1960-06-06

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to report in general on the visit which I made last Friday and Saturday to Washington at the invitation of President Eisenhower. As I pointed out on my arrival there, this was not a formal visit; it was the kind of call which one makes on a close neighbour with whom one is on friendly terms and with whom one is in the habit of talking over matters of mutual interest.
I particularly point out the warmth of the welcome extended to me because I represented Canada, both by the President himself, his secretary of state and all the officials and members of the public with whom I came in contact. We are bound to have differences between our countries, as friends and neighbours will, but beneath the surface of whatever intermittent strains may arise in our relationship there is a vein of continued understanding and good will that springs not only from our heritage but also from the common sense of the importance of being united in safeguarding common values.
I am going to refer to one or two of the matters which were discussed, although I know the house will not expect me to go into any detail on the substance of those talks. We found ourselves in agreement with regard to the circumstances which led to the summit failure and also the position which the western nations should now adopt individually and within the NATO alliance in their relations with the Soviet union. The need is to establish and preserve an equilibrium between the maintenance of defensive preparedness on the one hand and on the other a continued readiness to retain existing contacts with the Soviet world and extend those contacts on the basis of mutual agreement whenever the opportunity arises.
I discussed with the President matters connected with the future policies in NATO. I expressed the view that the time had come for the NATO nations to re-examine the
capacity of that alliance to deal with the problems which lie ahead. Hon. members will recall that at the ministerial meeting of NATO last December the United States secretary of state proposed that a study be made of long range planning for the 1960's. My view, which I expressed to the President, was that recent international happenings had increased the urgency of undertaking this study.
The United States is already engaged in preliminary work along these lines. My view was that after that study had been fully proceeded with the NATO governments should give early and serious attention to the holding of a meeting at heads of government level in order that those who have the responsibilities of leadership may join in a collective effort to establish and sketch new lines of endeavour for NATO in the years ahead. All of us are fully conscious of the importance of thorough preliminary consultation, for unless we achieve the free interflow of ideas and suggestions in the future we cannot take advantage of the opportunity to open up new and secure paths of progress for the alliance.
I further stated that should it be agreed that a heads of government meeting of NATO should take place, Canada would be prepared to extend invitations to the NATO leaders to hold that meeting in Canada.
I discussed with the President the proposal which he put forward first in 1955, and to which he referred in recent public statements, that consideration should be given to a system of aerial inspection as a means of removing the threat of surprise attack. In that connection he pointed out the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in support of action in that direction. The President confirmed that study was being given to the open skies proposal. I said that such a proposal, if and when advanced in the United Nations, should have co-sponsors and that Canada would join in sponsoring an appropriate resolution in that regard.
Other subjects were generally of an international nature, the outlook for progress on disarmament and the ending of nuclear weapons tests. There was agreement on the importance of pursuing negotiations on these matters which would serve at the moment as important and continuing points of contact with the Soviet government. Information on the most recent Soviet disarmament plans as enunciated by Mr. Khrushchev was not

Prime Minister's Visit to Washington available in a comprehensive form and it was therefore not possible to discuss this development in any detail. However, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the house last Friday, although the Soviet proposals are heavily weighted in propaganda aspects the western nations should demonstrate a readiness to examine them with serious intent, and the agency for that consideration exists in the 10-nation committee on disarmament which will resume its deliberations tomorrow in Geneva.
As for the bilateral relations between United States and Canada, various aspects of policies affecting the two countries jointly were discussed, including continental defence and problems in the trade and economic fields. We spoke frankly about the concern that Canadians feel over recent United States wheat surplus disposal policies which could damage Canadian wheat export markets, particularly in Latin America and Africa. However, I think I can sum up the general feeling and the attitude that was shown during these discussions by reading the words of the communique and drawing particular attention to those in the concluding paragraph:
The Prime Minister and the President reviewed the course of relations between their countries during recent years and noted with pleasure the extent to which the problems arising in such relations have yielded to the process of friendly and continuing consultation. They considered that satisfactory means of carrying on such consultations have been established in personal exchanges as well as by regular diplomatic arrangements and the various joint committees that have been created. They expressed their belief that there has been established between the two countries-
I know the house will concur in this.
-a model for the relationship between neighbours.
Again I repeat, sir, that the unusual warmth of the welcome and the expressions not only of friendship but of a desire to cooperate in every way so as not to cause harm one to the other were most apparent, and I must publicly express my thanks and appreciation for everything that was done on the part of our great neighbour to show its feelings toward our country.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members of the house will have listened with interest to the Prime Minister's report and I am sure all were happy that it was possible for him to continue a practice which has now extended over many years and to take advantage of the opportunity to visit Washington and confer with the President of the United States; particularly at this rather difficult time in the history of relations between the east and west and indeed a time of some difficulty in regard to relations inside 
the coalition. By "difficulty" I mean it is a time of stocktaking and re-examination, not so much of the purposes and principles of the coalition, because there has been no doubt about that, but as to how we can best achieve the objective we have set for ourselves within the group.
I am sure the Prime Minister had the kind-it is obvious from what we have heard-of warm and friendly reception that Canadian leaders always get when they go to Washington, even though they go down there on occasion to talk very frankly to our friends and neighbours.
I am sure this meeting, like others before it, was useful as well as pleasant. In his statement the Prime Minister added something to a communique which was very short and general in character, and we are glad to get the information he has given us. We read that communique, Mr. Speaker, along with the statements that appeared in the press on the meeting in question. I note, for instance, that both the President and the Prime Minister-and I certainly have no quarrel with this-emphasized that the tactics pursued by the leader of the Soviet union in recent days, tactics at least of verbal aggression, have had the result that such tactics always have and which they do not seem to understand on the other side of the iron curtain, of bringing members of the coalition closer together rather than splitting them apart.
While that is true, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that this is not a satisfactory or a very certain basis of unity. To have our unity strengthened in that negative way, on that shock-treatment basis, if you like, is not good enough. Therefore, recent developments have shown not only the necessity of coming closer together in the face of a common danger but, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, they have shown also the insufficiency and inadequacy of present methods of consultation inside the alliance. And by "consultation" I do not mean the giving of information after decisions have been taken, but consultation on every aspect of policy inside the alliance before decisions are taken.
I am glad the Prime Minister has once again emphasized the necessity of this, but we will never get it merely by talking about it. Indeed, we have been talking about it now for a good many years; so while I welcome this examination of the policy of NATO in the 1960's, which the Prime Minister has referred to this morning, I doubt whether any further examination of the need of consultation and unity inside the alliance will add very much to the studies we have already made in NATO in the past on that subject.

