction,
equipment and repair of ships over ten tons net register tonnage" be changed to read,
Materials for use only in the equipment and repair of ships over ten tons net register tonnage".
14.	That the security required under the Excise Tax Act include bonds or other securities of or guaranteed by the government of Canada.
15.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, I960.
On paragraph 2.
The Chairman:: We are on paragraph 2. Yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam offered an amendment to this paragraph as follows:
That the resolution be amended by eliminating therefrom the words "but not including materials used in their manufacture."
I understand that the hon. member for Carleton wanted to raise a point of order on this amendment.

Excise Tax Act


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Chairman, it was my intention when the amendment was moved to raise a point of order, but my researches have indicated to me that it would not be judicious to do so.


Murdo William Martin: I wish the Minister of Finance would follow that course.


Erhart Regier: I wish to offer a few words of explanation. Under existing conditions a manufacturer is able to retail to a user a warm air heating system, and if he does so he has to collect an 11 per cent tax only on the materials used in the manufacture; but if the manufacturer disposes of the article to a wholesaler he is obligated to make the wholesaler pay an 11 per cent tax on the whole article. The wholesaler is therefore placed at a considerable disadvantage. Since labour is a large component of the cost of these heating units I feel this is not right and does not reflect the intention of the government. The object of the amendment is to place the wholesalers on the same level as the manufacturer in so far as the amount of sales tax is concerned.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, the
situation in respect of this is that the exclusion from the exemption of materials used in the manufacture of ducts for heating systems conforms with what has been the previous tax situation. When these products of the tinsmith's trade were free from tax because the tinsmith was classed as a small manufacturer, the raw materials he purchased were not exempt. Moreover, these ducts might be manufactured in shops that produce taxable products as well as tax exempt heating ducts. In such cases it would be extremely difficult from an administrative point of view to keep account of and to restrict the tax exemption to the sheet metals going into heating ducts. I think in that situation the hon. gentleman will probably realize that what he seeks to do by the amendment is to create a situation which administratively would not be feasible.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 83.


Mr. Godin:: The situation dealt with by this paragraph creates a problem for the average small home owner as a result of the new regulations introduced. I have had occasion to refer to this previously. Notwithstanding the remarks of the Minister of Finance with respect to the regulations concerning tinsmiths, we can see today that the position of the tinsmith is definitely not the same as it was a year ago. We have heard about government by order in council, and so on, but in this instance we have had government 'by interpretation.
I The Chairman.]
I am informed that the tinsmiths in Canada were first advised that the regulations would take effect in July of 1959. If that is not correct the minister is free to say so. At that time instructions were given to the effect that the tinsmiths would come under sales tax on the products they manufacture and sell, and would lose the exemption previously accorded them under the regulations. I realize that section 34 of the Excise Tax Act gives the minister power to issue instructions that would cancel the previous instructions. For some reason not explained the people affected by those instructions were later informed that the regulations would not come into effect until January 1, 1960. Hon. members began to receive protests from the people concerned. If my information is correct the minister later apparently postponed the effective date from January 1 to July 1, 1960. That is how it stands today.
Last evening the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance read a paragraph from a letter which appeared to congratulate the minister on what he was doing, but in my opinion the tinsmiths of this country are not in the position they were in previously.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister some of the items which necessarily, under these new regulations, will be taxed henceforth. This will result in adding to the cost of home construction. Once again this government will be responsible for striking at the Canadian small home owner who will have to pay additional taxes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is utter
balderdash.


Osias.-J. Godin: I can tell the minister who now objects that in this respect the home owner will henceforth be taxed, which was not the case previously. I understand that on the conventional home this will run as high as $250, and if the material used is copper it will run to $900 or $1,000. These are estimates that I have received from people who know what they are talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Osias.-J. Godin: The material is taxable. The difference between the cost of eavestroughing is such that if copper is used it will cost you definitely at least four times as much.
We were informed a moment ago by the parliamentary secretary that he did not wish to accept the amendment presented by the hon. member because it would cause confusion in administration. May I remind the parliamentary secretary and the minister that under a clause which we shall be discussing in a moment, namely clause No. 12, coverings

or containers are exempt. If the material used by tinsmiths was also exempt from excise tax, in what way would that be confusing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is discussing an amendment which has just been disposed of by the committee.


Osias.-J. Godin: I am not discussing the amendment, nor do I wish to bring it back. Since this paragraph has not been passed as yet, I am just making reference to the argument that the material, which is the matter under discussion, be not exempt from sales tax. The paragraph reads:
That ducts for warm air systems for heating buildings, but not including materials used in their manufacture, be exempt from sales tax.
The opinion of the minister, as explained by his parliamentary secretary, is that the tinsmiths of this country should be taxed because it would be confusing to the administration if they were not. In a few moments we will consider another paragraph which should receive some attention. Since the materials used in the fabrication of the articles under that clause are exempt from sales tax, the articles themselves should be exempt. Surely there cannot be two arguments about the difficulty of administration and the confusion which may be created. Air conditioning units which may be installed in a building are not exempt. This is further taxation.
We realize that today our workers, and especially the workers in my area, require the very best of conditions in their homes. We know that in 1960 this type of unit or installation is commonly used, much more so than 15 or 20 years ago. We are trying to prevent the betterment of our worker by putting a tax on those things. Ventilation in our homes today is not a luxury. We have dryers in homes and the people should have them. The worker will have to pay a special tax on any special installation he may require for the ventilation of dryers. Today kitchens have ventilation systems, and they should have them. Tinsmiths will be taxed on installations in kitchens, which was not the case before.
We do this when people are anxious to have a better standard of living. People should be able to afford and can afford to have better facilities and modern homes, yet we are bringing in a clause in 1960 which taxes them and puts an added cost on the homes of those workers who should have those facilities.
Under this paragraph the material is taxed. I do feel that the government should pay attention to the representations which were
Excise Tax Act
made to the minister. Undoubtedly his actions indicate that the people of Canada have made numerous representations to him. A few months ago I had occasion to make reference to representations made by some people in my area. Representations were made by the tinsmiths' association through Mr. McCoy. I do not wish to read the letter to the Minister of Finance, but I must say that he was wrong when he indicated to me in the house that the regulations we were discussing at that time had been done away with and that the tinsmiths were not in a position different from that which they enjoyed before.
Notwithstanding the congratulations which the parliamentary secretary read last night, it is not quite the true story of the position of the tinsmiths in Canada, especially as it affects the consumers. I am thinking of the consumers because hon. members should realize that the 11 per cent tax which is levied is not paid in the long run by the manufacturers or the tinsmiths. They pass it on. It will be simply added to the cost of the installation which the tinsmith is making, and it will be passed on to the user or the contractor. The man who will pay it in the end is the worker or the person for whom the building is being constructed or the unit installed.
I feel the minister should think over his proposition which he mentioned some months ago, the effect of which has been postponed. We should return to the condition that existed before this amendment was introduced, so that the maximum number of houses would be built. We have few houses being built in our country today owing to the money situation. If the minister accepted my suggestions at least the houses which are built would be built at a minimum cost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has evidently quite misapprehended the effect of the present proposal. I would hate, in the light of what he has said today, to entrust him with any estimates of the cost of house construction or any attribute of it. This, Mr. Chairman, is a relieving provision. If the hon. member does not want to introduce this form of taxation relief, then of course his proper course is to oppose the resolution. This is a relieving provision; I wish to make that clear.
In the second place, it would have the effect of removing the existing discrimination. I do not think hon. members wish to see discriminations existing in this field. When tinsmiths were originally exempted as a class under the regulations to which he has referred-and in this respect it is not the Minister of Finance but the Minister of National Revenue under whose authority those

Excise Tax Act
regulations are made, the authority being given by act of parliament-there was a large number of smaller operators doing their own work with hand tools. With the change in economic conditions and techniques, tinsmith-ing operations have changed into a full-fledged business, each manufacturing an extensive variety of goods made out of all kinds of sheet metal, including among other things such major items as lockers, tanks, cabinets, shelving and so forth. In other words, it has developed that operators who were claiming to be exempt as tinsmiths were in fact manufacturers of metal products and were competing on a tax-free basis with other manufacturers of metal products who had to pay sales tax on what they produced.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that this provision will have the effect of relieving the situation and removing a patent discrimination, where some persons have been taking advantage of a provision which was never intended by parliament to be used in the way in which they have been using it.


Mr. Wratten:: I should like to say a few words on this subject, because I have been a tinsmith all my life. This is not a new subject; this idea of paying sales tax on manufactured goods worth over $3,000 has been in force for years, but it was never enforced on small tinsmiths.
It is a good move that warm air ducts are not to be subject to sales tax, because most of the shops throughout the country which are installing furnaces and air conditioning units are small shops. They buy all their fittings in manufactured form, and the sales tax has already been paid on those fittings. Sales tax has always been paid on furnaces and fittings and so on before they come to the shop after being purchased from the large manufacturers. Therefore the exemption from sales tax of ducts for warm air heating systems and for air conditioning is a move in the right direction, because it means the doing away with the payment of an unnecessary tax by the tinsmiths who make the installations.
I suggest that the small shops that employ only one or two men should be exempt from the sales tax requirement, because they are not in the manufacturing class. That is where the big trouble arises. The small operator who has only one, two or three men working for him is practically working for the government now, because he has to make unemployment insurance and income tax payments, and so on. If he has to make sales tax payments too it will mean he will have to hire somebody to look after these things. We have always paid sales tax on such items as

eavestroughs, conductor pipes and so on that we have bought. The proposal to remove the sales tax from warm air ducts is a good move because it helps the householder.
One hon. member said that it would increase the cost of an installation in a home by $200. I should like to go to that district where they are getting that kind of money, because in our section of the country we certainly do not get that kind of money and could not increase the price by $200 for a home installation. The difference in the price of materials about which he spoke certainly does not amount to $200 to $800 in a home.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
following what has been said by the hon. member for Brantford, I think the committee will recall what was said last night by my parliamentary secretary in emphasizing that the proposed change in the regulations concerning tinsmiths will not change the present practice of not imposing a sales tax on sheet metal work done on a construction site, such as installing flashings or doing roof work.


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the wording of the section. Does the minister not think the wording could be much more explanatory of what it is intended to achieve? When we look at it now we see that ducts for warm air systems for heating buildings, but not the materials, are to be exempt. Ducts consist of two things, the material and the labour that goes into making the ducts. Would it not be much simpler and clearer if we said that the labour that goes into these things shall be exempt from sales tax? Inasmuch as a duct is the material and the empty space, if we say that the material shall not be exempt then we are only exempting the empty space, the piping, the air space. I think the provision should be clarified, because as I read it now ducts for warm air systems shall be exempt but not the materials. What then is exempt? Is it the labour or is it the air space?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is being
exempted is everything that goes into the sale price. The suggestion of the hon. member would involve a revolutionary change in the whole basis of the Excise Tax Act, because the principle of that act is to levy a percentage tax on the sale price when sold at the manufacturer's or producer's level. It would not be possible to take that price and break it down into component parts. I do not know how you would isolate certain elements that enter into the sale price. It would be a hopeless undertaking. In any event, I must point out to the hon. member that his suggestion is completely hostile to the present principle and basis of the whole act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support very briefly the approach to this problem expressed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Nickel Belt, because I am of the opinion that the government's policy should be to do everything possible to reduce the cost of housing. Housing is a very important matter to working people particularly, and my criticism of this arrangement is simply that under present circumstances I think the government should do everything it can with respect to taxation and within the limits of its other powers to lower the cost of housing as much as possible. This is a serious matter to working people generally. I think the hon. member for Nickel Belt was a bit out of line when he suggested two or three hundred dollars, but even if there is an extra cost of $20 to $50 on the average house-


Osias.-J. Godin: I did not say that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me; I understood the hon. member to say that the extra cost would be about $200. I may have misunderstood him. But even if it is only $20 to $50 it is an additional cost, and I think that in line with the needs of today the government should consider doing what it can to assist in this direction. On that account I should like the minister to inform the committee the reason for the decision to tax the materials that go into heating ducts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, I must say that I think the hon. member has misapprehended the effect of the resolution. The resolution is a relieving provision. Its purpose is to create an exemption in respect of ducts for warm air systems for heating buildings where an exemption did not exist before. Far from increasing the cost of construction to small or large home owners, the effect of this provision is more likely to be to reduce the cost because, you see, the exemption that he speaks of applied previously only in the case of purchases from a particular source, and now the exemption will apply in the home owner's favour wherever he acquires his ducts for warm air heating.
I think there has been a total misapprehension in the discussion and the remarks of some hon. members opposite as to the effect of the resolution. This is more likely to reduce the cost of home construction to the small home owner than to increase it, and at the same time we are removing a discrimination.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I quite understand that this is a partial benefit, but in view of the housing situation I wanted to know the reason for
Excise Tax Act
the government's decision not to remove the excise tax completely from this heating equipment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member talked about this heating equipment, but the equipment we are discussing consists of ducts for warm air systems for heating buildings. That is what is to be exempted here. To go on and say that we should extend the exemption as well to the materials used in their manufacture would be taking us into some very doubtful realms. I have given, and my parliamentary secretary gave last night, very sound reasons for this resolution being in its present form. I can repeat those reasons, but I do submit in all earnestness to the hon. member, whose concern in these matters is recognized by all members of the committee, that to interpret this resolution as one likely to increase the cost of home construction is quite wrong.
The hon. member for Brantford, who has had more firsthand experience with this business than any other member of the house and who has studied it very carefully, has given most convincing reasons for support of the resolution in its present form.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should be entitled not to present a rebuttal but to explain what I said before. I said that for an average size home it would cost roughly $275 or $300 to have the job done if tin were used, and if copper were used the cost would be between $900 and $1,000. That is the cost I have obtained, and the hon. member for Brantford should agree that this is roughly correct. We were told by the minister that was the amount on which the buyer of this material would have to pay tax, and on $300 that would be $33 or more which he would have to pay. If the man chose copper as the material he would have to pay roughly $110 extra. My neighbour happened to have this job done last week, and over the week end I asked him what it did cost. He gave me the price.
Surely there must be an average price. I realize that the size of the home and possibly the type of roof construction would make some difference to the cost of a watershed built around the roof. Surely the minister agrees that the amounts given by me are proper. I do not say that would be the whole amount, but it would be terrible if the government were to add $33 to the cost of a house because when you consider the amount these people borrow and repay over 25 years it might mean the addition of $75 to the cost of a house.
I am surprised that the minister did not answer some of my questions. The minister

Excise Tax Act
mentioned that this is a relieving section, but it has been a relieving section only since May 6.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Osias.-J. Godin: I realize why the minister may be getting to his feet. I realize there was no amendment of May 6 to this paragraph. The amendment of May 6 refers to paragraph 12 which we will be discussing later and about which the minister certainly made a volte face in relation to the position he had previously taken. This second exemption is partial. There are taxes which will have to be paid by the people who contract to have homes built. These taxes will be an added expense. The hon. member for Brantford has not told me what the added taxes will be if the home owner wants to have a special installation extending 20 to 25 feet to properly ventilate a dryer, or 20 to 25 feet in order to properly ventilate a kitchen. I have not been told what the additional cost to the home builder would be in relation to air conditioning.
I do believe the people interested in these items were slightly pleased when they were instructed recently that some relief would be given to them, especially when one considers the notification they received earlier that they would now become taxable and would not be considered as small manufacturers. I must congratulate the government for at least bringing in a partial exemption. However, the government has not introduced an exemption which would put the small home builder in the position in which he was under the previous administration.
This is the answer I should like to obtain from the minister. This is a relieving section to some extent. We have taken away 100 per cent and we are giving somebody back 20 per cent, and we call that a relieving section. This is the explanation I should like to obtain from the minister. It is the consumer of the services offered by the tinsmith, the home builder, the worker, who is suffering, not the tinsmith. If a person ordered copper flashing which the tinsmith agreed to install for $900, the tinsmith would have to pay roughly $110 in tax. I do not believe the tinsmith would take that loss, so the flashing would cost the man about $1,110. I am speaking on behalf of those people who use the services of the tinsmith, not necessarily the tinsmith. I believe it is a known fact in this country that people measure the amount of profit they can make, and if a tax is placed on their work, then that tax is passed along to the consumer.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: I should like to make a few remarks on the subject to which the hon. member for Nickel Belt
has referred. It is obvious that he knows nothing about the heating business. If a warm air heating unit is installed in a home today the average cost on a project basis is between $525 and $650. This is for the furnace, the burner, the oil tank and the duct system. The duct work, which is the thing we are discussing today, will cost between $125 and $200, and it is being exempted from tax at the present time.
The hon. member talks about a copper installation in connection with warm air heating units and air conditioning. I have yet to find such a copper installation in my part of the country.


Osias.-J. Godin: Would the hon. member permit me to say that I was discussing drainage systems and roof flashings, which are not exempt under this section. I was not talking about the things which are exempt. I am talking about ventilation, which is not exempt, and air conditioning, which is not exempt, as well as the drainage for roofs, which is not exempt.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: In so far
as air conditioning is concerned, when the furnace is installed in the basement of a house and the piping is made up, they use the same pipes for the air conditioning that they use for the warm air heating. They do not run a separate pipe system, and this duct work is exempt for the warm air heating system because that is what it is used for in the wintertime. The hon. member says that this government is increasing the cost, which is not true.