If it were possible tor NATO governments to carry out recommendations which have already been made about consultations and cooperation, the organization would be far more effective than it is at present. While a NATO summit meeting-if I may refer to it in those terms-may be a helpful thing to have, I could hope that in the case of that summit meeting the work will have been done before the meeting is held, and that NATO will be able to implement some of the recommendations already made. All that is required is for the governments in NATO to carry out the recommendations made; to make NATO more effective not only in defence but in nonmilitary matters. In so far as defence is concerned, the time has come to have another look at the possibility of having a really collective system which would include North America as a NATO sector of defence. I say that because if we have learned anything from the events of the last month surely it is that defence is not divisible, and that we cannot talk about western European NATO defence and ignore the North American sector of that defence.
One of the things that is mentioned in the communique, but just mentioned, is the subject of the defence relationship between the two countries. There is greater elaboration of that point in some of the press comment on the conference. Indeed, in the New York Times of yesterday there was a headline to the effect that the Canadian Prime Minister gets assurance by the United States that the President has pledged his backing and presumably the backing of the United States on defence planning and the Bomarc missile program. If it had been possible for the Prime Minister to give it we would have welcomed some information on that score. Where do we stand now on these matters of defence?
The communique has one very important reference to this matter which perhaps I might read. It is in these words:
Particular attention was paid to the importance of achieving, with effective international control, an end to nuclear testing and progress toward general disarmament.
That is a very important statement, Mr. Speaker, that attention has been paid particularly to the importance of achieving an end to nuclear testing, with effective international control. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us more than once in the house that the policy of the government in that regard is an end of nuclear testing, period. When I have asked him in the house whether that meant an end of nuclear testing with controls he has repeated that he meant an end of testing, period. The possible ambiguity and doubt between that statement 79951-0-286
6, 1960
Prime Minister's Visit to Washington and the one in the communique subscribed to by the President and the Prime Minister of this country certainly should be removed.
I am glad some discussion took place about disarmament and the United Nations. Once again the head of the Soviet government has made what seems to be one of those sensational proposals that make it look as if we have something new before us. The disarmament committee is going to meet tomorrow, and I hope there will be no delay in Geneva in taking him up on this at once and finding out what, if anything, is behind it.
The Prime Minister mentioned also the desirability of pressing ahead with the open skies proposal. I cannot think of anything much more important than that in the light of what has happened in the last month. Perhaps I might just recall at this time, because the Prime Minister mentioned Canada's connection with this matter, that back in 1955 the Canadian representative to the disarmament committee of that day, the hon. member for Essex East, put before that group this proposal for open skies. At that time there was not too much support for the Canadian initiative. Perhaps the time has now come to take this up again as a Canadian proposal at the United Nations and to associate with Canada in this regard-the Prime Minister mentioned the desirability of this- a group of middle powers who can press ahead with this as a middle power proposition, in view of the fact that the great powers are so suspicious of each other in connection with implementing such a proposal. There might be greater likelihood of something resulting from a group of middle powers taking the initiative and following it through, and taking the responsibility under the United Nations for implementing it without the participation of the great powers.
These and other things should be pressed, of course, with great vigour at this particular time, because public opinion is surely alert now to the necessity of doing something because of the kind of shock treatment it has received. Shocks will wear off, however, and if we do not take advantage of this situation we will be tempted to lapse back into the kind of situation we have been in so often, of assuming that because we get some kind words again, following bad words, everything is going to be all right.
The Prime Minister mentioned that economic matters were considered in Washington. I certainly hope they were. I agree with the Prime Minister that compared with relations between most other neighbouring countries those between Canada and the United States are a model. Nevertheless it is a model which can be improved upon.
4532	HOUSE OF
Prime Minister's Visit to Washington One way in which it can be improved is in the field of trading and economic relationships so that those relationships will include the kind of co-operation which we are expected to give in defence itself. It has so often been said in the house by members on both sides that if we are to co-operate in defence we must co-operate in defence production. Perhaps the Prime Minister had the opportunity in Washington-I do not know whether he did-of reminding the President that one part of defence production is defence materials, and we are not going to have the kind of co-operation which we should have if we can be turned on and off as a source of defence materials to meet the exigencies of economic and political situations in the United States.
So, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the Prime Minister's talks in Washington and we hope they will yield concrete results. But surely the time has come, especially in the United Nations and in NATO, when all the fine talk of the last 10 years must be converted, in the light of the dangers and difficulties of the last month, into some kind of concrete action.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group appreciate the Prime Minister's moderation, tenor and tone in making his report to the house as a result of his visit with President Eisenhower. I am going to be quite brief, but I do wish to emphasize this on behalf of this group. The point of view of this group at the present time is in general that this is not a time for political pyrotechnics or recriminations or threats from any source. This is a time for the calm presentation of constructive views and action. From our point of view, this is the time for Canada to give constructive, forceful and co-operative leadership to the middle and smaller powers in the promotion of an atmosphere that will dissipate the apprehensions of the world at this time.
We urge the government to seize with both hands this opportunity to render a tremendous service to mankind. We also believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) has the capacity, the ability and the point of view that will enable him to give constructive and effective leadership at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: The Leader of the
Opposition referred to the communique and said that I made a passing reference to it. I have not it before me at the moment, but with the leave of the house it might be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give leave for the printing of the communique in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of document referred to above, see appendix.3