Jack Wratten: In reply to the hon. member for Nickel Belt may I say that it is stated right in the bill that flashings are exempt. It does not matter whether you in-stal copper flashings or galvanized iron flashings, they are exempt from this sales tax. In so far as the warm air ducts are concerned, we have always paid sales tax on the material as it comes to our shops. The tinsmith pays sales tax on the materials. However, under this new regulation we do not pay sales tax on the cost of manufacturing the warm air ducts as we were required to do before. It is at this point that the saving comes in.
In so far as the cost of installation is concerned, we do a lot of installations in my home town and the average price for installing an air conditioning unit is running between $250 and $275, that is for piping the unit. When this new regulation becomes effective there will be no sales tax paid on the ducts we make up to go into the unit, and this would result is a saving to the home builder when he is having the unit installed.

In so far as eavestroughing is concerned, the average price of eavestroughing for the homes that are being built in Brantford or anywhere in southern Ontario is running between $75 and $100, that is for labour and everything. It does not cost $275, as my hon. friend states. If one receives that amount of money for installing eavestroughing on a house in Sudbury I am going to move my shop up there tomorrow. The eavestroughing comes in already made up. I do not believe there is one manufacturer in Ontario who will make up eavestroughing by hand, because it does not pay. We can buy the eavestroughing in 10-foot lengths, already stamped out, so we do not manufacture it. We buy it from the manufacturer who pays the sales tax that the government imposes. The cost certainly does not run anywhere near $275 a house. I have been in this business since 1923, and I have yet to instal eavestroughing on a house that cost $275.


Mr. Benidickson:: I think the hon. member for Brantford has been very helpful in explaining the present situation in connection with a trade with which he is so familiar. However, would he not agree with me that notwithstanding the exemption provided here with respect to ducts, a mistake was made when the small tinsmith was removed from the type of manufacturer listed in form ET 1 to which I referred last night, and that if he were restored to his former position it would be helpful to the small tinsmith?


Jack Wratten: The whole problem has been in trying to differentiate between a tinsmith in a small shop such as that which we operate at home, with my two sons and a couple of helpers, and a tinsmith in a large shop. Certainly if the sales tax were taken off everything we put into the home it would help us. How are we going to make a distinction between a small shop and a big one? If someone wants us to manufacture a hundred articles, we are going to do it. We therefore get into manufacturing. These shops which have 10 to 15 men and have to pay a manufacturer's licence are going to object to our doing that. It is only reasonable. But the small man who is working by himself, something which I did years ago, is not affected. It did not affect me because I never paid sales tax to the government at all on manufactured goods, because they were all brought in.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 3.
Jacques Flynn: Shall paragraph 3 carry?


William Moore Benidickson: On paragraph 3 I have a few comments to make, and any remarks 1
Excise Tax Act
make on paragraph 3 would be equally appropriate to paragraph 4. The minister well knows that when he and many of his present supporters were sitting on this side of the house they felt that our list of exemptions with respect to pharmaceuticals and medical items, particularly drugs, was altogether inadequate. We know that new drugs are coming on the market and that they are extremely expensive. We are reading these days that drugs in Canada are perhaps more expensive than they are in any other part of the world.
I just want to make the point to the minister that in another year we would hope his revenues might be in a better situation and that he might find it possible to extend the list of exemptions particularly with respect to drugs. We now exempt some of the expensive drugs that came on the market a few years ago, but the list has not been added to greatly. I think that now a number of expensive drugs have been substituted. I believe a revision in this field would be fruitful to the minister prior to another budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member is referring rather to the list of drugs that may be included in the definition of medical expenses-


William Moore Benidickson: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and which are permitted to be deducted from income in the determination of income for income tax purposes.


William Moore Benidickson: No. I am referring to your schedule here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the burden of our representations in former years in opposition, and we have had an opportunity in the past two years to extend greatly the provisions of the Income Tax Act in that regard. As to exemption from sales tax-


William Moore Benidickson: May I correct the minister? I was not referring to that matter. I was referring to page 27 of the consolidation of the Excise Tax Act which sets out certain charitable, health and other items that are exempt from tax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, but the hon. gentleman purported to refer to certain principles which I have advocated in this house. That is where I think he is confusing what has been said in this respect.
As to the removal of sales tax on articles in use by persons who suffer from either an illness, necessity for surgical operation or the need of some aid such as the special aid referred to in paragraph 3 of the resolution, I think we have shown by the terms of this resolution, as on other occasions, a desire

Excise Tax Act
to make tax policy conform as far as possible to the needs of persons who suffer these misfortunes.


Mr. Carter:: Arising out of what the minister has just said, which indicates the general attitude of the government toward this kind of aid, may I say this. A speaking aid naturally brings to mind a hearing aid. In fact certain kinds of hearing aids are exempt. I just wonder what the position is in a case where a hearing aid is combined with eyeglasses, as are most of the modern ones. Are they exempt when in combination as well?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told that this nice point raised by the hon. member has not arisen for decision. A hearing aid is exempt at the present time. Eyeglasses in certain forms are not exempt. On this question of a combination, and here I am not attempting to give any interpretation that the hon. member should construe as being binding on the Department of National Revenue because the point has not arisen, I should think if the problem were presented under the law as it stands today the department would have to look at the portion of the aid which is exempt and treat it as exempt and look at that portion which is taxable and treat it as taxable. However, the point has not arisen for determination. I am simply indicating an immediate reaction to the nice question raised by the hon. member.


Chesley William Carter: I can appreciate the difficulty. That is why I brought the matter to the minister's attention. Will he have his officers give some consideration to the exemption of this combination of aids?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We will certainly give study to the whole question. I emphasize, however, that I am not attempting to give any interpretation for the Department of National Revenue if the question should be presented in court for decision.


William Moore Benidickson: One of the best known hearing aids of that type, which is a combination type, I was pricing myself, not for my own purposes fortunately.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is not suffering from the infirmities of old age, is he?


William Moore Benidickson: I think it is the experience of most people that the price of that particular article runs to perhaps a couple of hundred dollars, and that the value of the lenses would perhaps be the price of ordinary spectacles, say $10. Therefore the proportion that is attributable to the hearing aid is the important element by far.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is quite clear
that the hearing aid is exempt. Therefore I think hon. members can be reassured that the proportion in the combination attributable to the hearing aid will certainly be recognized as exempt. They need have no fear on that score.


Mr. Howard:: Having regard to the comments made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in connection with pharmaceuticals and the answer given by the minister, I should like to inquire whether pharmaceuticals are now exempt or whether they are taxed, and if so to what extent?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are taxable now, except in the specific exemptions enumerated in the schedule, namely schedule 3 of the Excise Tax Act.


William Moore Benidickson: There are four.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is there a list including a number of pharmaceuticals which are exempt, but they must be mentioned specifically in order to be exempt.


William Moore Benidickson: As I indicated-the minister has not said so-the list is rather slender and consists of ACTH, cortisone, insulin, radium and liver extract if used in the treatment of anemia. That is the entire list. That is why I was indicating its number.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And vaccine for polio.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, vaccine for poliomyelitis.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I tried to jot them down quickly. It seems to me there are six-if I was quick enough-which are now exempt. It would seem to me that the prices of drugs are high enough in Canada; in fact the indications are that they are higher in Canada than anywhere else in the world. It would seem to me that they are high enough without adding or having added or included a sales tax in the price thereof. This would appear to me to be one field which the government and the minister could explore thoroughly from the point of view of complete exemption of pharmaceuticals developed by the ethical drug industry.
I am not referring to the so-called proprietary medicines or cough syrups or things of that nature, although this is an industry which could be given some consideration also. I am referring especially to the wide range of broad spectrum antibiotics, for example tetracycline, tranquilizers and other drugs which have recently come on the market and to whose number additions are being made by the companies from time to time. As I said, it seems to me that with

Canada having to pay the highest price for its pharmaceuticals that is paid anywhere in the world, including the United States, some action might well be taken here by exempting these particular products from tax, hoping that the reduction would be passed on to the consumer for whom these drugs are prescribed.
The common price range of one capsule, for instance, in the tetracycline field is approximately 60 cents, and this is a heavy burden for an individual patient who has one of these antibiotics prescribed for him. He does not buy these drugs in lots of one, either; the normal prescription runs to 16 or thereabouts, for which the patient has to pay $8 or $9, maybe even more. We surely should not add to that burden by exacting sales tax from a consumer who finds himself in this difficult position. Inasmuch as we now exempt liver extract, ACTH, and poliomyelitis vaccine-these were the ones I was able to take down from the list that was read by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River- we should certainly extend this list to include the other types of pharmaceuticals developed by the ethical drug industry in order that we may relieve to an even greater extent the heavy burden placed on patients.
I do not know what this proposal would mean in terms of lost or decreased revenue to the government. Knowing that the drug industry is a two or three billion dollar a year industry, that is in the United States and Canada together, I realize that it could have some appreciable effect on crown revenues at a time when I know the minister is concerned seriously about the revenue and expenditure picture. However, here is a field in which immediate action is needed to relieve this onerous burden on people who through no fault of their own become ill and have to have these drugs prescribed for them. Perhaps the minister could indicate whether there has been a study made in this regard and, if so, what is the estimated revenue that accrues to the crown through sales tax on these pharmaceuticals.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These matters are always under consideration. It is not possible to give a precise estimate. The cost would in any event extend into millions of dollars. How many millions, I would not be prepared to indicate at the moment. However, may I suggest we are not dealing with drugs in this item at all. We are dealing with the matter of a hearing aid. Now that the subject has been reviewed, perhaps the hon. member would be satisfied that he has put his views on the record.


William Moore Benidickson: We are not dealing with a hearing aid.
Excise Tax Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: A speaking aid.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I realize that I was probably wandering further than the resolution would allow, and I appreciate the courtesy of the minister in not following his usual practice of rising on a point of order. I also appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman, in allowing me to continue.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 4.
William Moore Benidickson: With respect to paragraph 4, I was wondering what the position is with respect to the purchase of similar articles-pharmaceuticals and other things- that go into hospitals. Has there been an exemption with respect to purchases by hospitals other than those which are operated by a provincial government? I would imagine that such hospitals would get the prescribed exemption. Would a hospital which was not owned by a federal or provincial government be able to purchase drugs and surgical sutures without tax being imposed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The language of the act now exempts such articles and materials for the sole use of any bona fide public hospital certified to be such by the Department of National Health and Welfare when used exclusively by the said hospital and not for resale, and purchased in good faith.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 5.
William Moore Benidickson: This is an odd item. Would the minister just indicate the frequency of this event happening and what is involved. Is it a big prize?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This paragraph refers to articles presented from abroad in recognition of the saving of human life. It does not apply to the saving of political life. This paragraph is put forward with a view to exempting special awards made from abroad to persons in Canada. Tariff item 692(a) is duty free but is not listed as tax free under the Excise Tax Act. This is something which appeared in the course of a study, and I think it is obviously the sort of thing the committee would wish to bring into line.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 6 agreed to.
On paragraph 7.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Paragraph 7 reads:
That portrait photographs of individuals be exempt from sales tax.
I just rise to seek information from the minister. Obviously, in recognition of the

Excise Tax Act
great contribution made by this group throughout the years to the public life of Canada, some of its members have been approached by very prominent artists who wish to paint their portraits in oils in order to make sure there is no gap in the continuity-in the pictorial record-of the public figures of this nation. I am just asking the minister whether that type of portrait in oils is exempt from taxation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the value is more than $20, the portrait is exempt. I can well imagine that any portrait which preserves for posterity the good features of the hon. gentleman or his colleagues will certainly be a very valuable picture indeed, and consequently will be exempt.


William Moore Benidickson: I have previously indicated at another stage of the debate an interest in this item. I did not explain it at the time, but it arose from some inquiries I have made since January of this year with respect to an intention that was announced by the Department of National Revenue last summer to bring under tax in the future the photo finishing type of production from our photographic shops. We are back to that ET 1 form we have been discussing. Portrait photographers were listed as small manufacturers who would not have to take out the sales tax. I believe they have always escaped taxation on their production. We have, I believe, traditionally taxed what is recognized as ordinary commercial photography, but we have never imposed a tax on the cost of developing the ordinary roll of film for the general public. The department last summer indicated that they felt this should bear tax having regard to the language of the Excise Tax Act. I take it they were looking upon these people as in the nature of manufacturers or producers, and unless in some way exempted they proposed to impose a tax on this production for the first time. I believe it was to commence January 1, 1960.
Subsequently a row was raised and the department decided they were not too sure of their legal position. I am informed that a few months ago they submitted the problem to the Department of Justice. I imagine that by now the department has obtained a ruling from the Department of Justice as to whether they were right or wrong in the action they proposed to take last summer.
Would the minister give us more information concerning what has taken place? Would he confirm that my impression is right so far, and indicate what took place last summer along these lines? Would he also state what his intentions are for the future? The minister gave me a categorical answer on

April 4, that these changes in the law would in no way bring about taxation on what is known as ordinary photo finishing for the public at large.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
during studies made within the last year the Department of National Revenue inquired into the operations of photo finishers, and as a result came to the conclusion that these operations constituted manufacturing under the Excise Tax Act in the strict sense of the word. The department accordingly notified photo finishers that as of a named date they would be required to apply for manufacturers' licences under the act. There followed immediately a series of representations to the department which prompted further technical discussions between the department and the industry.
Meanwhile the Minister of National Revenue suspended the effective date of the department's notice to permit this further investigation to be carried on. Although there are some areas of production in photo finishing concerning which there is little doubt, there are others which might well be debatable, and this is recognized. There is considerable variety in the processes and noticeable differences in the final products. Accordingly it was decided that no action would be taken to require the licensing of photo finishers and the taxation of their products without specific legislation for the purpose, and no such specific legislation is being put forward.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Because of the plural reference may I ask if this is to apply only to portraits of one individual or of groups?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the word "individual" appears in the plural in this item. It has reference to as many individuals as may be discernible in any photograph.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 8.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would explain the reason for the change and indicate whether there is any discrimination between this type of material and other drainage pipe.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, this paragraph of the resolution merely proposes that the words "bituminized fibre" be deleted from the sales tax exemption for perforated drainage pipe not exceeding 4 inches in inside diameter. This kind of drainage pipe is used in some cases in lieu of clay drainage tile. I understand that when the exemption was placed in the act a few years ago the only perforated tile of this dimension was made

from bituminized fibre. It has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance that this type of drainage pipe is now being manufactured out of other substances, and consequently the words "bituminized fibre" are being deleted. I am not aware of any discrimination which results.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I assume from what the parliamentary secretary has said that this applies to a type of tile ordinarily referred to as weeping tile or foundation tile, and that this is a substitute. Is that what the hon. gentleman meant?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, if it is perforated.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does this include drainage tile for agricultural purposes? If so, why is the diameter limited to 4 inches? Occasionally it is necessary to use 6 or 8 inch pipe.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. gentleman will find that covered in another paragraph which refers to drainage tiles for agricultural purposes. That does not have a limitation on the basis of measurement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary whether it would not be advisable at this time to remove the tax from all drainage tile. As the hon. gentleman is no doubt aware, there is a rank case of discrimination in respect to sewer pipes and drainage pipes. I am sure the hon. gentleman will be particularly sympathetic today because earlier this morning his minister said-if I paraphrase him correctly-"I do not think hon. members of this committee would wish to see discrimination existing in the field of excise tax." There is a provision which permits municipalities installing sewer pipe and tile to obtain a rebate, but this unfortunately does not extend to the pipe in other municipalities which require the installation to be done by private individuals and private entrepreneurs. Consequently you have a case of discrimination, because in some municipalities the taxpayers receive the benefit of this abatement while in others operating under a different system the home owners are charged for the tax in the price of their homes.
This is a development that has taken place within the last few years. Previously the municipalities installed all local services under municipal improvement acts of one kind or another, but now they often require the subdividers to install for them sewer tiles which will be used perhaps not only locally by the houses within one area but also in a wider area. You have a dual system. You have a system where pipe installed by municipalities directly is subject to an abatement of the tax, while that
Excise Tax Act
installed by private entrepreneurs as agents for the -municipality is still subject to the tax.
Would the parliamentary secretary indicate whether the government will permit an enlargement of the tax abatement in this field in order to remove the obvious discrimination which exists at the present time?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is going a considerable distance afield from this resolution, which covers only pipe not exceeding 4 inches in inside diameter. I am familiar with the situation to which the hon. gentleman refers. He will appreciate that the exemption which was introduced by this government was introduced for the purpose of providing relief for the municipalities. It was not intended as a relief to private individuals. In the operation and administration within a municipality there may be techniques adopted which do not permit the sales tax exemption to be made available, but the whole purpose has been to make the relief available to municipalities. I think that is about as far as I wish to go at the present time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Obviously the parliamentary secretary appreciates the distinction. The same people, the same municipal taxpayers, in one municipality pay tax on the pipe which services their houses and in the neighbouring municipality they do not. This is rank discrimination. In view of what the minister said earlier I think it should be removed.
Whether it should be discussed on this item I would not wish to say categorically, Mr. Chairman, but may I just refer the parliamentary secretary to paragraph 11, where another element of discrimination is introduced. Here septic tanks installed by individuals are not subject to tax, yet where the individual is required by municipal law or regulation to instal a sewage disposal system to accomplish the same purpose he is subject to the tax. There is an obvious case of discrimination and I should like the parliamentary secretary to indicate to the committee whether he would be willing to recommend to his government that they take under immediate consideration, even before this schedule is passed, enlargement of the provision for relief of tax in respect of sewer and drainage tiles.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. gentleman will realize, of course, that it lies entirely within the power of the municipality to see that the exemption which is provided by the act is in fact effective. This is a matter for administration at the municipal level, and need create no difficulty.

Excise Tax Act
I am aware that many municipalities across the country-indeed the great majority of municipalities

are carrying on subdivisions in such a way that the exemption which is intended for municipalities in fact is fully applicable, and I actually see no difficulty in any municipality so conducting its affairs that the exemption will be in fact applicable. The situation I think is really one of municipal administration rather than legislation by this parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Partially, Mr. Chairman, but the problem itself is much deeper than that. The problem was created by a fundamental disparity in the division of responsibility and tax revenue among the three levels of government. If it was not for this fundamental problem undoubtedly the municipalities would not have embarked upon what is essentially a method of expediency in the financing of municipal improvements. It was never intended that municipal improvements should be unloaded on individual house builders and purchasers, but that they should be borne by the taxpayers at large. The new system has been forced on them by this lack of solution of the broader problem.
Since we are dealing specifically with the injustice to one group as against another, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can advise the committee whether mechanics have been worked out whereby relief can be afforded for drainage systems installed by subdividers on behalf of municipalities, where this is required by the subdivision agreement?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, I think I can say that the municipalities generally have been most ingenious in working out arrangements so that the tax exemption is available.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would share some of those ingenious techniques with the house some time so that we will at least know how they operate?


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 8 agreed to.
On paragraph 9.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am rather glad to see a second cabinet minister present, because I was a little worried over the fact that we might be wasting our time here if we were persuasive and found that we did not have the necessary executive quorum to pass amendments. It would not have been very worth while.
I wonder whether the words in this paragraph mean just what they say. I wonder whether, when we see the bill, there is going to be some restriction of which no notice is

given here. This paragraph refers to furbearing animals. I presume this means all fur-bearing animals and would not bear the type of restriction that I think has hitherto applied, namely fur-bearing animals whose pelts have commercial value. I think this is the phrase in the schedule. In other words, I hope that when the bill comes down it will include all fur-bearing animals.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes; there is no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman. What is in fact happening is a consolidation of certain items as they appear in the present schedule to the Excise Tax Act.


William Moore Benidickson: So that the present restriction on the feeds themselves, which is restricted to animals whose pelts have commercial value, will be removed in the new schedule?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: I have some difficulty here in finding the item in the farm and forest schedule for feeds and feed supplements generally in agriculture. I know they are there, and of course I should find them in some of the tariff items. The free tariff items are also exempt from the sales tax?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes. If the hon. member will look at the fifth line from the bottom of page 28 of the Excise Tax Act consolidation, he will find stock conditioners, condiments, and feed supplements in addition to poultry, cattle and other stock feeds.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just one question. Will this exemption also apply to fur-bearing animals which are kept in a zoo?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, wherever they may be kept. Indeed, it will apply to persons who might be feeding fur-bearing animals in a state of nature.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 10.
William Moore Benidickson: This paragraph has to do with hardware for doors and sash. Presumably this will include hardware for cupboard doors?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: Whether made on site or not? Hitherto I believe if the hardware was made on site it perhaps was exempt but if made in a factory, prefabricated, it bore tax.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hardware made on site in the past has been exempt; if made in a manufacturing establishment it was taxable.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not understand this paragraph. Is the purport of it to remove the tax from the prefabricated sash and door hardware?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes. The situation was that anyone who was buying a door upon which the hardware was installed was getting the hardware free of tax, but if he was buying the hardware separately and then installing it with the door he was paying the tax.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What will be the situation after the passing of this amendment? We are still not too clear on that.


Thomas Miller Bell: What this does is level it out, and they both get the benefit of those items which are specifically exempt.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: By that the parliamentary secretary means that sash and door hardware used in new construction is exempt from tax; is that it?


Thomas Miller Bell: No; only if specifically mentioned in the act, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Jacques Flynn: Shall paragraph 11 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 12.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, as indicated on page 2 of the appendix to Votes and Proceedings for Friday, May 6, there is an amendment to this paragraph. Without reading it, perhaps I might just refer the committee to that page where the amendment is set out in full and ask my colleague, the Postmaster General, to move this amendment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: move:
That paragraph 12 of the Excise Tax Act resolution be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"12. That the exemption from sales tax for, 'Usual coverings to be used exclusively for covering goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of such coverings' be changed to provide an exemption for
(a) usual coverings or usual containers to be used exclusively for covering or containing goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax but
Excise Tax Act
not including coverings or containers designed for dispensing goods for sale or designed for repeated use other than
(i)	barrels, boxes, baskets, crates and bags for packaging fruits and vegetables,
(ii)	boxes and crates for eggs,
(iii)	butter and cheese boxes,
(iv)	cans and insulated bags for ice cream,
(v)	corrugated paper boxes for bread,
(vi)	flour bags,
(vii)	milk and cream bottles, milk and cream cans;
and
(b) materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of exempt coverings and containers."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall paragraph 12 as amended carry?


William Moore Benidickson: No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Nickel Belt was rising.


Osias.-J. Godin: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I expected that you would read the clause and ask if we were prepared to have it carried. Would the minister tell the committee if oil tanks are exempt as before?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, there is a special exemption in the act now for oil tanks.


Osias.-J. Godin: And that remains?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, this amendment does not affect that.


Osias.-J. Godin: There was no reference to them in the amendment and I gathered that possibly they would still be covered. In the face of this amendment we are brought back to certain matters which we had occasion to discuss this morning with relation to another item. If I ask the minister certain questions and make certain remarks it is with the thought that the amendment now proposed brings about a situation whereby the small home owner will be subjected to additional taxation to satisfy the needs of the Minister of Finance. I have reference particularly to containers for bottled gas which are sold to home owners in many communities for the purpose of heating and operating other facilities in the home. Bottled gas is used in many cases because it is possibly cheaper than electricity or oil, and therefore in this amendment the government is striking directly again at the small home owner. Bottled gas is used by people who can only afford to live in a trailer or a very small home, and if hon. members will travel throughout their constituencies they will realize that that is so. People who have to keep their living costs as low as possible are the ones who use manufactured bottled gas.
There is also the question of discrimination involved in this provision, for the Minister of Finance has just confessed in answer to my question that oil tanks are exempt from taxation. It is obvious from the construction of

Excise Tax Act
this new clause, which was read by the chairman a moment ago, that bottled gas containers are not exempt from taxation and thus people who are trying to keep their living costs at a minimum are now faced with an additional tax. I do not blame the person who sells the bottled gas for adding the additional tax to the price he charges the person purchasing the gas. He has figured that he can provide the gas and equipment at a certain price and therefore he cannot assume the cost of the additional tax imposed by the government without passing it on to the consumer. The reason for the amendment would appear to be that the minister has had a change of mind in the last few months. Undoubtedly the amendment he proposed and which was passed clearly indicates that the minister has had a change of mind. But in no way did he bring about, through his amendment, a solution to the problem of the people in this country who are interested in the manufacture of bottled gas. The reason I say that lies in the section which indicates that the container is exempt only if it is not designed for repeated use. I presume that the container for bottled gas is definitely designed for repeated use. It can be exchanged, and on occasion it is exchanged.
I should like to impress the minister with the fact he should not impose this new tax on home owners since we have already seen a few examples this morning of taxation which affected the home owner. I should like also to bring to his attention representations which I have received from my area, and no doubt other members have also received representations. The notification which these manufacturers received when the Minister of Finance delivered his budget speech was that from that date forward the containers would not be exempted. Undoubtedly publicity was given to that fact and the minister must have received representations which resulted in this amendment of May 6. This would indicate he was trying to satisfy some of the representations, but I fail to see why the minister would decide to satisfy the representations of some people and not others. People have attempted to ascertain the significance the resolution, mentioned in the budget speech and further amended on May 6, would have on their operations.
We find that since April 1 people have been paying a tax on these containers for bottled gas. I should like to ask the minister if those people who have already paid the tax on these containers will have their money refunded. Will he make sure that these people now come under the proper rule which the committee is asked to adopt? People have written to the department and, of course, since the resolution was presented by the

Minister of Finance, the department was obligated to inform them that a new tax of 11 per cent had been imposed and these people have been paying this tax. However, on May 6 some people were exempted from the payment and this fact has been confirmed by the amendment which has just been passed by the committee. Those people who had been paying the tax during the month of April were removed from the list of taxpayers and were advised of this fact, indirectly or otherwise. However, the trailer owners and small home owners are faced with a situation where they are told today by the Minister of Finance that they must continue to pay this additional tax of 11 per cent.
There is a company in Sudbury known as the Sudbury Bottled Gas Company, and after having been advised by the company in Hamilton that the tax had to be paid they were worried about what would happen today. I am asking the Minister of Finance if he will not take a second look at this situation and be prepared to make sure that this one group of citizens is not called upon to bear heavier burdens than others in similar businesses, those selling oil and oil furnaces. Recently I received a letter which I believe would give a much clearer picture of the situation than I could give. It was written by the owner of this company I just mentioned, Mr. John Martin, and is addressed to me. I should like to make reference to at least some of the paragraphs, but not take the time of the committee by reading it in full. The letter reads in part as follows:
Just because the government in power requires revenue, it does not justify a form of legal extortion in the sense of a piece of legislation or otherwise, to acquire this revenue.
I feel very strongly about this subject and as a small business operation, the ramification from this piece of legislation, which I understand is not in this year's budget, but which is in effect, from the letter that I provided you with, is allowed to continue, it is going to deal a severe blow to the home heating, cooking, hot water, and domestic industry.
Mr. Martin makes a further reference to the fact that the people interested in oil services are obtaining these oil tanks free of tax as a result of the amendment which was suggested on May 6. It would seem to me, therefore, that there must be an explanation the minister could give which would help members of this committee in understanding why certain citizens are being taxed in certain businesses and not in others. Furthermore, I should like to inform the minister that the people who are paying this tax levied on bottled gas are the consumers. Reference has been made on several occasions lately to the fact that the consumer is the person who will furnish the revenue resulting from this tax. Surely if the government requires

this money there must be a medium by which they can obtain it and whereby the consumer and the small home owner will not be the ones who furnish it. There must be a more equitable system by which certain moneys can be obtained than by having the burden rest solely on the shoulders of the persons to whom this amendment refers. I trust the minister will immediately give a clear-cut explanation for the discrimination that exists under this section.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment to the act does not create discrimination. On the contrary, it removes it. It does none of the things the hon. gentleman has said of it. I am afraid the hon. member has been guilty of some gross exaggeration in what he has had to say.
In the first place, the Excise Tax Act applies a tax, the sales tax, generally to all commodities. Then the scheme of the act contemplates certain named exemptions set out in certain schedules to the act. If there is to be an exemption, therefore, it must be found in explicit terms in the schedule to the act. This has been the scheme of this act from the outset. It has been the policy of parliament to write certain specific exemptions into the act, such as, many food products, building materials and other commodities, in the case of which parliament thought there was some special reason for exempting them from a tax that is otherwise of completely general application.
Now the question concerns coverings, the usual coverings on goods that are exempt. What is to happen to those? Obviously the principle that ought to be followed there is to determine whether the covering is one that finds its end use with the sale of the particular exempt commodity or whether, on the other hand, it is a covering that goes back to the supplier and is then used in future sales. In other words, is it a case of a covering like, we will say, the cardboard cover or the cellophane cover on a box of corn flakes or is it a container that is capable of further use, one that goes back to the producer or supplier for repeated use? Obviously there is no reason why coverings that are capable of repeated use should, in principle, be exempt from a general tax. That has been the principle that has been given broad recognition in this act for many years now.
In the experience of the Department of National Revenue which is charged with the responsibility for administration and enforcement of this provision difficulties have arisen. There have been many cases in which it appears that attempts have been made to extend the area of exemption in cases where
Excise Tax Act
there is no proper case for exemption. This provision was introduced with a view to meeting that situation. It is a provision that is necessary in order to block what were found to be certain loopholes and to remove discriminations; and it is in keeping with the principle that has been recognized by the act, as I believe, ever since its inception.
Mention has been made of the fact that the original resolution itself has been amended. Yes, Mr. Chairman; it has been amended, again in the interests of clarification and in certain clear cases to put beyond all question the exemption that exists. I would therefore point out that the amendment that has just been adopted by the committee is one which is relieving in its effect. If you will note what the amendment does you will find that it applies this exemption to what are called the usual coverings of foods. You have the covering for fruits and vegetables, eggs, butter and cheese, ice cream, bread, milk and cream bottles, milk and cream cans.


Osias.-J. Godin: They were all exempt previously.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The purpose there is to make it quite clear that what are the usual coverings of these particular foods are to retain that exemption. The hon. member now goes further and raises the case of the coverings of propane gas. Let me make it perfectly clear that here there is nothing that proposes to apply the sales tax to any covering for propane gas that comes into use in a particular sale. The sales tax under this provision will apply in relation to propane gas and apply only in the case of cylinders which contain propane gas which are used in the sale and then go back to the supplier and are capable of being used over and over again. I submit that, having regard to the application of the sales tax to all other manner of coverings that are capable of and intended to be for repeated use, there is no reason at all why there should be an exemption in the case of these cylinders that contain propane gas.
The hon. member pictures this provision as doing some harm to the home owner. Mr. Chairman, that is an unrecognizable exaggeration. If the home owner purchases propane gas in containers that are not returned for repeated use on the part of the suppliers, then the sales tax has no application to that covering whatsoever. But if the purchase is made in larger quantities that call for the use of a cylinder to contain the gas and that cylinder is the kind that goes back and is used over and over again, perhaps 50 times or 100 times, then I say it is not in keeping with the principle of the act that that cylinder in its repeated use should be exempt from the sales tax.

Excise Tax Act
This is a fair proposal. It is a proposal that is in keeping with the general principle of the act. I think it is a most far fetched plea to say that this has something to do with the cost of homes or is somehow related to the home owner. Mr. Chairman, this is a tax that applies on all suppliers who use that particular cylinder over and over again.
We are being asked to assume that this is going to create an imposition on the home owner. Mr. Chairman, can you take seriously the suggestion that the application of the sales tax on that particular article is going to create an increase in cost to the home owner when that article is used over and over again, perhaps 50, 100 or 150 times? To use the case of a home owner in order to mount an attack on this provision is surely the most far fetched resort to oratory that we can well imagine in this situation.
This is a necessary clarifying provision, a provision that is in keeping with the principle of this act, a principle that has been recognized for many years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance would permit me just to interrupt proceedings for a minute or two in order to ask the leader of the house whether it would be convenient to the government to take the estimates of the Post Office Department instead of those of the Department of Transport at four o'clock?


Mr. Churchill:: I think that arrangement would be quite satisfactory. I believe the various parties in the house have been informed of the change suggested by the hon. member. The government is quite prepared to go along with that idea.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Speaking on behalf of this group, in order to indicate our willingness always to co-operate to suit the convenience of hon. gentlemen of the opposition, may I say that we are pleased to agree with the suggestion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the house leader.


Erhart Regier: I must apologize to the minister for arriving a little bit late. He may have answered the point that I wish to raise. I listened carefully to the representations made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. However, this exemption has caused a great deal of confusion over a good number of years. I remember receiving representations as far back as six years ago, especially from manufacturers of containers that are used in the small fruits industry and of containers used by those who produce our vegetables. The amendment calls for these

containers to be taxable unless they are delivered and sold with the goods.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member. He indicated that he came in late. He may not be aware of the fact that the committee has already adopted an amendment that makes perfectly clear the exemption in favour of barrels, boxes, baskets, crates and bags for packaging fruits and vegetables.


William Moore Benidickson: I want to raise a point of order. It is not my understanding that we have passed the amendment. We have received the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amendment was passed. The hon. member for Nickel Belt was speaking on the paragraph as amended but the amendment that was introduced by the Postmaster General at my request has been adopted.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is being discussed now is the clause as amended-


William Moore Benidickson: As amended, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -or paragraph 12 as amended.


Erhart Regier: I want to be clear on this matter. Does that mean that wooden or cardboard containers for fruits and vegetables will not be liable to taxation even though they may be returned and used over and over again?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Osias.-J. Godin: The minister states that this is not a new principle, and that it has been in existence for a long time. It is my contention that this is something new. The bottled gas operators were not paying excise tax on the container before they were advised in the budget speech that they would be doing so according to the new resolution then mentioned on March 31 which has now been amended.