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act with respect to contributions, pensionable service, benefits, the calculation of annuities payable to widows and children, persons re-employed, medical examinations, transferred pensionable employees, contributions to the retirement fund, reciprocal transfer agreements and for certain other changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 116

 Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged from January 1, 1900 to date, between the federal government, or any agency or department thereof and any other government, person, or organization, relating to a dispute over land title between Indians of the lake of Two Mountains and the ecclesiastics of the seminary of St. Sulpice of Montreal, and for a copy of all judicial decisions in relation thereto.
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Because of the length of time involved in this resolution there may be some delay, but the motion can pass if it is understood than there may be some delay in the production of the documents.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to direct a question to the house leader. In view of the fact that this morning the house is entering upon morning sittings, can the house leader tell the house what business, other than that now contained on the order paper, is contemplated between now and the end of the session, so that we on this side of the house could have a general idea of what remains to be done?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That is an important question, Mr. Speaker. It is essential that the house know what is ahead during the next few weeks. That matter will be looked into this week and some announcement will be made.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the hon. lady seen a report in this morning's Globe and Mail by Mr. Robert Chow in which he states:
An unofficial offer of protection has come from the Canadian immigration department to members of Toronto's Chinese community who have entered this country illegally.
Can the minister tell the house whether any such offer has been made and, if so, what it is?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I saw the
article referred to, Mr. Speaker, and the only information I have is that it may have reference to the statement I made in this house when I said that those who wished to come forward and try to regularize their entry would be given every consideration. I imagine this is a broad interpretation of that statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that reports in the press, some of them attributed to the police, have cast suspicion upon the whole Chinese community in Canada, does the Prime Minister not think some member of the government should give an official statement about this matter in order to remove this cloud of suspicion from a respected and respectable section of the Canadian community?


John George Diefenbaker: I could not be more in agreement with the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that the Chinese people in Canada are respectable and respected. Indeed, during the years I have numbered among the Chinese people many good and continuing friends. A full statement in regard to the matter was made by the minister. However, if the hon. gentleman feels that something further might be said, I shall examine the remarks which have been made and which I believe cover the situation in its entirety. Then, if it is 79951-0-286J
Inquiries of the Ministry appropriate that something further be said, I will see to it that one or other minister will make a statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When such a statement is made, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could see that this fantastic story is dealt with that 11,000-that is half of all the Chinese who have entered Canada since the war-have entered this country illegally; because it is that statement which is creating the present situation.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any knowledge of whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in the pursuit of their investigation in this regard, might not have made an unofficial offer of clemency or pardon if these people would come forward and assist them with their views?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, of course, would not be in a position to do that because the only person in a position to decide what action should be taken with regard to any case involving illegal entry into Canada is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough). The minister, as I recall it, has stated that the intention is not to persecute but to establish what are the facts and then do our best to clear up and regularize the situation; in which process she hopes to have-and I am sure will have-the co-operation of the Chinese community itself.
With regard to questions earlier asked by the hon. member as to whether I had representations from the Chinese benevolent association of Vancouver, may I say that I have now received a letter dated June 3 containing two sets of resolutions from the Chinese benevolent association in Vancouver, the letter having been received by me this morning, June 6.
I think I should refer to another statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have not officially stated that there were 11,000 illegal entries. That is not an R.C.M.P. figure.



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: In the
absence of the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether departmental officials have
4534	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry been able to ascertain whether the proposed shipments of Russian gasoline into Canada in any way contravene Canadian dumping regulations?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Undoubtedly, since this question has been mooted in the past, some consideration may have been given to the matter. I will make inquiries about it. As the minister is expected back within the next two or three days, he may have a statement to make at that time.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Aciing Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: On
Thursday last, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the acting minister of northern affairs whether the government has received any application or approach from the government of Nova Scotia with a view to the establishment of a second national park in that province.
I am informed by the department that communications have been received from the government of Nova Scotia with respect to the establishment of a second national park in that province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, I should like to ask the acting minister a supplementary question about the suggested second national park in Nova Scotia. Can the acting minister say whether any active steps have been taken by the federal government to carry out this suggestion?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not in possession of any knowledge as to what the situation is with regard to carrying this proposal into execution.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: On
Friday last the hon. member for Nipissing asked this question:
In view of the government's refusal to establish a tourist information centre in San Francisco this year on a regular basis, will the government now consider the opening of such a centre on a trial basis, with the appropriate promotion, for this summer season?