William Moore Benidickson: It is new taxation.


Osias.-J. Godin: By so stating the minister forces me to read further from this letter which I was endeavouring to abbreviate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me give all assistance to the hon. member's desire to abbreviate. Let me say at once that I was speaking about the principle of the act. What we have dealt with here is an anomaly. What the hon. member is referring to is an anomalous situation in the light of the act and we are in the amendment as proposed in the resolution, following a course which

is in keeping with the principle of the act and which will eliminate what was an anomaly. There should not have been an exemption in that case. It is a highly discriminatory situation if that were a permitted exemption. I was speaking of the principle of this act. An anomaly did exist. This provision will eliminate that anomaly and vindicate the principle which applies generally.


Osias.-J. Godin: The Minister of Finance must have a new definition of "anomaly" because I do not see any way in which the government can suggest that an oil tank purchased from an oil dealer should be regarded differently from the circumstances which arise when a home owner goes to a propane bottling firm and purchases the equipment required to service propane gas. If the container cost $40 he would pay $45 because the man furnishing the service would have to ascertain that he has purchased a sufficient number of containers to satisfy the number of new customers.
Therefore, a home owner will pay on the installation of the service of propane gas an additional tax of 11 per cent on the container, whereas a person who instals an oil system will not pay a 11 per cent tax on the oil tank which the supplier will furnish on the purchase of the oil heating system. This is discrimination. The minister said he intends to do away with discrimination but, in fact, he has only created discrimination in the administration of this exemption which previously put both suppliers on an even footing. Today they find they are in different positions.
Now that the minister has made the proposition he has I will read a letter which a certain firm had mimeographed and sent to the bottlers of propane gas so they would know about the 11 per cent tax which would be added to the cost of the containers, a tax which is borne by the home owner, and I have heard no one say to the contrary in this house. This letter is from Engineering Products of Canada Limited, it is addressed to the Sudbury Bottled Gas Company and is dated May 26, 1960. It reads:
Reference is made to your letter of May 19, 1960, in which you advise you were "shocked" at the addition of 11 per cent F.S.T. to the basic price of your cylinders.
Enclosed please find a photostatic copy of a letter from the customs and excise branch of the federal government. After reading same and a covering letter we are sending to all our customers, you will realize the matter is beyond our control.
This firm went to the expense of having a mimeographed letter prepared to be sent to all the persons with whom they had dealings. It continues:
Numerous representations have been made to the government. However, last week a delegation
Excise Tax Act
was turned down flat, with the result the 11 per cent F.S.T. is here to stay.
The next time you have a talk with your friend Mr. John Diefenbaker you can discuss it in detail with him, and with your forceful nature and argumentative capabilities you might be able to have him rescind it. Sorry John, but we have no other option than charge this sales tax on all cylinders we sell.
This person who was inquiring about the situation in the area in which he is trying to furnish this service finds that the people who are dealing with oil heating equipment obtain their containers for the oil which they have to sell upon the installation of the service free of tax. Against that we have no quarrel, and I am sure that Mr. John Martin, to whom the letter I read was addressed, and who has made representations to myself and to the government on this matter, has no quarrel with the fact that other people are exempt from tax. But he certainly has a complaint against the government on the ground that the government discriminates against him. I must go on to read a few more paragraphs of the letter from the Sudbury Bottled Gas Company which I was endeavouring to abbreviate a few minutes ago.
I would like to further quote that the Milne Steel Fabricating Company, Hamilton, Ontario are selling to Groom-Callahan Wholesale Hardware and distributors in the Sudbury area, 200 gallon oil tanks which are parallel to our propane tanks and are used almost identically for the same purpose as our propane tanks are.
On May 16, 1960, Groom-Callahan made a purchase of oil tanks and there was no 11 per cent sales tax levied. This would indicate to me that there is direct discrimination against our industry and which I request you, Mr. Godin, and authorize you, on my behalf, that I personally charge the government with the responsibility of not running the affairs of this country properly.
Could it be possible that there is some pressure or collusion, and this is only a suggestion, that the natural gas is putting the pressure on? I am sure that you will use your good offices to convey this message to the Prime Minister and those concerned.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make representations which I have been asked to make with regard to this matter. Judging by these letters I believe the complaints must be numerous, and that discrimination exists. I am sure Mr. Martin has no quarrel against Groom-Callahan for not having to pay excise tax on the oil tanks. Surely, however, it is obvious to all hon. members that the Minister of Finance should try to find a way of giving similar treatment to similar types of business. It seems to me that once again this government is found lacking in that it has loaded additional taxes on consumers in one sphere only, to provide for we do not know what.
Undoubtedly it was the intention of the minister to do away with an exemption which

Excise Tax Act
existed. Then came about the volte face of May 6, to which I referred this morning, when an effort was made by the minister to patch up some of the mistakes made in his budget resolutions on March 21. Those were not good enough, and I say the Minister of Finance should reconsider the position of the government and not burden the consumer with this additional tax which discriminates against businesses of great similarity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member must be a master of exaggeration. He has undertaken to put an interpretation on this particular resolution which bears no resemblance to the facts. He is talking about discrimination, and he uses the yardstick of fuel oil tanks. The schedule to the act makes a specific provision in relation to fuel oil tanks. The exemption is written in these words:
Fuel oil tanks where used for furnaces for the heating of buildings and connected directly to such furnaces.
It will be seen at once that the gist of that exemption is that the fuel oil tank is installed in the house, and it stays there. This exemption does not apply to a container in which fuel oil is delivered to the home and taken away again for repeated use. What we are talking about here is the matter of coverings of goods. The hon. member has not at all followed or attempted to follow, evidently, the clear principle that is inscribed in the act in this regard. What we are talking about are coverings on the one hand which come to their end use with the delivery of the goods and on the other hand coverings that, after delivery, are returned to the supplier and used over and over again in the case of future deliveries.
The fuel oil tank is a very clear case of the first category, namely the delivery and the end use, and there is only one purchase by the home owner. The fuel tank is installed and that is the end of the matter. It is not a case of the fuel tank going back to the supplier of the fuel oil every time it is empty. The other case is that of the cylinder in which gas is delivered and if that cylinder is capable of repeated use and after delivery of the gas the cylinder is returned to the supplier and then used by him over and over again, the exemption should not apply.
If the gas is delivered in a container which meets its end use with that particular delivery and is not returned then the exemption applies. That is the principle of the act. It is a clear principle and the present resolution is completely in accord with that principle. What the hon. gentleman has cited is not a situation that indicates discrimination raised by this new resolution. He has pointed very

clearly to the reason for the anomaly that existed in the case of certain of these cylinders that were being used, returned to the supplier and used over and over again. The hon. gentleman has pointed out why that anomaly crept in. It is completely out of accord with the principle of this act in relation to the taxation on coverings.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, surely the act speaks for itself. This section has been in the act in specific language for some considerable time. The minister is confusing the anomalies and the principles he has in mind as a new minister with what he thinks he wants to propose for the first time in connection with a method of taxation. The point is that this article did not bear taxation under the law as it existed under the previous administration. The minister has new ideas and wants to bring into taxation for the first time articles of this kind. The exemption was written into the act. It is found in the appendix and reads as follows:
Usual coverings to be used exclusively for covering goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of such coverings.
The principle is that natural gas, electricity and these heating elements are commodities that were not subject to the consumption tax under the law and the minister wants now to change it so these commodities will bear tax. This is a new tax on this type of article.
The language of the act has been tested. It is my understanding that there was a recent case of appeal to the tariff board. It was made quite clear by the tariff board which looked upon the language of the statute judicially that the language was clear and plain as presented by the previous administration. The minister now proposes to change it and what we have is a new tax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must have been reading from different reasons for judgment on the part of the tariff board than those which other people read because the tariff board did not find it at all clear. It found it a very difficult provision because the present provision is so lacking in clarity and has opened loopholes for anomalies such as the one that has been pointed out. The need for amendment of it has become quite clear.


Osias.-J. Godin: Perhaps I do not understand the wording or perhaps the minister is not clear in his understanding of it. The test of the resolution is not the one the minister suggested and I do not think the courts would support the view he advances. The test is to be found in the words "designed for repeated use".

It is all very well to say that bottled gas containers are returned to the company for repeated use but in what way does that alter the position of the home owner? When he makes a contract with a propane gas company he must pay the cost of the first container and will therefore be subject to the payment of the 11 per cent tax on the article. Under the new resolution the home owner will have to pay the 11 per cent tax if he is a bottle gas user whereas another person with other equipment may be free of tax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am not capable of making this any plainer. If hon. gentlemen opposite persist in misreading the effect of this I am afraid I cannot do anything about it. The language of the amendment clearly contains the expression "designed for repeated use". That is the principle. I have repeated that several times. I do not wish to waste the committee's time by trying to clarify this through further repetition. I will merely draw the hon. member's attention to these words which contain the gist of the test.
The hon. member talks about the home owner bearing the burden of the tax. It is not without significance that the letter the hon. gentleman read and which undertook to apply strictures against the government was a letter not written out of solicitude for the home owner but a letter as between the manufacturer of the cylinder and the company that sells the propane gas. To take that and make out of it an argument that this is going to hurt the home owner is to indulge in an improper application of imagination to the situation. To say that in the sale of these coverings a sales tax is not to be applied in keeping with the application of sales tax to all other coverings of similar nature and to say that this is going to create some liability on the part of the home owner is to fly in the teeth of the facts.
The cylinder is acquired by the supplier of the propane gas. It is going to be used again and again. That is the essence of the matter. To say that this is going to place an 11 per cent tax on the home owner is surely overtaxing the credence and the imagination of any hon. member of this committee.


Osias.-J. Godin: What about the milk cans we use?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The case is quite clear there. There is a specific exemption in the case of the coverings of food. Surely that is very clear. The committee has already recognized that in adopting the amendment to the resolution. To say that this is going to affect the home owner when it is a matter between the supplier of the cylinder and the company that sells the propane gas and to
Excise Tax Act
make out of that a suggestion that there is going to be some burden thrown on the home owner is overtaxing the imagination of any of us.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On paragraph 13.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister give us an explanation of this. I know the hon. gentleman offered an explanation on budget night but I find it difficult on reading the language of the amendment to determine if it is accomplishing what the minister said was his intention. On March 31, 1960, as reported at page 2683 of Hansard the minister said:
In order to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding I shall mention a comparatively minor amendment intended to prevent private individuals who purchase yachts from avoiding the imposition of sales tax in respect of the materials that are included. This will not affect the commercial shipyards, which will continue as before to purchase materials for the construction of ships free of sales tax under licence.
I have received correspondence from some ship architects and they point out that as one reads this proposed change it would appear that the word "construction" is taken out and if a ship of over ten tons is to be constructed, it would appear that it no longer would enjoy the benefit of the sales tax exemption which has hitherto been in the appendix.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I mentioned this particular proposal specifically in the budget speech because I hoped thereby to avoid misunderstanding. It is not that the item itself is intrinsically so important as to warrant special mention, but it was simply a matter of avoiding a possible misunderstanding pending the period when in this committee any necessary explanation might be given.
This paragraph of the resolution proposes that the word "construction" be deleted from the present exemption. This is intended for purposes of clarification and to obviate attempts by individuals to have private yachts built on a sales tax exempt basis and thus obtain an unintended relief from the tax.
The word "construction" in the exemption is not necessary for the shipbuilder, as he can always use his manufacturer's licence to purchase materials and equipment entering into the manufacture of his vessels on a tax free basis. However, the wording of the exemption played into the hands of the individual who wanted to build a pleasure craft for his own use. The word "construction" in the exemption enabled that individual to purchase materials without payment of the tax and then turn them over to a shipbuilder who would custom build the ship for him, thus avoiding payment of the tax on the

Excise Tax Act
materials as well as on the finished craft. If the same individual bought a finished craft from the builder he would pay sales tax on his entire purchase, namely on the completed vessel.
The amended exemption will not affect the sales tax status of ships built in Canada and purchased by non-residents; they would still be exempt from sales tax as exports.
The exemption from sales tax for "boats bona fide purchased by fishermen for use in fisheries, and articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture, equipment or repair of such boats" is not being changed. In other words, Mr. Chairman, to sumarize, so far as the interests of fishermen are concerned, there will be no change created by this proposed amendment. In the case of bona fide shipbuilders there is no change, but this paragraph of the resolution will block a loophole of which some persons have made use.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Donald Methuen Fleming: At this point may I ask my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to introduce the amendment which I indicated on May 6 and which appears on page 2 of the appendix to Votes and Proceedings of that day. It is to insert a new paragraph 14, and to number the subsequent paragraphs of the resolution accordingly. It is to introduce a new exemption.


Mr. Comtois:: I move:
That the Excise Tax Act resolution be amended by inserting a new paragraph immediately following paragraph 13 thereof to read as follows:
"14. That drainage, waste and vent copper tubing from two inches to six inches in diameter, with a wall thickness from .040 to .083 of an inch, for non-pressure applications, and fittings therefor, be exempt from sales tax." and that the subsequent paragraphs of the resolution be renumbered accordingly.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the minister give an explanation, perhaps indicating the common use of this material.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This new paragraph proposes that copper tube or pipe and fittings thereof sold for use as waste and drain pipes and for providing a vent in plumbing fixtures be made exempt from sales tax. This kind of copper tube or pipe is an alternative to cast iron soil pipe in plumbing installations in buildings. Cast iron soil pipe has been exempt from sales tax from the time the exemption was first introduced for building materials. In recent years copper has replaced cast iron soil pipe to a large extent, and the proposed amendment recognizes changing techniques and use of materials in the building industry.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this, I think, can be looked upon as a matter of removing the discrimination that exists now in the light of changing use. I think the committee will realize now that having regard to the extension of the use of copper pipe this type of installation should enjoy the same kind of tax treatment as the cast iron soil pipe in plumbing installations.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 14, renumbered 15, agreed to.
Paragraph 15, renumbered 16, agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
1. Resolved, that subsection (1) of section 2 of the Customs Tariff be amended by adding thereto the following definitions:
"man-made fibre" means a staple fibre of filament produced by manufacturing processes, wholly or in part of organic polymers, but does not include rubber; and
"sliver" means fibres in a continuous strand, combed or not, not twisted and not exceeding twelve inches in length, and includes tops.
Resolution agreed to.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, is it the intention to call the individual items?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the individual items are called I daresay there will be a lot of calling. I do not think that has been the practice in times past. We shall do just whatever the committee wishes. There are, however, seven resolutions involved here. We are not dealing with seven paragraphs of one resolution, Mr. Chairman, but with seven different resolutions. What I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that the individual resolutions be called in the order in which they appear here. When you come to some of the individual resolutions which apply to a considerable number of tariff items, perhaps it would suffice to call the page in the printed pamphlet of ways and means resolutions. I doubt whether it will be necessary to call each individual item.


William Moore Benidickson: I recall that in the past the chairman went down quickly and recited the item number. Perhaps it will be sufficient to call the page number. We will try it. Will you call page 9, which is part of resolution No. 2?


Jacques Flynn: Resolution No. 1 is carried.


William Moore Benidickson: Will you call page 9?


Jacques Flynn: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: First of all, in connection with this fairly large package, will the minister indicate which of the items which are being changed were negotiated through GATT in the GATT tariffs in order to adjust the textile

tariffs? Perhaps he might indicate to the committee which of the items concerned which involve concessions in those negotiations are of relative importance and which have some monetary importance in the pattern of volume of imports.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolution No. 2 contains what might be described as the textile package. By this I mean that it contains the tariff changes required to implement the various tariff board reports on textiles to which I referred in the budget speech. It also contains other changes resulting from the textile negotiations, to which the hon. member referred.
As I mentioned in the budget speech, the revised textile schedule recommended by the board involved both increases and reductions in duty. However, the increases, of which the most important relates to coloured cotton fabrics, somewhat overbalance the decreases. Hence in order to conclude renegotiation of our commitments under GATT, for most of the items in question were bound under GATT, we found it necessary to reduce about a score of Canadian tariff rates on items outside the textile field. To the extent that the Canadian textile industry is on balance receiving some additional protection as recommended by the tariff board, this is being matched by reductions in other fields. In other words, that was the compensation that had to be given to the other countries to obtain their agreement to the increases under the provisions of GATT.
As I indicated in the budget speech, some of these reductions were requested by Canadian industry while others involved small reductions from relatively high rates of duty and in these cases it is not thought that the reductions should materially damage the industries affected. When the hon. member asks me how many of these items are affected by GATT, the answer is most of them, practically all of them.


William Moore Benidickson: I was also curious as to which of the many items might have the greatest importance, that is, would involve a greater amount of trade. Am I right in thinking that on this page, by way of an example of tariff reduction, item 187e, which deals with negative film for 16 millimetre motion picture cameras, might perhaps be an important item of import from the United States, would it be?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not regarded as a very large item. Imports come mostly from the United States, but it is not regarded as a very large item.