I think I cannot do better than refer to the reply given by the minister of northern affairs on May 4 to a question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). At that time the minister said there had been a significant increase in the amount of money available to the Canadian government travel bureau for the current fiscal year. In working out priorities for getting the most value from the dollars spent, it was decided to lay the emphasis this year on increased direct advertising in the United States and on information material for distribution. As a result, funds were just not available to establish an office in San Francisco at this time.
I think it will be evident to the hon. member that the same consideration would apply to the opening of a tourist information centre on a trial basis for this summer season. To do so would require a reduction in the advertising, which would be most undesirable. I would remind the hon. member, too, that a venture of this kind requires careful advance planning, even though it is experimental, and it is much too late in the season to put out the promotion that would be necessary to make the work of such a centre most effective.
I should add that the Canadian consulates in San Francisco, Los Angeles and other centres will continue to deal with travel inquiries on behalf of the Canadian government travel bureau. I can assure the hon. member that the desirability of opening additional travel offices in the United States, as well as the question of travel promotion in Europe, about which the hon. member inquired recently, is continuing to receive the closest attention of the government.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question based on the communique to which the Prime Minister directed the attention of the house in referring to the conference between himself and the President of the United States. The communique notes that particular attention was paid to the matter of achieving effective international control to end nuclear testing.
My question is this. In view of this statement, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether the policy of the government of Canada with regard to the cessation of tests has now been changed, more particularly in view of a statement which was made in this house on February 16 last, when the

minister said the policy of the government of Canada was that there should be a cessation of tests with or without control?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have not yet had an
opportunity to read this communique, but there has been no change in government policy.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, or possibly it should be directed to the Minister of Transport; I am not sure. It is a rather urgent matter for both departments, stemming from the fact that the lakehead harbour commission is having difficulties over the failure of the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur to deed outright to the commission property for the terminal facilities now being built by the Department of Public Works. Could either of the ministers inform me what steps, if any, the government is taking to iron out this intercity rivalry?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport and on my own behalf might I say that neither of us has ever received any notice from the hon. member for Port Arthur, but because of the urgency of the matter I will consider the question as notice.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I
would like to ask the Acting Secretary of State, in view of the fact that the government business coming before the house is the combines legislation, whether he would take what steps he can to see that the order of the house passed on May 30 concerning the tabling of certain communications on the subject of combines legislation is brought forward as quickly as convenient.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that this return will be tabled within the next two or three days, three days at the most.


Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State, and bring his attention to the fact that a series of returns in connection with Georgian Bay Airways Limited which have
Inquiries of the Ministry been promised have not yet been tabled. Will the Acting Secretary of State be good enough to look into the matter?


Léon Balcer: I will look into the matter.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of information which has come to my attention this morning to the effect that 750 air force men and their dependants at the R.C.A.F. base at Moose Jaw, are being disfranchised in the Saskatchewan provincial election, will the minister be good enough to inquire into the accuracy of this statement and, if he finds it is true, will he take immediate steps to reinstate these people on the voters' lists?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: When a man enlists in any of the armed forces he signs a declaration as to his ordinary place of residence so as to qualify him for voting in that electoral district during a federal election.
As far as the law of Saskatchewan is concerned, under section 30 any British subject who is 18 years of age and has six months' residence in Saskatchewan can vote. However, under section 31-and that is the section on which the deputy attorney general of Saskatchewan has based his ruling-it is stated that only those who have signed a statement of ordinary residence in the province of Saskatchewan can vote. It has always been the policy of the department that in local and provincial elections the rules laid down by the local statutes and interpreted by the local legal officers of the crown prevail.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of questions standing over which were asked by the hon. member for Roberval. The first was a supplementary question addressed to me on May 31. However, because of the detail of the information 1 would propose that it be published in the same way as an ordinary written question, as an appendix to Hansard.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the proposal made by the parliamentary secretary to print the answer in the usual way in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows:!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it is not the policy of the C.B.C. to give preferential treatment to any publishing firm. A summary survey would indicate that the following publishing firms received indirect publicity on various occasions as listed hereunder:
1.	Edition Beauchemin
Auteur
Robert Hollier (interview, 31 mars 1960)
Guy Boulizon (mention, 31 mars 1960)
Paul-Marie Paquin (interview, Octobre 1957) Henri Beaudout (interview, Ete 1958)
Agathe Legault (mention, 31 mars 1960) Germaine G uovremont
2.	Editions Fides
Guy Maufette (interview, 14 janvier 1960)
Juliette Morange Campeau (mention, 31 mars 1960) Robert Choquette (interview, 13 mars 1958)
PSre Emile Legault (interview, 4 avril 1957)
3.	Institut litteraire de Quebec Roger Lemelin (interview)
Andre Giroux (interview, fin d'annee 1959)
Yves Theriault (interview, ete 1959)
Jean-Charles Harvey (interview, 1953)
4.	Editions Belisle, Quebec Alexandre Belisle (interview)
5.	Edition Fon Fon
Madame Claudine Vallerand (interview, septem-bre 1958)
6.	Editions de Gai-Moulin Lucille Desparois (interview)
7.	Centre educatif et culturel
Fernand Seguin et Auray Blain (interview)
8.	Editions de l'exagone Fernande St-Martin (interview)
9.	Editions Serge Brousseau Maurice Valiere (interview)
10.	Editions Erta
Jean Rene Major (interview)
Publication
"Betail"
"Livres Roses et series noires"
"Almanach Beauchemin"
"L'egare 11"
"Les Aventures de Sigisbert"
"Le Survenant"
"Marie Didace"
"Livre de Contes"
"Que votre volonte soit faite"
"Suite Marive"-" Elise Velder"
"Confidences"-"Eaux vives"
"Pierre, le magnifique"
Le prix du Gouvemeur General pour "Apres tout la joie"
"Agaguk"
"Paradis de sables"
"Dictionnaire de la langue frangaise"
"Chante et joue maman Fon Fon" "Contes aux Angelos"
"Le monde des plantes"
"Essai sur la poesie abstraite" "Derriere le sang humain"
"Poemes"