William Moore Benidickson: It is several months since the minister gave notice of his intention to 79951-0-295
Customs Tariff
reduce the most favoured nation tariff from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. Have his officers reported to him any change in retail prices?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman.


William Moore Benidickson: When I looked at item 236 on this page I could not see any reason for it appearing here and I wonder what the change is that brings it into the schedule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The wording of this item is amended by this clause to remove its application to certain materials which are dealt with in another clause. There is no change in the rate. It is simply a change in the wording of the item to narrow its application. The goods that were previously included in it and are now excluded are dealt with in item 522(8). There is an amendment to this resolution with reference to item 410o appearing on page 10.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Before the minister puts the amendment may I ask the committee whether page 9 is agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Items 66b, 142, 160, 187e, 199m, 225c, 236, 343 and 347e agreed to.
Customs tariff-410o. (iii) Mine roof and wall supports and support systems, of metal, including yielding props or chocks, for use underground in mines; parts of the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 12! per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman this is one of the amendments of which I gave notice on May 6. I would ask my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, to move this amendment to resolution No. 2 as applied to item 410o.


Mr. Comlois:: I move:
That resolution No. 2 of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting item 410o (iii) and by substituting therefor the folowing;
410o (iii) Mine roof and wall supports and support systems, of metal, including yielding props or chocks, but not including roof bolts or washers or nuts therefor, for use underground in mines; parts of the foregoing; British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I commended the minister yesterday for the practice of having the amendments to the budget resolutions printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings as soon as he found it was possible to do so and had decided it was necessary to make amendments. I would also commend him for including a brief explanation as to the reason for this amendment

Customs Tariff
but I must say that the explanation given does not seem to be completely satisfactory. It reads:
The proposed change in wording is for purposes of clarification.
As I come from a mining district I wonder whether it is not more than that because I would think that the amendment is considerably less attractive than the original proposal. New words are inserted in the amendment which are restrictive, namely "but not including roof bolts or washers or nuts therefor".


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was never
intended that the item should include the material to which the hon. member has referred, and this is simply a clarification.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, this whole resolution deals with items in the tariff that are bound by GATT. How much flexibility has the minister in making amendments with respect to items that are related to GATT? He indicated to the house on budget night that certain trading had been done and he was able to bring in a new schedule in connection with quite a number of items. He now proposes to amend some of those items. What flexibility and freedom has he in a trading matter of this kind?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that the hon. member is asking about future negotiations?


William Moore Benidickson: No, I am saying that the minister indicated that practically all these items are items that needed to be changed because of adjustments that had to be made in compensation for requests that the Canadian government made with respect to textile items that were bound by GATT. The minister reported to the house on budget night that he was now in a position to bring in these amendments and that they represented the result of a fair amount of negotiation. Since then the minister has introduced amendments to some of these items and I am wondering how much freedom he has in amending and whether he has to go back to the GATT country before he can bring in such an amendment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In this particular case it was the government of the United Kingdom that was concerned. We consulted with them with respect to this further amendment and they have indicated that so far as they are concerned there is no material difference between the amended item and the one introduced on budget night. Therefore I can indicate to the committee that, where negotiations between Canada and another country in whose favour a particular item is

bound result in some agreement which is reflected in a resolution designed to bring about a change in the tariff, if there is any modification of that proposal raised between budget night and the time of presentation it in turn is made a matter of consultation with the country concerned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You go back to the chief supplier and try to get agreement?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We go back to the country in whose favour the item was bound and with whom negotiations had been carried on relating to compensation being offered under GATT.


William Moore Benidickson: Some of the items give me some concern, when I cannot find immediately any change in the situation or in the wording which is obvious. I refer to item 463a. I do not notice any apparent change or reason for the presentation of the amendment.


Jacques Flynn: Do I understand that the amendment has been agreed to?


William Moore Benidickson: I thought we were dealing with the item on page 10, Mr. Chairman.


Jacques Flynn: I wanted to dispose of the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item 410o as amended agreed to.
Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not new to
have in the tariff resolutions a provision that does not appear on the face of it to create any change at all. This has been true of budget resolutions respecting the tariff, I suppose, for many years. In these cases, and certainly in the case referred to by the hon. member, item 463 a, the explanation is that there is a change in the wording of the item. There is no change in the rate, but there is a change in the wording of the item. In this particular case the change applies to the last four lines of the item and the next item. Item 463c is the item which carries out the effect of the change made in the wording of item 463a.


William Moore Benidickson: My recollection was that if there was a change in wording one could usually find the letters italicized.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is true where words are added, but not where words are dropped.
Items 414a, 414e, 463a, 463c, 465a, 465b, 505f and 520a agreed to.


Jacques Flynn: Shall we deal with page 11?
Items 520b, 521 and 522 agreed to.


Jacques Flynn: Shall we deal with page 12?
Customs tariff-523a. Clothing, wearing apparel and other articles, made from woven fabrics wholly of cotton: all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, the component fibre of which is wholly cotton, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: I wonder, with respect to 523a, if the minister would give some indication of the amounts of imports there have been under this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The imports in 1959 totalled $29 million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 523b agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall we deal with page 13?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On page 13, there is an amendment to item 531b, and I would ask my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he would move this amendment, which is another of those of which notice was given on May 6.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I move:
That resolution No. 2 of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting item 531b and by substituting therefor the following:
531b. Rovings and yarns, wholly or in part of wool, or in part of hair, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 71 per cent; and, per pound, 7 cents; mostfavoured-nation tariff, 121 per cent; and, per pound, 17 cents; general tariff, 221 per cent; and per pound, 221 cents.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Customs tariff-524. Woven fabrics, open mesh, wholly or in chief part by weight of cotton, imported for use in the manufacture of fruit or vegetable bags: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff free.
William Moore Benidickson: With respect to item 524, would the minister give an explanation of what is involved here in so far as the change is concerned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 524, Mr. Chairman, provides for the importation of open mesh cotton fabrics used to make fruit and vegetable bags free of duty under both the British preferential and most-favourednation tariffs. This is in accordance with a recommendation of the tariff board and it replaces item 844. The is no change in the rate of duty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 530a, 530b, 530c, 530d, 531a, 531b, as amended, 531c, 531d and 532d agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall we deal with page 14?
79951-0-295J
Customs Tariff


William Moore Benidickson: On page 14, item 532e, what would the rate be if the material were used for interlining?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would depend entirely on the kind of fabric used in the interlining. The various types of fabric each have their own appropriate rates. It would be necessary to know, in any particular case, what was the nature of the fabric.
Items 532e, 550, 551a, 551b, agreed to.
Customs tariff-552a. Woven fabrics, more than 50 per cent by weight, of silk, not containing wool or hair: British preferential tariff, 121 per cent-most-favoured-nation tariff, 221 per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: In so far as the silk item, 552a is concerned, what country is the principal supplier?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is 552a, silk fabrics?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The two principal suppliers are Japan and the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 552b and 553 agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall we deal with page 15?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On page 15, there is an amendment to item 560c. I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, if he would move this amendment. It is another of which notice was given on May 6.


Paul Comtois: I move:
That Resolution No. 2 of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting item 560c and by substituting therefor the following:
560c-Man-made filaments or glass filaments imported for converting into lengths not exceeding 12 inches, for use in the manufacture of textile yarns or flock: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 121 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
560e-Man-made filaments imported for use in the manufacture of cigarette filter tips: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Items 553, 559a, 559b, 559c, 559d, 559e, 559f, agreed to.
Customs tariff-560a. Man-made fibres or glass fibres, not exceeding 12 inches in length: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 121 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: I believe the minister has not followed, with respect to item 560a the recommendation of the tariff board. This is

Customs Tariff
rather intricate work and there may be other departures from recommendations of the tariff board. Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to draw to the committee's attention the other departures that I may have missed, and perhaps he would give us an explanation of this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The change is purely technical and it is not in the rates. It became recognized by Canadian industry, following the release of the report of the tariff board, that the wording recommended by the tariff board should be amended by the deletion of the words, "not containing wool or hair", and by subdividing the recommended item as listed.


William Moore Benidickson: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Jacques Flynn: Shall page 15 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 560b and 560d agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall page 16 carry?
Customs tariff-561a. Yarns and rovings, wholly of man-made fibres or filaments or of glass fibres or filaments, not more advanced than singles, not coloured, with not more than seven turns to the inch: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; mostfavoured-nation tariff, 221 Per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent but not less than, per pound; mostfavoured-nation tariff, 22 cents; general tariff, 28 cents.


William Moore Benidickson: There is quite a complicated comparison there of the proposed rates and the former rates. I wonder whether the minister would give an explanation as to what the over-all picture is in so far as either increasing protection or reducing it is concerned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, but the hon. gentleman lowered his voice and I did not catch what he said.


William Moore Benidickson: In item 561a, yarns and rovings, wholly of man-made fibres and so on, when one compares the new proposals with the former tariff rates it is obvious that this is a fairly complicated relationship. I was wondering whether the minister would indicate what the changes are in so far as an increase or a reduction in protection is concerned. One will note there that formerly some of these materials apparently came in on a British preferential tariff of 5 per cent and that others would be subject to the 20 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The effect of the changes is not very material. One obsolete provision here that goes back for some years has been dropped. The effect of the changes is not very great.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-561b. Yarns and rovings, wholly or in part of man-made fibres or filaments or of glass fibres or filaments, including threads, cords or twines, not containing wool or hair; British preferential tariff, 221 per cent, most-favoured-nation tariff, 221 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent but not less than, per pound: most-favoured-nation tariff, 22 cents; general tariff, 28 cents.
William Moore Benidickson: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: The explanation for that is simple. The principal effect is the removal of the 7J per cent British preferential rate which was written in many years ago and is regarded as obsolete.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 561c, 561d and 561e agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall page 17 carry?
Customs tariff-562d. Umbrella-covering fabrics, impregnated or not, with or without hemmed edges, in lengths of not less than 10 yards, for use in the manufacture of umbrellas having a rib length of not more than 27 inches: British preferential tariff, free: most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.


William Moore Benidickson: I notice an unusual thing in connection with this item, namely a reduction in the general tariff. We do not often encounter that. But in item 562d I note that the general tariff is reduced from 20 per cent to free.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no particular significance to this because nearly

all imports into Canada come from countries enjoying the British preferential or the mostfavoured-nation rate.


William Moore Benidickson: That is what I thought. I was wondering why the change was made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 562a, 562b, 562c, 562e and 562f agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall page 18 carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here is another page with an item to be amended, namely item 563, of which I gave notice earlier. I would ask my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to introduce this amendment which contemplates the insertion of another item, namely item 563a.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: That resolution No. 2 of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by inserting the following item, enumeration ana rates of duty:
563a. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, n.o.p., of which the component of chief value is silk or synthetic textile fibres or filaments: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 27} per cent; general tariff, 50 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Customs tariff-562h. Woven fabrics, wholly or in part of man-made fibres or filaments, not containing silk, .wool or hair, whether or not coated or impregnated, when imported by manufacturers of conveyor or transmission belts or belting containing rubber, for use in the manufacture of such belts or belting: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: On 562h, it would appear that there is a reduction here in the British preferential tariff from 22J per cent to 15 per cent and in the most-favoured-nation tariff there is a change from 25 per cent and 30 cents per pound to 27J per cent ad valorem. Does that actually involve an increase or a reduction in protection when one relates the 27J per cent to the combination of ad valorem and specific duties?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This involves a reduction in duty. The item is as recommended by the tariff board.


William Moore Benidickson: There is a reduction here in the British preferential tariff and the mostfavoured-nation tariff.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 562g, 563, 564, 565 and 573 agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall the resolution carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can we complete that portion of it on page 19?
Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-573a. Linoleum; felt base floor covering not including such materials in which are incorporated synthetic resin sheets or cellulose plastic sheets: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent but not less than, pei pound: general tariff, 4 cents.


William Moore Benidickson: I am dealing with the few items on page 19 at the top of the page. Will the minister give us some indication of what is happening in connection with 573a, linoleum. What effect is this going to have on the Canadian linoleum trade?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This involves a reduction of 2J per cent in the most-favourednation rate. This was part of the negotiated textile package, and was necessary in order to secure the acceptance of that package by other countries. The proposed rates still provide for a very substantial level of protection to Canadian linoleum producers, and a very substantial margin of preference in favour of commonwealth imports.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-586. Anthracite coal; anthracite coal screenings and dust, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff. 50 cents.
William Moore Benidickson: There is naturally a general interest in the coal item. I wonder whether the minister would explain what is the effect here?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The effect of the amendment to item 586 is to expand the tariff item relating to anthracite coal to include anthracite screenings and dust. Screenings and dust were formerly dutiable at 35 cents per ton British preferential and 50 cents per ton most-favoured-nation under item 588. Anthracite coal has been free of duty since 1948.
The removal of the duty on screenings and dust represents compensation to other countries for increases in certain bound textile rates, but it will also assist Canadian producers of pig iron, titanium and other products such as electric battery boxes. In a number of cases anthracite screenings and dust are now being used in place of coke, which enters free under items 587 and 587a. The dominion coal board has been consulted about this proposal and we have been assured that this tariff change will have no adverse effect on Canadian coal production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-624a (5). Toy electric train sets, transformers, parts and accessories for use therewith: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; mostfavoured-nation tariff. 20 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a special interest in item 624a. I wonder whether the minister

Customs Tariff
would tell me the effect of the changes. It deals with toy electric trains.


William Moore Benidickson: It will soon be Christmas.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This new item provides for the importation of toy electric trains and accessories therefor at rates of 5 per cent British preferential and 20 per cent mostfavoured-nation. These trains formerly were dutiable at 10 per cent British preferential and 25 per cent most-favoured-nation, while accessories entered under a variety of items at rates ranging from 5 to 15 per cent British preferential and 22J per cent to 30 per cent most-favoured-nation.
The reductions in rates of duty provided for in this item represent compensation to other countries, primarily the United Kingdom and the United States, for increases which were made in certain bound textile items. Toy electric trains are not produced in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you very much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Moore Benidickson: Some of us have more knowledge or a better appreciation of some of these consumer items from the point of view of price consciousness or eventual prices than we have of some of the industrial items. I was wondering whether between now and the presentation of the bill we might be able to get from the minister some information as to the effect on pricing of any reductions in tariffs that have taken place in these sections. Perhaps between now and the presentation and second reading of the bill his officers might be able to give certain information to the minister as to whether or not when a tariff is reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent it seems to get out to the retail level.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would be quite impossible to trace these in that period. The statistics would not be available as yet. It might take a year or two before it would be possible to compile any statistics which would have any significance for this purpose.
Item 663f agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
3.	Resolved-That schedule A to the Customs Tariff he amended by striking out tariff items 522c (2), 530, 531. 532d, 552, 552a, 553(2), 553(3), 553a, 554b (1), 554b (2), 554b (3), 561a (i), 561a (ii), 562, 562a, 565, 566 and 567 (3), and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
William Moore Benidickson: We are considering a new resolution here on page 19. Am I right in thinking that all these items simply involve renumbering, that there are no changes in duty rates?
[Mr. Pearson.)


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The changes here are simply a matter of renumbering except for item 538g on page 20.


William Moore Benidickson: There is an amendment there?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.
Items 532a, 532b, 532c, 538a, 538b, 538c, 538d, 538e and 538f agreed to.
Customs tariff-538g. Blankets of any material, not to include automobile rugs, steamer rugs, or similar articles: (1) Blankets, wholly or in part of wool or hair: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; and, per pound, 5 cents; most-favoured-nation, 25 per cent; and, per pound, 30 cents; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per pound, 30 cents.
(2) Blankets, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; and, per pound, 5 cents; most-favourednation, 25 per cent; and, per pound, 20 cents; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per pound, 30 cents.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On page 20 there is an amendment to the item to which I have just referred, namely item 538g. I would ask my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he would move this amendment. Perhaps in view of the fact that it has already been printed and placed in the hands of hon. members the committee might dispense with the reading of the amendment.


Jacques Flynn: Would the committee dispense with the reading of the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: That resolution No. 3 of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting item 538g and substituting therefor the following:
538g. Blankets, not including automobile rugs or steamer rugs or similar articles or blankets wholly of cotton: (1) Blankets, wholly or in part of wool or hair: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; and, per pound, 5 cents; most-favourednation tariff, 25 per cent; and, per pound, 20 cents; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per pound, 30 cents.
(2) Blankets, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; and, per pound, 5 cents; most-favourednation tariff, 25 per cent; and, per pound, 20 cents; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per pound, 30 cents.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall resolution 3 as
amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Items 538h, 538i, 538j, 538k, 538m, 538n, 538p agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
4.	Resolved, that schedule B to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out items 1030(a) 1030(b) and the enumerations of goods and the rates of drawback of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting the following item, enumeration of goods and rate of drawback of duty: Item No. 1013; goods, materials; when subject to drawback, when used in the manufacture

of articles enumerated in tariff item 236; portion ol duty (not including special duty or dumping duty) payable as drawback, 50 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: On resolution No. 4, would the minister explain, because this is a drawback item and it also refers to another tariff item, item 236?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolution No. 4 applies to tariff item 1013. The change created by this amendment is technical and is consequential on the amendment of item 236 under resolution No. 2. It was recommended by the tariff board. The effect of the change is to delete an obsolete provision -part (b) of drawback item 1013-which provided a drawback in respect of certain goods, namely cotton gauze for surgical dressings, which have now become free of duty.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
5.	Resolved, that schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items, 124b, 180a, 237a, 399a, 403(c), 409e(l), 437b, 438f(l) and (2), 438g, 440m and 440n, and the enumerations o£ goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty;
Customs tariff-90e. Potatoes, pre-cooked, without admixture beyond the addition of preservatives. in powder, flake or granular form: British preferential tariff; 17J per cent; most-favourednation tariff. 17J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: On item 90e, we have a substantial increase in the import duty from a most-favoured-nation tariff rate free to 17J per cent. I was wondering what information the minister can give to the committee as to the current volume of Canadian products in this direction, the production of powdered potatoes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These instant
potatoes are a comparatively new product being produced in Canada now. The potato processing industry represents a rapidly expanding market for Canadian potatoes. Horticultural interests have asked that this item be included in order to encourage further processing in Canada. Item 90e establishes rates on instant potatoes in line with others imposed on processed vegetables. It does not require negotiation, because there is no GATT commitment involved.
One cannot therefore at this stage of the development of this industry be precise. I might point out, however, that in 1959 a leading Canadian firm completed the construction of a plant in Alliston, Ontario and has invested a sum, we are told, in excess of $1 million in land, plant and equipment. I think we would have to wait until the industry is a little further established before
Customs Tariff
being able to give precise figures in reply to the question asked by the hon. member.


William Moore Benidickson: Just one plant so far?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Only one as yet, but it is expected that more will be constructed and brought into production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 124b and 180a agreed to.
Customs tariff-237a. Deuterium oxide or heavy water; uranium in the form of pigs, ingots, billets or bars: British preferential tariff, free; on and after July 1, 1962: free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; on and after July 1, 1962: 15 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent; on and after July 1, 1962: 25 per cent.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister would explain the changes in 237a?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item which concerns heavy water and uranium metal merely renews for a further two-year period free entry under the most-favoured-nation tariff of heavy water and uranium metal in the form of pigs, ingots, billets and bars. The date appearing in the item is changed from July 1, 1960 to July 1, 1962. In 1959 imports of heavy water amounted to $2,700,000. There were no imports of uranium metal.
Tariff item-399a. Pipes or tubes of iron or steel, commonly known as "oil-country goods", being casing or tubing and fittings or couplings therefor; sucker rods, pony rods, polished rods and couplings therefor; seismograph drilling bits, in sizes three and one half inches to four and three quarter inches inclusive; all of the foregoing for use In connection with natural gas or oil wells: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: With regard to item 399a on page 23, this would involve an increase in duty with respect to seismograph drilling bits, which I understand are used in the oil industry. I wonder if the minister would indicate what prompted him to increase this.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These bits are used in drilling for oil and gas and are now being made in Canada in sizes ranging from 3J inches to 4f inches inclusive. In future the same rates of duty will apply to these bits as apply on pipes or tubes of iron or steel commonly known as oil country goods and as were extended by last year's budget to sucker rods. It does not require negotiation, because there is no GATT commitment involved. The Canadian petroleum association does not oppose the change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 403 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-409e (1). Spraying and dusting machines and attachments therefor, including hand sprayers, for agricultural or horticultural purposes; apparatus for the destruction of predatory animals by the discharge of poisonous cartridges and poisonous cartridges for such apparatus; automatic explosive bird-scaring devices; apparatus specially designed for sterilizing bulbs; pressure testing apparatus for determining maturity of fruit; pruning hooks; pruning shears; dehorning instruments; magnets for veterinary use; parts of the foregoing; British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
William Moore Benidickson: I think 409e was the item which was spelled out in the brief from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, a brief which was no doubt presented to the government and, I think, to all parties last October. I think everyone will be glad to see that it has received attention in this form.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 409e, 437b, 438f, 438g, and 438h agreed to.
Customs tariff-440m. Aircraft, not including engines, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe: 1. When of types or sizes not made in Canada; British preferential tariff, free; mostfavoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 27J per cent.
On and after July 1, 1962: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 271 per cent.
2. When of types and sizes made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 271 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: With regard to this item, has the minister in contemplation any new regulations other than those with which we have been familiar?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This simply carries forward the old protection.


William Moore Benidickson: You are not contemplating changing the normal type of regulation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 440n agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions 6 and 7 agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Donald	M.	Fleming	(Minister	of
Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-73, to amend the Excise Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Donald	M.	Fleming	(Minister	of
Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-74, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
tMr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
304. Departmental administration including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $1,926,670.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I will address myself mainly to the subject of British football pools but before proceeding I wish to direct a question to the minister. In the committee of this house in which the inquiry into the management of the Jacques Cartier bridge was conducted there was some discussion about just what degree of privacy is accorded to letters of a personal and confidential nature and the committee's actions were somewhat restricted in this respect.
On almost every occasion that I have received a letter from the minister about a question raised by a constituent-I have checked with other hon. members and they confirm having had a similar experience- the reply relating to the post office problem comes back marked "personal and confidential". I have had to break that confidence in the sense that I have forwarded the information to the people concerned. I would appreciate knowing, as I am sure would other hon. members, what significance the minister reads into the phrase "personal and confidential" which he puts on most correspondence with members of parliament. I do not raise this in a critical way and if he wishes to explain now I would appreciate hearing his comments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers I wish to say a word on the point raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I have received a number of letters of this character from the minister, most of them quite agreeable. The hon. gentleman always furnishes me with a carbon copy of his reply which leads me to believe that the information contained therein is not so confidential that he expects me to keep both copies in my file. I have just put that down to the minister's inexperience and sent the carbon copy on to the person who made the inquiry from me.
Speaking seriously I think it is not a desirable practice. The minister well knows that he made my life rather miserable during that quite protracted period when I was acting postmaster general and the hon. gentleman sat on this side of the house. I received many letters to answer such as the minister now receives and it never once occurred to me to mark my replies "personal and confidential" because I thought they dealt with public

affairs and ought to be publishable. I believe it would be a good idea if the minister would drop that custom.
(Translation):


Mr. Dupuis:: May I add a few remarks to those of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher).
We are often called upon to supply information to our constituents. When we apply to the minister, the information we get, as mentioned earlier by the hon. member, is always marked "personal and confidential". It would probably not be an exaggeration to say that every letter of the minister bears that same label.
I should like to give the house an example in that respect, and ask the minister for comments and an explanation of the position he took.
I was invited to the inauguration of the automatic toll collection system which is now in operation on Jacques Cartier bridge. The day before the ceremony a last-minute letter marked "personal and confidential" was delivered to my home. I was away at the time and nobody dared open the letter, so of course I did not get the message concerning the ceremony to which I had been invited. As a result, I could not attend due to the fact that the letter was marked "personal and confidential" and that no one would open it for that reason.
The minister is continuing this practice and any correspondence you get from him is always personal and confidential.
A resident of a village in my riding wanted to know if there was any hope of getting a better postal service, and again the minister's reply was of a personal and confidential nature.
I should appreciate it very much if the minister would tell us why, in the case of an invitation like the one I received for the Jacques Cartier bridge ceremony, his invitation letter had to be marked personal and confidential, especially when press photos were taken and when the inauguration ceremony was widely publicized.
In view of the many complaints he received in that connection, could the minister explain his rather strange attitude in a parliament such as ours?
(Text):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, as we have seen I am not the only person who complains about the letters marked "personal and confidential" which we have received by the dozens. A few weeks ago I requested permission from the minister to divulge the contents of some 79951-0-296
Supply-Post Office
letters to my constituents. I still await permission from the minister to forward this information to them.
I noticed an interesting item in this morning's newspaper. I know that the Post Office Department is an important one but that the Postmaster General still manages to find time to travel and to speak of other matters. The hon. gentleman used to attend conferences of one kind and another but he was loath to attend the conferences and meetings called by employees of the department at which they discussed their salaries and working conditions. Many such meetings have been held during his tenure of office but I could count on my fingers the number of times the hon. gentleman attended. The minister also used to visit postmasters all across Canada and at first these visits were successful. He is a sociable fellow and at that time was full of promises and commitments. They thought he was a god. I now suspect they think he is the opposite. Perhaps he does not make these visits today because he is not as well received as originally.
The minister is foxy and knows that the best way to accomplish his purpose is to go outside of Canada. I would not say he abuses this practice but he recently went to the United States and spoke about the great flow of United States periodicals containing Canadian advertisements that come to this country. The minister will remember that while he was in opposition in 1956 the Liberal government, fully aware of the situation, wanted to protect Canadian periodicals and magazines, and imposed an excise tax of 20 per cent on United States magazines and periodicals. If I am wrong I am sure I will be corrected. Every minister on the treasury benches today talked against that legislation, and even the Postmaster General was against it. So much so that after they took power, in 1958 I think, they repealed the legislation and abolished the tax.


William McLean Hamilton: On
a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


The Deputy Chairman:: I imagine the minister is going to raise the same point of order that I was going to raise. The hon. member should confine his remarks to the estimates.


Azellus Denis: Yes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order. I do not wish to cut off the hon. member in his discussion but you, Mr. Chairman, recognized the hon. member for Port Arthur who raised initially the question of the words "personal and confidential" being marked on letters, and then indicated that perhaps the Postmaster General wanted to answer that particular question. The hon.

Supply

Post Office
member for Port Arthur then took his seat so that the question might be answered but he still retained his right to the floor to make the remarks that he wanted to make when he first gained recognition. That was the thought in the mind of the hon. member for Port Arthur, and I think the Postmaster General intended to explain the words "personal and confidential". The hon. member for Port Arthur graciously relinquished the floor on this specific point only.


William Moore Benidickson: I had a point to make as well. I find that the Postmaster General and the defeated candidate in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River have become very chummy and I think they correspond back and forth quite frequently. I have the impression that perhaps this individual is not keeping the secrets of the minister because he is inclined to go to the press quite often. I am wondering whether he also gets letters from the minister marked "personal and confi-denial" more frequently than not.


Charles Edward Rea: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena, I think we all try to keep things together as much as we can. If the minister wishes to answer the question now he may do so, or later. If not, I recognize the hon. member for St. Denis.


Azellus Denis: I was speaking about the excise tax and explaining what happened under the previous government and what happened under the newly elected government in order to prove that we were right at the time and they were wrong when they took power and did away with the excise tax.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I have the idea that we are on the post office estimates and not on the Department of Finance estimates.


Azellus Denis: I am trying to prove-[DOT]


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I thought perhaps the hon. member for St. Denis was coming to a point, and I was waiting to see if he was going to complete it before calling him to order.


Azellus Denis: That is what I was coming to. The minister has it within his power to stop this flow of United States reviews and magazines if he believes, as he said in the United States, that it is invidious, and so forth. He can raise the postal rate on United States magazines and periodicals coming into Canada and this is the point I wanted to make.
Every Canadian newspaper reported what the minister said in the United States. I do

not think he was so successful in the United States. I do not know whether he is so well organized, as far as publicity is concerned, because any United States newspaper that said anything about the conference said that the minister also spoke.
I wish to emphasize this point. As far as publicity for the minister is concerned, the opportunities are wide open in Canada. According to the newspapers, the Postmaster General had serious reservations. He described the flow of United States advertising as invidious. He used words that most of us would not understand. But still it means that they were wrong to repeal the excise tax which we imposed; they were wrong to abolish the excise tax. They have abolished it, and now that he is the Postmaster General there is one way in which he can stop the flow of these United States magazines. I ask him to do more than have serious reservations, to do more than mention the invidious techniques. I do not know whether the cost of the electronic machine is an obstacle to the Postmaster General which is preventing him from looking into the question of the United States periodicals.
In speaking about this electronic machine may I say unfortunately for the Postmaster General my brother received a letter which passed through the electronic stamping machine, and it has a notation on it "Damaged by stamping machine". You can see, Mr. Chairman, the way this new electronic machine works. You would swear, Mr. Chairman, that the Postmaster General is practising blackmail because the envelope is black. What was a monster of $1 million is now a big, big project of $3 million.
I should like the Postmaster General to examine this letter received by my brother. Mind you, I have no friends in the post office. I suppose those who have been looking after this matter are members of the flying squad that the Postmaster General has created since he got into power. This is the patronage that he was quarrelling about a few years ago.
I am going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, as far as partonage is concerned, that most of the recommendations made by members of parliament opposite to the flying squad are now working in the provincial election in Quebec. If he wants to take advantage of that information; if he wants to fire the absentees on the flying squad in Montreal, I ask him to telephone and find out how many of the flying squad are at work at present.
Last week most of the widows and old women who had worked four hours a day for years worked only three hours a day. Do

you think it is worth while for an old woman to pay her fare, go down town, get something to eat while she is working and get back to her house, after working only three hours a day for $1 and a few cents an hour? Is it worth while for her to go down to the central post office and work only three hours? Do you think it is humane, Mr. Chairman? Those widows and those old and poor women have been working for years and now they work only three hours a day. What happened? Those call girls, as they are called in Montreal, recommended by members of parliament now in power, are called in and work eight hours a day.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that not only is it funny but it is shameful. When a man like the Postmaster General complained so much about patronage I think he should be ashamed of the way he has let his officials employ these flying squads while hundreds of young men have passed their examination and are waiting for jobs in the Post Office Department. He knows very well just why he has no excuse. A person passes his examination to be a mail carrier or a clerk. He is successful and is ranked first, tenth or twentieth. There is a list but the list is good only for one year, and those who are on the waiting list during that year are kept waiting for two reasons, the flying squad and the electronic machine. The Postmaster General should check both systems.
Having regard to all the criticisms that the Postmaster General made while he was in the opposition, I do not see how he has improved these matters in any way. Of course, he did not know that he would be lucky enough to occupy the office of Postmaster General. Now he has to do something. He has to put into operation what he promised to do and what he criticized the government of the time for not doing. For the time being I think the Postmaster General would render better service by checking on what he calls the great electronic machine project and telling us how many people it will put out of work. How many people will have their places taken by these electronic machines? Of course, the Postmaster General has said that no one will be fired on account of this machine, but no one else will be hired. He said that the only ones who may suffer are those who are working part time but he will agree with me that more than half of his employees are parttime workers.


William McLean Hamilton: do not agree with that at all.


Azellus Denis: If the minister does not agree with me then he does not agree with himself
79951-0-296 j
Supply-Post Office
because that is what he said, as reported in Hansard.


William McLean Hamilton: No,
and you cannot find it.


Azellus Denis: If I do, will you resign? I thank you for your graciousness, Mr. Chairman, and I ask the Postmaster General to answer the questions I asked a few days ago. He complained because I made a long speech. My speech was long because I asked so many questions. It was not long enough because I do not think he has answered more than two of the questions that I asked. I want to know how many kinds of electronic machines there are in the Post Office Department. They talk about calculators, they talk about stamping machines, they talk about segregator machines and they talk about accounting machines. I do not know if there is an electronic postmaster general. I should like to know how many of these machines are in operation. Are they in operation to gain experience and how long will it take to gain experience? How many will be there permanently? How many are rented from England at a rate of almost $2,000 a month? That is what the committee on public works was told last year. To be exact, it is $1,885 per month for the Univac 120. Right or wrong? For how many years are we going to rent that machine? It is good or it is not good. If it is good, let us buy it. If it is not good, let us end the deal. If there are Canadian machines that can do the same job, let us buy Canadian. It is a good idea when we have people unemployed. Instead of buying United States scooters, let us buy Canadian bicycles. It is cheaper because they do not need any gas and no drivers' licences are required. A bicycle can go closer to a house and there is less danger of robbery. As much as 200 pounds of mail can be carried. Look at the grocery stores. They have messengers delivering groceries ir every part of the city. Why not use ar. ordinary tricycle?
The Postmaster General will answer that the department is motorized, but do not live beyond your means. If you have not the means to buy an automobile or scooter buy a bicycle and if you have not got the money to buy a bicycle go on foot. Let us be fair to all the mail carriers who are still on foot and have to carry their bags. Whatever their load is, they have to carry their load of mail on their shoulders up to the first or second floors. After two or three years experience you had better decide whether it is still a matter of experience before you are beaten in the next election.
I should like the Postmaster General to decide if it is going to be a matter of gaining

Supply-Post Office
experience for years or whether we are going to adopt a three-wheel scooter or a four-wheel scooter or something else. I think it is about time we had more information about the scooter. The minister gave some information last week about scooters but he did not give us the prices that were paid for them. He did not give us the depreciation on the scooters. He did not compare the cost of a mail carried with a scooter and the cost of a mail carrier without a scooter. If he says that the scooters do not replace any employees, what is the use of spending thousands and thousands of dollars to have a new experience or to modernize the post office if it does not help to save money and if on the other hand it helps to prevent people from getting work? Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on electronic machines and on scooters. This might have been a good idea in the prosperous Liberal years but I think it is a little bit out of this world as far as the Conservative party is concerned.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, when I foolishly yielded the floor in the hope the minister was going to answer I had had a preliminary word with the hon. member who just sat down and he indicated to me that he did not have a speech ready but only a few questions. I must congratulate him on the quick way he built up his few questions into a major address.