PROGRAM &quot;PREMIER PLAN&quot;-STATEMENT ON COMMENTS ON SUMMIT CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The second question asked on May 31 was with respect to the program "Premier Plan". I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that on the program "Premier Plan" on the French television network on Sunday evening, May 29, at 10.30 p.m., a panel was interviewed by Mr. Gerard Pelletier as moderator. It was composed of Mr. Philip Dean, Washington correspondent of the Toronto Globe and Mail and Mr. Amoury de Riencourt, writer and free lance broadcaster and political observer in New York. They were called upon to discuss and express their views on the last summit conference [Mr. Lambert.l
meeting. The views expressed were those of the individuals concerned.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether the contract has yet been awarded for the construction of the new hydrographic and oceanographic ship and, if so, to whom?


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, this contract has not yet been awarded. Tenders have been received, and they are under study by the Department of Defence Production.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING MERGERS, MONOPOLIES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton for the second reading of Bill No. C-58, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned on Wednesday last I was seeking to deal with the principle set out in clause 17 (4) of the bill, a wholly new principle, as I was endeavouring to show. I had just started to deal with that phase of the matter, and I had quoted the clause which in my submission had provided a new alternative method of proceeding in these cases, a proceeding by way of information rather than by way of prosecution.
The significant word is "or", making it quite clear that there are alternative methods of proceeding. Formerly the proceeding for a mandatory or prohibitory order had been merely an ancillary or additional method to the penalties provided under the criminal prosecution. This clause now introduces an alternative to the criminal prosecution, and I had just started to point out the objections to that course of proceeding.
The word "information" is of course used in proceedings commenced by the crown whether by way of criminal prosecution or, as in the case of the exchequer court, proceedings by way of civil action. It will be found in rule 3 of the exchequer court rules that all suits on behalf of Her Majesty in the right of Canada are, unless otherwise provided by statute of the parliament of Canada, to be instituted by information, and so on.
The point I was making was that since the word "prosecution" obviously refers to criminal prosecution and the word "information" used in the clause is an alternative to criminal prosecution, the word "information" must denote the commencement of civil proceedings by the crown. Since the whole basis of the jurisdiction of this parliament under former anti-combines legislation is that it is criminal law-the offence is made a crime-this materially weakens, and indeed it could be argued may even destroy, the whole anti-combines legislation if I am right in my submission that this clause gives a new alternative method which is a wholly civil method of proceeding as an alternative to criminal proceedings.
There are other objections to this new principle. One objection is the taking of an
Combines Investigation Act arbitrary power by the Minister of Justice; and while the cabinet must speak collectively, and I cannot ask any one cabinet minister how the principle which gave the Minister of Justice this arbitrary power was dealt with, I do hope the Prime Minister will deal with that point before this debate concludes, because of the attacks which have been made by the present government in past years on anything which they interpreted as giving arbitrary power to a minister. Yet here we are presented with legislation in which the minister seeks to determine whether civil or criminal proceedings will be taken in the event of a breach of the provisions. Moreover, he seeks to exercise that discretion not in accordance with any criteria set out in the act of parliament, but merely in accordance with his own opinions.
This is a wholly offensive method of proceeding. I would hope that our laws would be determined by the parliament of Canada, and that we have not reached the stage of giving a minister of justice the right to substitute his own opinions for those of the parliament of Canada in determining the law.
If the clause is objectionable on those two grounds, it is also objectionable on a third. It creates the possibility of favouritism being shown by the Minister of Justice, and the hon. gentleman surely does not wish that those who follow him in his office should be confronted with the necessity of making a decision as to whether proceedings to be commenced against a company which is in breach of this act shall be on the basis of criminal or civil law.
What are the criteria to be? Is it companies who have presidents who have no hair at all who are to be dealt with under civil law? Is it men who have red hair who are to be taken to the criminal courts and not to the civil courts? The whole of the solution proposed to us amounts to an absurdity, yet we are being asked to enact it as legislation. It is wholly wrong, and those who follow the present minister in office and exercise this discretion will always be suspected of showing favouritism on one ground or another.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask a question?


George James McIlraith: I have only 20 minutes in which to put forward my argument. I will be glad to answer the hon. gentleman's question at the conclusion of what I have to say, but I am trying to cover two or three points.
There is one other objection to this clause. It will be noted that the discretion allowed to the minister may also be exercised by the attorneys general of the provinces. There are ten different provinces. It is by no means difficult to imagine a situation where in one of
4538	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act these provinces every company in breach of the act would be proceeded against by way of civil proceedings, while in another part of the country they would all be proceeded against by way of criminal prosecution.
Surely, in these circumstances, the parliament of Canada cannot be asked to set up legislation which, in effect, depends on the manner in which its provisions are carried out by the provincial attorneys general. Surely we are not to be left in the position where in one province, which may take a very unkind view of anti-combines legislation, there would be no prosecutions under the Criminal Code but merely civil proceedings, while in another province, where a different view might be taken, all the prosecutions would be under the provisions of the criminal law. I can even envisage a situation where one province might decide that it wished to attract within its jurisdiction many of the companies which were carrying on these practices, intending to be very friendly toward them. So the legislation is bad from that point of view.
The clause, as I see it, is wholly offensive. It is directly contrary to the minister's declaration that he was adopting and preserving the principles of anti-combines legislation as they exist. It is further objectionable on the ground that it gives arbitrary power to the minister. It is the key clause in the bill now before us; it is wholly bad, and it should be rejected.
I wish to turn to another subject in the few minutes remaining to me. I propose to deal with that part of the bill which has to do with retail price maintenance, or the old section 34 of the act. That is to be found in clause 14 of the bill, and in my respectful submission clause 14 again introduces a wholly new principle. The principle in the legislation as it exists is that resale price maintenance is illegal. Section 34-and I will read only a few phrases of it-provides:
No dealer shall directly or indirectly by agreement, threat, promise or any other means whatsoever, require or induce or attempt to require or induce any other person to resell an article or commodity
(a)	at a price specified by the dealer or established by agreement,
(b)	at a price not less than a minimum price specified by the dealer or established by agreement.
And so on.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: On a
point of order, it seems to me that on the second reading of the bill it would be out of order to read individual clauses. We will no doubt be repeating all this when we come to a clause by clause discussion in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The principle which the hon. member states is quite acceptable and well established, but its application is not quite so simple. Here we have a bill which makes three or four main changes, and I do not altogether see how an hon. member can discuss any of the three or four principal amendments without reference in some detail. I must say that the minister, in presenting his argument, avoided any reading of the various sections or even reference to them by number. I hope that as far as possible hon. members will reserve the detailed discussion until we reach the committee stage.