William McLean Hamilton: It
sounded as if it had not been prepared too.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Supply-Post Office
that in at least one of these countries the laws are similar to those in Canada. In other words, in one part of the sacred commonwealth the postmaster general of that particular place closes his eyes to the fact that a fairly large business and interest is developing.
It seems to me that the point we should keep in mind here, in so far as the post office is concerned, is that there is a potentially great revenue available to the Post Office Department. I might make the other point here that potentially, if I may judge by the fact that these large circulation Toronto papers are going to the trouble of printing the results of these pools, there must be people playing in Canada at the present time and they must be using the mails in some way. I do not know how they have managed it. When I get a letter from someone in the British pools they always send me an addressed envelope so that I can manage to reach them and not have my letters intercepted by the minister's officials, even though our correspondence is not dealing with the actual playing of the pools.
But there is a great potential revenue here. At the same time there is what must be considerable cost to the Post Office Department at the present time in trying to prevent the playing of these pools. Obviously if the government has sent out 5,000 letters in this form in 1959 and obviously if they opened
10,000	pieces of mail they have gone to the trouble of checking up on all those promoters and trying to block them all, and have spent a considerable amount of money in the process.
We know the difficulties the Post Office Department has with other forms of gambling and lotteries that use the mails. I think of the army sweepstakes, the army and navy stakes and various groups like that. It would seem to me that in the Canadian puritan tradition the minister and his officials are carrying out a policy imprinted into the law that is considerably out of date. I think we are all aware that in this House of Commons during the hockey season and during the football season any one of us is no sooner inside the door of the building on almost any morning than he is offered a football pool ticket for sale. I think the minister is aware of this situation. That is spreading through almost every community in Canada. I know that in my community in my constituency I am usually approached to buy a football pool ticket in the Canadian football pool or in the hockey pool. 1 know that one of the organizations of civil servants in Ottawa supports most of its charitable work by running such pools. These pools, however,

do not happen to use the mails. I am not suggesting that there is any large scale attempt in so far as the Canadian pools are concerned to use the mails.
But the very prevalence of this matter right across this country suggests to me that the minister may be the one to appeal to to lead in the change or re-orientation of our laws and to be more open-minded in this regard. I would think that in any change or re-orientation one of the things that needs to be in the mind of the government is the possibility of revenue and also the possibility of encouraging sport. I have no particular brief for the British football pools. I happen to like to play them because I am interested in the game and I follow the English sporting scene. But for the great majority of Canadians we have our own sporting scene and our own fixtures and practices right across the country. It seems to me that we should be considering seriously or that the government should be doing so with its great respect for British traditions and practices some kind of legalized arrangement so that the ordinary person in Canada can carry on and take part in a properly run legalized system of betting in this particular form.
Many members may consider this is a rather shocking or foolish thing to introduce into this particular forum, although a number of members have put on the order paper resolutions indicating that they support various kinds of legalized pools for various worthy purposes. Usually the most worthy purposes considered is something like hospitals or other charitable organizations. 1 should like to make the observation here that scaling or determining that kind of operation for a charitable purpose is very difficult in that it is very hard to know how to choose.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think the Chair has been quite lenient with the hon. member in allowing him to go into those details into which he has gone. It is quite all right as far as they concern the post office but I do not think the procedure is any concern of this committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think I have made the main point I wanted to make with regard to this matter, namely that the post office has been spending a considerable amount of its efforts in trying to block this particular practice. In other parts of the commonwealth these attempts are not carried out. My argument is that this practice is a relatively harmless one. I am not asking the minister to close his eyes to the fact that it goes on but I am also suggesting to him that the practice is continuing despite his efforts to stop it. When you have a considerable number of Canadians operating in the breach of a particular

law which the minister is trying to enforce it indicates that there is no real public support for the law.
I am suggesting that it is in the interests of the Postmaster General to have this particular matter changed. I should also like to suggest that in the search of this particular government for worthy motives we have been told in this house repeatedly that we could look no further than the mother of parliaments for example in our procedure and the way we operate. I am underlining that in this particular field we have the kind of operation that has been legalized and has been controlled and is very definitely looked upon with favour by the mother of parliaments. I am just suggesting to the minister that here is an opportunity for him to put us in line with that particular institution which is rather sacred to the Conservatives.
There are a couple of other aspects of the minister's operation that I wanted to bring to his attention. A number of people in my particular area, which tends to have a number of communities in size from 1,500 to 2,000 or 3,000 people, have made the suggestion to me that it is almost impossible for them to expect or hope that they will get door to door delivery of mail as provided in most cities. This means that the majority of them are obliged to go down to the central post office. This may not seem to be a particular burden but I should like to point out that in a community such as Sioux Lookout or Hornepayne-which happen to be communities in which I am interested-these communities were built at a time when real estate was bitten off in rather large chunks. From many points in Hornepayne it is well over a mile to the post office and in Sioux Lookout it is a distance of 1J miles to 2 miles for many of the people who reside in that place.
It has been suggested to me by the people of these communities that the post office authorities might consider establishing the kind of boxes that are used for suburban mail delivery in suburban areas such as we have in the south part of Ottawa. We have not reached the stage of door to door deliveries. However we might have some system like that. This kind of decentralized distribution would be of great advantage.
One of the other points I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister was the accuracy of the rural post office routes or the roster of mail recipients along rural post office routes as provided by the department. I believe it is the practice to supply, or make available, to members of parliament a list of all the people receiving mail at a certain date in various communities. I have no idea
Supply-Post Office
how this list is compiled, but I have tried to make use of it and I find that it seems to be remarkably out of date. I can give an example of two communities where I took names. I sent mail-call it propaganda if you wish-to all the names on the list. I got a remarkable number back, and I discovered on checking that some of the people to whom I had sent were university students who had been employed there a year ago; they were just there for the summer, but somehow when the list was compiled their names were still on it. I would just like to know how up to date these lists are and what attempt is made to ensure that errors and redundancies do not occur in them.
One of the complaints I have had from people living in the city of Port Arthur relates to the once a day delivery and the fact that in certain communities such as the lakehead where planes and trains which deliver all mail into the communities come in at a certain time it is quite possible, if you have either a morning or an afternoon delivery, that you may have to wait an extra 24 hours for mail. I know in one particular case that a businessman in Fort William told me it was preferable to have his office mail addres-dressed to his home because it got to him before the mail at his office. I have had the argument put to me in Port Arthur that the situation is quite the reverse.
I do not know what the minister could do in this regard, but it seems to me every possible adjustment should be made in relation to the time the majority of mail happen to reach a community. It seems regrettable that mail coming in on the evening plane from the east, which I gather is the largest shipment into the lakehead, should be distributed the following morning to some business sections while other business sections have to wait until the afternoon. I do not know how exact this is, but the situation does seem regrettable. I am not arguing that the minister should introduce special twice a day delivery in our community, but it certainly seems to me it would be worth while to check the situation to ensure that the mail reaches business establishments at the earliest opportunity.
As far as the residential areas are concerned, I wonder if it would be possible to make switches from time to time so that certain areas would get delivery in the morning for a certain period of time and then the section would have to wait until the afternoons, taking turn and turn about, somewhat on the lines of mothers sending children to kindergarten schools for one year in the mornings and one year in the afternoons. It is a method of evening up the

Supply-Post Office
balance. If there is unfairness in having to wait for mail, it seems to me that this unfairness should be shifted round in the community so that each part shares it equally.
The other point I want to draw to the minister's attention is that boat traffic in the lakehead continues to grow and gives every indication of rising steadily. The hon. gentleman will remember that several people in the lakehead who are interested in this matter have brought up the question of a marine post office, and the argument has been: not yet, the situation does not justify it. I hope the minister's officials at the lakehead or at the North Bay office which I understand is the central office for that region are watching the situation closely and are going to try to do something about deciding when the lakehead will be ready for this marine post office. I might point out to the minister that there are prospects that the shipping season will be lengthening all the time. It seems to me it is pushing into the middle of December now and that it is tending to start a little earlier each year. If the minister could find someone with the boat facilities who would be prepared to take on the work on a trial basis I wonder if it would be possible for the post office to make an arrangement on a trial basis for one year in order to give this marine post office a try to see whether it is worth while.
I hope later on to have the opportunity of bringing up a further point. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to clearing up the question of the letters marked "personal and confidential"-an endorsement which appears on the correspondence of almost all members of parliament. I have a hunch that this is one of the most broken labels in Canada, and I would like an explanation of why the minister introduced this practice or why he carries it on.


Mr. McLennan:: In the few remarks I have to make on this subject I should like first of all to compliment the postmen and the rural mail carriers who battle the elements to deliver the mail as best they can to the Canadian people and who seldom get the credit they deserve.
I should also like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General once again the very bad service they get in the North Surrey and Delta areas of British Columbia. In these fast growing areas with a population of between 60,000 and 70,000 I understand on good authority it takes at least three days to get first class local mail delivered and up to 10 days to get second and third class local mail. I am told that a letter mailed in Clover-dale to the town of Newton takes a minimum of four days. The ex-reeve of Surrey has

told me on different occasions when he was reeve of Surrey and lived in Newton he mailed letters to his home and it was at least four days before they were delivered.
I have in my hand a letter posed in White Rock on January 2, addressed to the local member of the legislature in Surrey, British Columbia. According to the postmark it was delivered on January 12, ten days later. The distance involved is approximately 10 or 12 miles. It may be said that this is an isolated case but I know it is not. I have received hundreds of complaints about similar delays in that area. The historic pony express of the last century, I am sure, gave better service than we often get in North Surrey.
According to the Stevenson Kellogg industrial survey, and the one conducted by the Western Development and Power Corporation it is predicted that by 1970 the area known as Whalley will have a population of over
70,000	and the area known as Newton will have a population of over 50,000. Approximately 45 years ago a post office was established in the Newton area. True it was small with a public lobby of about 100 square feet, with 50 post office boxes and a waiting list of some 200 but with an expanding population which is now over 20,000 various local organizations have been clamouring for years for better facilities. These organizations include the chamber of commerce, the Canadian Legion, the Canadian ratepayers' association and other groups.
The postal officials in Vancouver, aware of conditions, went out and investigated. In company with the reeve they selected property for a new building. Plans were drawn and the former minister of public works announced that a new building was to be erected, construction of which was to commence last fall. You can readily understand the consternation and feeling of disappointment of the people of Newton when the Postmaster General announced that they were not to get a new post office but that he was going to close the existing one and their mail was to be delivered to New Westminster. The minister announced that a subpost office to handle stamps and money orders would be opened in the back of a drug or shoe store. This retrograde step was vigorously opposed by the organizations to which I have referred and by many residents of the community who had worked for years to get better postal facilities and service.
In view of the strong protests the postal officials from Vancouver met with the municipal council and stated that the present plan was drawn up by their field representative but they had an open mind and did not wish to go against the wishes of the people.

Similar statements were made by the Postmaster General in letters he sent in reply to protests he received.
I am at a loss to know how the organizations could put up a stronger protest but the department ignoring the assurances they had given are now proceeding with their plan. In effect, the department have said, "This is the postal service we have decided is best for you and it is what you are going to take regardless of how you feel about it."
At the same meeting with council the officials stated that the subpostal station now located at Whalley was quite adequate to service this large population. However, they later admitted it was much too small and that they had been pressing for larger quarters for several years. From this it would appear they were endeavouring to mislead the public. It is apparent the Postmaster General has again been misled when he states in a letter:
The time may come when it will be desirable to have a central post office in North Surrey, but such a post office is not required now and the time at which it will be necessary lies a long way in the future.
It is utter nonsense to say that a post office is not required. To support my argument let me read from an article which appeared in the December 22, 1959 issue of the Vancouver Sun:
Mailmen Criticize Inadequate Space-Newton Ratepayers Backed in Drive for Post Office
Newton ratepayers have found unexpected support in their campaign to have a post office built in the South Surrey area.
Their allies-unhappy rural mail carriers.
The men who deliver mail on the rural routes south of Whalley complain that they've been shuffled into inadequate quarters for the Christmas rush.
"The post office people knew two years ago that the North Surrey post office was inadequate," complained one of the rural mail deliverers.
"Because there wasn't enough room for us to work in the North Surrey post office, they put us into the unfinished Whalley Legion building.
When we started last Monday, there were no lights and no toilet facilities. We had to string our own lights. They hooked up one toilet Tuesday, but there are men and women working there, and it isn't enough."
The rural mail carriers say it isn't the local postmaster's fault.
"He's doing all he can with too little space. It's the post office people in Ottawa."
The carriers would also like to know what happened to plans to build a postal station at Newton.
"We heard that the land had been purchased and that money had been allotted for a building."
The only reason we were able to get the inadequate space in the Legion building is because they aren't ready to open to the public yet. What's going to happen next year? We may be in tents, for all we know.
He concluded by saying that the planned Newton post office would have been perfect for the rural carriers to work from, and asked why the plans hadn't been carried out.
Supply-Post Office
I am not criticizing the Postmaster General because I realize he does not know local conditions. However, the hon. gentleman must accept the responsibility for having accepted the wrong advice. The minister must know in view of the number of protests that something is wrong with the postal service in this area. In my opinion what is needed is a postal substation in the Whalley district to handle the large volume of commercial and residential mail in the area and another one in Newton for distribution of the considerable volume of mail throughout this industrial community where many light industries are locating and where the British Columbia Telephone Company has established its central billing office for the whole Fraser valley which will create a considerable amount of mail. These people should be afforded adequate mail service.
I have employed a considerable amount of restraint in presenting this matter. I feel that the population in this area is larger than 50 per cent of the counties in Ontario and I doubt if there is a county in that province that does not have at least a dozen post offices. I feel that the people in the districts to which I have referred are being discriminated against. The residents there are being used as guinea pigs by the postal officials.
I suggest to the minister that he personally investigate the situation in these districts and talk to the people concerned in regard to the postal service they have been receiving rather than consulting with some of his officials who have been leading him up the garden path. (Translation):


Mr. Meunier:: I wish to put the following questions to the Postmaster General: Why did Canada fail to issue a postage stamp in honour of refugees in 1960, while most other countries did so?
We know that 1960 is world refugee year. We also know that out of 40 million refugees, 15 million are still homeless.
Most stamps issued by other countries bear the symbol used by the United Nations, an uprooted tree.
By issuing a stamp, we would have made a charitable and humanitarian gesture. It seems to me that it would have been advisable for Canada to make known to all countries what it has done for world refugees and to point out the support given in the past and still being given to those outcasts of fortune.
Since many countries, 70 to be exact, have issued such a stamp, I ask the minister to tell us why Canada has not issued a refugee stamp.

Supply-Post Office
(Text):


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief. Before asking the Postmaster General a few questions, as a former postmaster I should like to commend him, his deputy, the department and staff on the fine work that is being done and the splendid cooperation I have received, as well as others, in our daily inquiries and occasional problems.
My first question concerns salaries of a district director and area superintendent. These men have a big job to do. My second question is, what consideration has been given to my previous proposals that part-time assistants receive holidays with pay and superannuation benefits?
I was pleased to read in the budget speech of the increased salaries for civil servants. I hope that those working in the Post Office Department throughout Canada in the $6,000 bracket and under will be given first consideration.


Mr. Winch:: The last time that this matter came up was May 27. At that time I raised what I thought was a very important question, and just about a minute before we adjourned that day the minister spent about half a minute in replying, and I admit that I said at that time I certainly was not satisfied with the reply. The last words that were said before adjournment were by myself, as found in Hansard at page 4306, where I said:
X should like to continue this discussion when these estimates come up again. The minister cannot get away with that type of fast answer on this important subject.
I am taking this opportunity to do what I said I was going to do and to ask for more consideration and a more detailed answer from the minister on a subject which I think is of the utmost importance.
I should like to thank the minister for having supplied us on May 27 with a cost ascertainment table for the fiscal year 1958-59. I should like to refer to this table. In a study of it we find that on first-class mail the Post Office Department made a profit of 1.827 cents per piece handled; on domestic air mail there was a profit of 17.665 cents per piece handled. But if you go to second-class mail you will find that on the transient there was a loss of 9.339 cents per piece and on publishers there was a loss of 4.084 cents per piece.
In an answer to a question during this session the minister himself stated that in 1958-59 disbursements over receipts amounted to $21,690,000 for newspapers and periodicals. The answer is to be found in Hansard of this year at page 1641.
I have maintained, and this group maintains, that it is not right in the Post Office

Department for the first-class ordinary and first-class air mail to be subsidizing the publishers; that is, the newspapers and the periodicals of this country. If it is not possible for that phase of the Post Office Department's operations to stand on its own feet and if it does require a subsidy, then that subsidy should not come from the users of ordinary and domestic air mail, it should come from the treasury of the Dominion of Canada. I made a statement to that effect when I spoke on May 27. What was the reply of the Postmaster General? I quote from page 4306 of Hansard of May 27. In the second column, half way down, this is what the minister had to say:
Finally, so far as publishers' mail is concerned, the distribution of publications, I would merely say to him that this operation shows up as a loss on the operating statement of the Post Office Department.
I want to emphasize what the minister said on May 27. I continue:
However, I take the view, and past governments have done, and I am sure succeeding governments will do, that we have a responsibility to enable the free and easy flow of information to all people in this country, and that magazines, books and newspapers, as well as other printed material of this sort, which helps to inform our people and raise the level of information, are entitled to consideration when postal rates are set.
The minister made it clear in that statement that as far as he is concerned as Postmaster General the delivery of newspapers, magazines and other publications of that nature, because it is a service of information to the people, has to be considered when the rates are set, and I am sure, therefore, he has no objection whatsoever-he is not suggesting any change-to their being subsidized, as his own figures prove, by the first-class ordinary mail and the domestic mail in Canada.
Perhaps the Postmaster General may ask why I said at that last minute on that day that he was not going to get away with that kind of a fast reply. I said that because I cannot understand-I think he owes a statement to the committee and to the people of Canada-why he has so completely changed his policy and point of view between the time he sat on this side of the house and becoming the Postmaster General. In the years that he sat on this side of the house he rose in his place and declared time after time that on this specific issue the carriage of newspapers, magazines and other publications should not be a charge on any other phase of postal deliveries; that if they required anything in the way of a subsidy it should come from the national treasury.
I think it is absolute hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman, for a man to sit for years on this side of the house and make declarations which

I took in honesty, in sincerity and in principle, and then when he has the power to do something about it to deny the principle which he has espoused. I am going to prove that that was the minister's principle by reading from his statement in Hansard. There are several of them but this is the most definite one. I refer to Hansard of 1953-54, volume II, January 14, 1954, at page 1117. The hon. member-he was not then a minister-started his speech on page 1115, at the top of the page, left-hand column. Here is what he had to say on the particular issue I am discussing, at page 1117, at the bottom of the first column of that page:
There is every reason in the world why this $131 million should be spent for what it is being spent for, but there is absolutely no reason why it should be charged to other users of the post office services. We should not load one class of mail with the costs of another class but we should rather bring out into the open and pay from general government revenues any special costs of this in the operation of a department.
How much more definite can a person be than the minister was when he made that statement at the time he sat on this side of the house? Yet when he is in a position to do something about the matter he no longer talks about it not being charged against other classes of mail or about it being paid out of general government revenues, something for which he fought so hard, wonderfully and eloquently when he sat on this side of the house.


William McLean Hamilton: May
I ask the hon. member a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


William McLean Hamilton: Was
that not in the debate at the time the former government was proposing an increase in the postage rate and was this not one of the arguments used against instituting that increase?


Harold Edward Winch: Absolutely, but how does that change what the minister said about the principle? He said that we should not load one class of mail with the cost of another class and that we should bring the matter out into the open and pay any special costs of this kind in the operation of the department out of general government revenues. There was an increase in the postage rate then, but according to the information the minister gave us on May 27 we still have the position where one class of mail is not meeting the cost whereas a profit is being made from first class ordinary and domestic air mail. The minister also said on May 27, and I read his statement, that the dissemination of information by way of magazines, newspapers and other publications has to be considered but
Supply-Post Office
he did not say anything in line with what he has said so often in the house in the past about the profits from other services not having to bear the deficiency incurred with respect to this service. The Postmaster General when in opposition was the chief critic of the Liberal postmaster general and I heard him say many times that that kind of cost should be met out of the general revenues of Canada.
I say that this is an important issue. I say that the Postmaster General has completely reneged on what to him was a matter of principle when he sat on this side of the house and that in all honesty he should bring in changes as soon as possible in line with his criticisms of his predecessor.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments to make on the main item of the minister's estimates. I wish to draw the attention of the committee and more especially that of the minister to a situation in my province with regard to what are known as revenue post offices. For some strange reason the minister's department adopts the attitude that the small post office buildings in small settlements in the province, which were owned by the government of Newfoundland prior to union and hence were transferred to the government of Canada after union, should now be replaced by modern post office buildings which are most adequate to serve the needs of these particular areas. This often results in much larger settlements, some of them fairly close to these settlements which have the advantages of post office buildings, still having to put up with small inadequate postal services which in most cases are provided by the postmaster in his own premises.
I understand that the ruling of the Post Office Department is that where the revenue is in excess of $3,000 the Post Office Department will then consider the establishment of what is then known as a semi-staffed post office. If I am wrong I am sure the minister will correct me. Under these circumstances the Department of Public Works can be authorized to erect a new building. This might be very appropriate for certain areas of the country but in a province which is largely rural, although not in the sense of the word as it is understood elsewhere, and where post office services are most important and there are many small settlements spread along the extensive coastline, I submit that this rule should not necessarily apply.
I can give examples in my own constituency of certain areas. Granted that there may be three or four settlements in an area, but for all intents and purposes small postal facilities should be considered in the light of the aggregate amount of revenue. If this approach

Supply-Post Office
were adopted I think it would be found that we would be able to have decent postal facilities in the province.
Last year the Postmaster General visited our province and he saw some of these facilities at first hand. I am sure he fully realizes what I am talking about. We only have a very few urban areas in comparison with other provinces, and under this ruling of the Post Office Department whereby the revenue has to exceed a certain amount the settlements to which I have referred will never qualify for new post offices. I hope the Postmaster General in his wisdom will take this problem under advisement and will perhaps see fit to reopen the whole question of just when an area should qualify for a post office building because this service is a most important one and usually in these settlements the post office is the focal point or centre for the entire community. Because the Postmaster General has seen some at first hand I do not have to tell him about some of the premises that are being used by postmasters. They cannot provide better premises because in many cases the only revenue they get is a few hundred dollars a year. I submit to the Postmaster General that he should have his department look into this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a few words to support unreservedly every word uttered by the hon. member for St. John's East. X even tried to melt the hearts of my colleagues when we were in office on this very question and I have bombarded both the minister and the Minister of Public Works very persistently about this matter ever since the new government was formed. I should like to add one argument to what the hon. member said. In view of the fact that we have almost no rural free delivery in Newfoundland, which exists in all the other provinces-I have also urged the minister to look into that matter-what would be even more appreciated in most settlements is some relaxation of the rule that is applied on the mainland so that we will not have these anomalies where for historical reasons new post offices are built by the government in settlements much smaller than other settlements that are denied them simply because there was not one there before 1949. I might add that I am quite willing to make a bargain with the minister that if he will construct a building in Hare Bay I will be very happy if he has my defeated opponent make the announcement.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, may I just say a few words with regard to statements

made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) on May 27 last, when he made a long speech with lots of statistics. At the very outset of his remarks, the minister made a statement that does not show him up as very humane. Here is what he said, as recorded on page 4277 of Hansard for May 27, 1960: -never since confederation has it been possible for a postmaster general to record in one annual report, as I will today, such a wide range of new development and progress both internally and in service to the public.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I find that there is a rather important point lacking in the minister's statement. It is recognized that when he sat on the opposite side, the present Fostmaster General used to set himself up as the champion and defender of postal workers, and spent hours demanding fair treatment on their behalf. However, in his long speech of May 27, 1960, he did not see fit to refer even once to the position in which they find themselves today. I was particularly struck by one sentence in his speech, which is recorded on page 4277 of Hansard for the same date. I quote:
-various other matters, some of which I will deal with in my report and others which X will not 

never since confederation has it been possible
Mr. Chairman, I think the matters the minister did not even have time to mention are precisely those relating to the welfare of his departmental staff. The minister reviewed the great achievements of his department; its reorganization, the creation of a comptroller's branch, and on the matter of equipment, developments in stamp-vending machines, mailmobiles, delivery carts, plastic mailboxes and an increase in accounting post offices.
Those are strictly material matters, Mr. Chairman, and I ask the Postmaster General to give some thought to the human aspect of his department, because post office employees are in a sad plight and are clamouring for salary increases.
A very definite question was put to the minister the other day; I shall put it to him again. Fifty thousand civil servants have been or will be granted a salary increase this year by the federal government. I ask the minister to tell us how many post office employees, out of those 50,000 civil servants, have obtained a similar increase.
Every day, like many of my colleagues on this or the other side of the house, I receive

representations from post office employees, asking for the salary increase to which they are entitled.
It seems to me that the Postmaster General who, when he sat on this side of the house, used to feel sorry for the underpaid civil servants shows little inclination to devote as much time and energy defending the human beings employed in his department since his appointment as the minister of promises. He refers to machinery and electronic mail sorting or automatic segregator machines but he completely overlooks the salary increases which he had promised postal employees.
I find, for instance, that postal workers did not get a single increase since the Conservative party has been in power. The pay boost they received immediately after the present government's election had been recommended by the previous Liberal administration.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I declare without any hesitation-and the minister might note my words-that postal workers are the least paid employees in the whole civil service, in relation to their duties and the work they perform. Can the minister tell us why those employees get no attention from the present government despite their repeated representations? I have no intention at this time to remind the minister of all the requests made. He is more familiar with them than I am, and the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) covered the subject on May 27 last. I might, however, ask the minister to forget his machines for a moment. Otherwise, as pointed out earlier by the member for St. Denis, he is apt to become known as the "electronic minister". Let him think of the human beings employed by the government and particularly by the Post Office Department and come out and state whether or not the civil servants in his department can expect a raise and better treatment.
I know several postal workers who are forced to work on the sly at night, to earn a living and make both ends meet. The cost of living is steadily rising. Everything is higher, except the salaries of our civil servants, and if we had been able to examine the civil service commission report, we would surely have found in it recommendations of greater assistance to postal workers.
Would the minister therefore tell us in his remarks whether post office employees
Supply-Post Office
are justified in clamouring for salary increases-I think they are-and why their claims are unheeded when they ask the Post Office Department for a salary increase.
I should like the minister to note these remarks.
(Text):


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, after an hour and three quarters spent in listening to these recriminations and complaints, I have to remind myself, and perhaps the committee at the same time, that as I suggested in my opening remarks we are now delivering more mail with fewer complaints than ever before in the history of the post office. In the past two years we have had more new developments and progress, both internally and in service to the public, than in any other similar period in our history. I think it is well that these two things should remain in the minds of the people in this chamber. There are few of us who are perfect, except perhaps the post office critic of the opposition. I was in that position when I sat over there. Now that I occupy this post I realize how fallible human beings and large organizations are. Possibly some of the criticisms which were made here this afternoon have been made year after year to minister after minister under government after government because it is impossible to take any tremendously large organization and make it, to use a phrase, letter perfect. However, the fact does remain that we are doing a better job now than ever before in our history.
I should like, if I could before six o'clock, to answer the points which have been raised, perhaps briefly. The hon. member for St. Denis, referring to my remarks in the United States and connecting them with the post office, said that the solution to this entire problem was to raise rates on United States printed material coming into Canada.


Azellus Denis: I did not say it should be, but it might be.


William McLean Hamilton: He
forgets, of course, that this material is mailed in the United States where we have no control whatever over the rates and under the international postal agreement we are obliged to accept this matter at the Canadian border and deliver it.
He made a remark today about the electronic machine and the way it was chewing

Supply-Post Office
up the mail. I might point out to him that this is amusing because the electronic machine, as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, is not yet in operation. He speaks about Univac, which he says comes from England. It is evident he is getting his information from the wrong source. This machine is produced by the Remington Rand Company in the United States. The hon. member will be interested that it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the processing of the mail. It is a calculating machine and computer and is used in connection with our post office savings bank and money order business.
In so far as the mailmobiles are concerned, I think it is quite safe to say, and draw the inference from my earlier remarks as well, that this has been a successful experiment and we will be continuing to enlarge the use of these vehicles. As I pointed out, at the moment we are comparing United States built vehicles and Canadian built vehicles. There is no final decision yet as to the type of vehicle that will be used. Unlike the hon. member for St. Denis, I am not one who wants to buy and use equipment in large quantities until I have found out that it is going to be the best equipment and the most satisfactory.
To turn to the hon. member for Port Arthur may I say this? I thank the hon. member for Port Arthur and other hon. members who have spoken for the thoughtful remarks they have made. The hon. member for Port Arthur referred primarily to the football pools and to a campaign of the last two years. Actually this has been a continuous process for a long period of time. The simple and full answer is that under sections 177 and 179 of the Criminal Code these sports pools and lotteries are illegal. It is a decision of parliament. I therefore have an obligation not to accept this illegal material for transmission in the mail. The course open to the hon. member for Port Arthur, if he wishes to change it, is merely to have parliament change the Criminal Code.
We will consider the situation so far as Sioux Lookout and Hornepayne are concerned with respect to the use of group boxes there.
He had an observation to make on our rural lists. We keep these lists as much up to date as possible and they are corrected periodically by the local postmaster. However, it is almost an impossibility with our

changing population to have these lists always correct.
He referred to the delivery of mail arriving in the city-that is the letter carrier delivered mail-after the letter carriers have left. May I say that we schedule our transportation facilities as much as possible to have mail arriving into cities in the morning and we adjust our letter carrier services to fit into this pattern. However there are always going to be locations and times when mail will arrive after the letter carrier has left. The easiest answer for business firms that require mail immediately, as many of them do, is to take post office boxes in the local post office. We will see what can be done about a marine post office at the lake-head.
As far as the hon. member for New Westminster is concerned, I appreciated his remarks and I know how much consideration he has given to this subject and what a problem it is to him. It is a problem to us as well. I would point out to him that this entire area has been offered in the last few months vastly improved mail service through the provision of letter carrier service, if my memory serves me rightly, to some 6,000 people or 7,000 people in that area. This is a tremendous improvement for these people over having to go to some local post office and pick up their mail themselves, as so many of them had to do in the past.
I believe he also knows that we are looking at the question of a post office building for that area. However, we do not want to be drawn into the erection of a building on a specific location in an area which is expanding and growing as rapidly as is that one until at least there is some firm indication as to the pattern of growth which is going to take place in the years ahead. I think we are borne out in this course by the very fact that their own local county council, or whatever the organization is which had planned the building for their governmental purposes, has delayed construction of the building at least for the present until they can see more clearly what the development is going to be.
The hon. member for Papineau asked me about a world refugee stamp. I am also sorry that we could not produce one. The time was a little bit too short for that purpose from the time when we were requested to do so and particularly the issue would have conflicted with two other stamps which were no more important, I admit, but for which we had committed ourselves a considerable time ago. I would point out, however, that

we are using widely across Canada in our cancelling machine cancellations in support of world refugee year.
I thank the hon. member for Waterloo North for his helpful observations and I will see what can be done about the matters he mentioned.
As far as the hon. member for Vancouver East is concerned, I answered as completely as I could the points that he raised when I was last on my feet on May 27. This is a question of opinion and I expressed my opinion, at that time.
As to the hon. member for St. John's East who spoke about revenue post offices in Newfoundland, may I say that we can have but one policy for buildings right across Canada. I think the weakness in the suggestion he put forward-and I say this without any criticism-was contained in his own observation that in these areas where they would like to have a government building constructed they cannot afford one for themselves and the postmaster cannot afford to put a special one up because his revenue is only a few hundred dollars a year. In these circumstances there is very little point in putting up a special government building. We depend upon local quarters provided by the postmaster. If there is any change in this principle it will apply just as well to Newfoundland as it will to all other parts of Canada.
The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville inquired with regard to salaries of employees in the Post Office Department. He will perhaps recall that the Minister of Finance had indicated that this matter would be given very serious consideration. I am hopeful that an interesting announcement will be made in that respect when an opportunity for this consideration has been available to the bodies which must do so. As he knows, the present practice is to examine government employees group by group and to make recommendations. The first of these have been acted on and others are coming forward steadily.


Harold Edward Winch: 
William McLean Hamilton: The
answer to that question is quite simple. I would refer the hon. member to what was said at the time those remarks were made. We were being asked to authorize or to approve an increase in the postal rate. At that time I made it quite definite that I was opposed to that increase in the postal rate. Under those circumstances, those remarks apply today and I see no necessity to ask the house to authorize any increase in the first-class postal rate.


Harold Edward Winch: May I again ask this question straight from Hansard.'! If the hon. member wants to do so he can look it up there. When he spoke at that time it was on the principle of the charge of one delivery as against another and he objected to the principle of $13J million being charged to the delivery of magazines and newspapers. Where is the difference in principle with the loss of $26 million?


William McLean Hamilton: objected to the principle of an increase in postal rates at that time.


Jacques Flynn: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?


An hon. Member:: Can we carry the first item?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the leader of the house could indicate what the order of the departments whose estimates are to be called will now be for the next few days.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we shall start with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. On Friday, in view of the changes that were made today, I think we will start with the estimates of the Department of Transport, already considered in part, and finish them off. If spare time develops on either of the two days, we have the post office, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Fisheries available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


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


Thursday, June 9, 1960

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1961, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.