George James McIlraith: I accept the point raised by the hon. member. But there are three principles included in this bill, as I read it; they are contained in three particular sections, and I have no way of referring to them other than by way of the clauses in which they are contained. I have no intention of discussing the clauses as such; I am concerned only with the argument as to principle.
This third principle is the one concerning resale price maintenance. The minister stated that he was maintaining the principle of existing legislation; yet in clause 14, as I shall seek to show, he goes a long way, if not the whole of the way, toward totally removing the effectiveness of the present provisions concerning resale price maintenance. I wish to refer to some remarks which I mentioned at the opening of my part in this debate, namely the remarks made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) as they appear at page 4432 of Hansard. I notice the hon. member is not here, and I think I should quote him precisely so there may be no confusion. Incidentally, I wish also to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I took the precaution of asking the government whip to ask the hon. member to be here, since I intended to refer to what he had said. In any event, the hon. member for Davenport, as appears on page 4432, presented for the consideration of the house a pamphlet which had been put out by the retail businessmen's association. I shall quote only part of the pamphlet. I hope that hon. members who are following the subject will have taken note of the hon. member's remarks, because I do not want to take them out of context. The pamphlet read in part:
A whopping 94 per cent of retailers who replied to this paper's queries on pricing said they favour a return to manufacturer-enforced retail prices, and 92 per cent agreed the present free for all price system is definitely harmful to business.

Then further down the hon. member in his own words went on to state:
I think that should definitely establish that there is a call, a requirement, by small businessmen for some change; and the change that is being suggested by the government is to try to meet that need.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka took part in the debate and at page 4422 of Hansard of June 1 he referred to a letter dated April 28, 1960 and quoted from that letter the part relating to resale price maintenance. The hon. gentleman went on to say:
I was pointing out that what these people ask is exactly what is included in this bill.
I remarked earlier that I was very happy to see government members take part in this debate, because I think the participation of these two hon. members shows the importance of government members and opposition members debating a subject of this magnitude. These two hon. members have disclosed what the legislation is intended to do, depending on how you interpret their words. If I were to interpret them exactly as they sound the words of one hon. member at least could be taken to mean that the bill reintroduces resale price maintenance. I do not think he intended to go that far, although his words go that far. In any event that is exactly what clause 14 does.
I would point out that with all the talk there has been about loss leader selling, and so on, there is nothing in this bill that attempts to make loss leader selling illegal or anything of that sort. There is provided by a most indirect and devious route a defence to a man charged with a breach of the existing anti-combines legislation. A man charged on the ground that he is really enforcing resale price maintenance on his retailers can now avail himself of these defences set out in clause 14. This indirect method of doing it has the effect of destroying the legislation as it presently exists. It is quite interesting that the two government members who took part in the debate discussed certain things they thought were offensive, but they quoted excerpts from pamphlets submitted to parliament by private organizations that were attacking the legislation on resale price maintenance and were urging the restoration of that practice. That is what they said the legislation did.
The minister dealt with certain other related subjects and said he had provided in the bill for the subject matter he was discussing, if I interpret him correctly, but the bill does not do anything of the sort. The bill provides certain additional defences to charges of breaches of the existing legislation. Now, if the minister had intended only to deal
Combines Investigation Act with certain of these other matters discussed he would, I respectfully submit, have dealt with the matter directly by providing for it in the legislation instead of providing these defences that undermine the whole legislation on this point.
There are some other objectionable principles introduced here. Instead of delineation of the offences, we have merely done it by indirection through providing defences to persons accused of another matter altogether; but we have also done something else. We have really substituted for our traditional method of delineating these offences by parliament and having the courts administer the law, a new method which puts the supplier or wholesaler in a curious position because he is now to be the policeman for his actions. He is to be the court. I ask hon. members who are interested in the subject to consider the significance of the latter part of subclause 5 of clause 14, which states:
Where, in a prosecution under this section, it is proved that the person charged refused or counselled the refusal to sell or supply an article to any other person, no inference unfavourable to the person charged shall be drawn from such evidence if he satisfies the court that he and anyone upon whose report he depended had reasonable cause to believe and did believe-
Then follows a certain list of things. In other words, we are to set up some kind of private policing arrangement run by the supplier whereby, let us say, if a competitive retailer wants to injure his competitors he can get the supplier-and he may be sincere in believing there were breaches of the things enumerated-to say there was a breach. If the supplier believes that he has a good defence to the charge of maintaining prices that we have created by our legislation, he may use that defence. Surely that is an extraordinary way of attacking the whole problem. Surely that is offensive to parliament and a wrong method of dealing with the matter.
I do not want to go into a more technical discussion of the clauses, but I would point out that as I see the bill there are three new main principles introduced. If I am right in interpreting them they all either materially weaken the anti-combines legislation or possibly even wipe it out.
One of the principles is to be found in the provision providing for a setting out of the type of combines that are legal. That is entirely objectionable on two grounds. One, it gives the corporation which have a mind to create combines that are illegal under the act a golden opportunity to get together to further that object under the guise of dealing with these legal combines. The other objection is that it gives the vast majority of corporations which are anxious not to be in that position

Combines Investigation Act and to observe the law carefully no opportunity to be sure whether they are doing so, because there is no provision for dealing with these combines or agreements that are made legal, no registration or anything like that which would enable the director to look at them and accept them if they are not offensive and to police the combines.
There are other objections as well to the new principles introduced. There is, of course, no protection at all for the consumer in the new principle introduced in that clause. Then there is also the clause I have spoken about today, subclause 4 of clause 17. That is a wholly new principle. This legislation was always regarded as within the competence of parliament because it was criminal legislation, and was always supported by penal provisions after criminal prosecution although, it is true, with certain ancillary rights to issue a mandatory order as ancillary to the criminal prosecution.
That whole principle is now violated. A new principle is introduced; that is, there can be an alternative, either criminal prosecution or proceeding by way of information and merely an application for a mandatory order, a prohibitory order, as the case may be. Therefore that principle as a new principle is wholly offensive. Then there is an offshoot of that, the arbitrary power of the minister and the offensive principle of giving the attorney general in each province the right to determine what procedure shall be used, civil or criminal, in these cases.
Then there is this new principle on the subject of resale price maintenance, which effectively destroys the legislation against retail price maintenance which gave the retailers an opportunity to compete and which was, as I think time has shown and certainly as the subsequent investigations have shown, such that there has not been any cause to complain about it, and it certainly has been a great boon to the consumers of this country.
As I see this legislation, Mr. Speaker, it is wholly objectionable because it is wrong in principle. The other point is that it introduces principles-and there are three of them

which are harmful. It is harmful, of course, to the whole approach we have had in this country of trying to control combines which are set up to exploit the public. It is wholly harmful to the interests of consumers, and curiously enough it is wholly harmful to the interests of the retailers, the small businessmen about whom so much was said, and it surely cannot be very satisfactory to the corporations which are seeking to avoid creating any offence and carry on business in the proper way.


For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the legislation should be opposed and destroyed, if possible, before it becomes the law of this country. I do hope that the minister, who is not limited as to time in debate as I am, will seek to deal with the points I have raised.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) had a question, and I cut him off because I did not want to take up the time at that point.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will ask my question at the committee stage.


Mr. Murray Smiih (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house for any great length of time, but a few things have been said, particularly by hon. members on the opposition benches, that I feel I must comment on. In my riding I have a great many small businesses and it is my personal opinion that this legislation will help them to a very great extent.
I have read most of the speeches made so far in this debate, and I was particularly interested in those which dealt with the historical aspects of combines or anti-combines legislation. The Minister of Justice gave us a very full and detailed historical dissertation on this subject and the Leader of the Opposition did likewise. I would say that I much prefer the Minister of Justice as a history professor, in view of the two speeches that were given in the house.
The hon. member for Gatineau also dealt at length with the historical aspects. In particular he pointed out that as a result of his efforts in the house there was an investigation into the pulpwood industry which did a great deal of good for people in his constituency. As I understand it, there was a prosecution and his constituents benefited from that prosecution.
But it is interesting to note that a very important chapter was left out by both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Gatineau. This important chapter centres around the ministers of the crown who were on the treasury benches not so long ago, particularly the last minister of justice, Hon. Mr. Garson. It also centres around a flour case. I believe there was a great deal of debate in the house on that point, and I understand the director of the combines branch resigned. But the hon. member for Gatineau and the Leader of the Opposition chose to leave this important chapter out of the history of the combines legislation. I would certainly hope that at some future date we who were not here at that time can be brought up to date on just exactly what took place.

1 note also that the bible of the Liberal party has not been quoted in this debate. I refer in particular to an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 18 of this year. I am not surprised that this editorial has not been quoted. Indeed, it is one of the vilest editorials I have ever read, and I believe it was written from a completely prejudiced point of view and was not based very much on facts. There is one particular point in this editorial which I hope the Minister of Justice will deal with when he concludes the debate. I think it is an extremely serious charge, and I certainly hope that he will deal at length with this sentence which appears in the editorial:
The Minister of Justice is given authority to suppress an investigation without being answerable to parliament.
I think this is a very serious charge for any responsible newspaper in this country to make.
The Liberal party and the C.C.F. party in the house have said that they are absolutely and completely opposed to this legislation; yet when one reads the speeches that have been made one finds that they are in favour of the consumer, of small business and of big business. They do not realize that this legislation is intended to benefit not only the consumer, to help not only small business but is not intended in any way-nor do I think it will-to criticize, to ridicule or to do anything else to big business. It will in no way persecute it.
I should like to quote some of the reactions to this legislation which have come from those people who are connected and concerned with small business. In particular I should like to quote a telegram which was sent from Ottawa to Mr. E. E. Bimm at Eganville. This is a retail merchants' association dispatch from Ottawa, dated May 7 of this year, and it reads as follows:
R.M.A. dispatch from Ottawa. New measures designed to protect small businessmen introduced in commons today. Legislation retains proposed curbs against misleading price advertising and loss leader selling. The major new provision is a ban against discriminatory promotional allowances and will demand that in every case where a promotional allowance is awarded to one store the same allowance in proportion to purchase must be made to other stores. This would be of immediate benefit to independents. The main provision respecting trade practices are amendments to section 34 and section 412 Criminal Code. It is a momentous week for R.M.A.
This is just one telegram in response to this legislation. It is significant to note that when the bill was introduced last year there was the same response from people connected with small business interests. I refer to a telegram directed to the director of investigation and research of the combines branch,
Combines Investigation Act Mr. T. D. MacDonald, from the retail merchants' association of Manitoba. The telegram reads:
Re your letter June 22 I have not received letter May 19. Please forward copy. A million thanks to you and your department for work on new proposed legislation.
We could go through others that were presented. Another such telegram is from J. D. Bastable, president of the Manitoba division of the retail merchants' association, addressed to the Minister of Justice. It is dated June 12, 1959 and reads as follows:
Congratulations and a sincere thank you on behalf of the retailers of Manitoba on your proposed loss leader selling and false advertising legislation.
This in part indicates the reaction of the small business people in our country, and I want to direct my remarks particularly to that segment of our economy. If you look at the briefs that have been presented to the government over the years by the Canadian wholesale council, the retail merchants' association, the tobacco distributors and other segments concerned in the small business operations of the country, you will appreciate the number of people employed by small businesses, the amount of business they do and the service they give to their communities, and you will realize that they have made an exhaustive study of this matter and that every one of their briefs advocates that something must be done with regard to unfair discounts and loss leader selling.
My own experience with small business is a personal one. I was born and raised in a country store, and I know some of the problems that small stores have in meeting the prices of the larger chain stores. I have been in touch with every drug store in my constituency and have called on a great many of the corner grocery stores, and have found that fewer people are employed in these stores as pharmacists, clerks and delivery boys than in 1955, for instance. Their volume of business is greater today than in 1955, but the income tax they pay is lower and the number of people they hire is less simply because they are meeting prices and competing in a field where substantial discounts are given to the larger stores; therefore the prices they pay for their products are often higher than the prices at which other stores are selling them. Not only that, but they are competing against loss leaders as well as big discounts.
I do not believe that any government should interfere to any great extent with commercial operations, but if the world of business will not formulate a code of ethics which will be fair to all then the government must intervene and pass legislation so that the small man

Combines Investigation Act who is at a disadvantage will receive some protection. Would it not be wonderful in this day and age to be able to go into a store and buy a small tube of toothpaste at a regular price? No such thing exists today. The smallest tube of toothpaste you can get is the large size, and it is always sold at a discount. These are practices in our economy that are unfair. They are unfair to the small man, the corner grocer, the family unit that must give credit in order to survive and which thereby provide a service to the community that the larger stores will not give. They provide a delivery service and they are open at all hours of the night.
The plea of the small businessman must be heard, and in my estimation it has been heard in this legislation. I feel that by this legislation the consumer will benefit, the small businessman will be able to survive and big business will not be persecuted in any way. I had hoped that the bill would have been referred to the committee on banking and commerce before now, because in my view representations should be made with respect to the various clauses of the bill by those persons in our country who are concerned with this matter and who have given it exhaustive study.
I am very disappointed at the attitude of both the official opposition and the C.C.F. party. I am extremely disappointed, because while they have taken the attitude that they are all in favour of small business they have not offered very much in the way of constructive ideas. Their remarks have bordered upon repetition and have been the same thing over and over again. They are in favour of small business but against the bill. I should like to see them sit down, study the bill and let it go to the committee where representations can be made. In the end I think they will find that the bill is intended to give and will give the small businessman of this country something he has been advocating for a long time.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North permit a question before he concludes his remarks?


William Murray Smith: Yes.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member not agree that if the Minister of Justice had acted with dispatch and introduced the bill in the early part of the session-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. That is not a question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make a few remarks on this anaemic legislative child which the Minister of Justice has presented to the house for baptism. Before


doing so, if I correctly heard the hon. member who has just taken his seat he said that he was born in a country store. This is the first time I have ever heard of a Conservative being born in a country store. I was born in a country bed. However, I thought what he said was very interesting.
I did not have the opportunity to be here last Monday when the Minister of Justice presented the bill to the house, because I was attending the Legion convention in Windsor at the request of a number of delegates of the British Columbia section of the Canadian Legion. However, since returning I have read the minister's speech very carefully. I give him credit for very careful preparation, but in reading his speech I got the impression that while he was presenting this bill to the house and therefore placing it before the jury of the country, he was something like a socialist addressing a Progressive Conservative convention in that he was treading warily.
In dealing with this legislation may I point out that the desire to combine to the advantage of the few and the disadvantage of the many represents, of course, an ancient device and is not something which has arisen while the present government has been in power. You know, Mr. Speaker, I always like to go back into history whenever I am faced with a particular problem. If I have the time I like to read the history of the past in order to appreciate what has happened in the past. I think this is of great assistance in giving consideration to the matters of the moment.
I find, Mr. Speaker, that the first record of a combine is in the Bible. When Esau returned famished from the hunt and went to Jacob to get some food, Jacob had a complete monopoly on the food supply and in order to get a decent meal Esau had to sell his birthright. In reading history I find that people in all nations have been selling their birthright ever since to monopolies and combines in order to get a chance to live.
A second illustration is that of Joseph getting a monopoly of the grain industry in Egypt. The people were starving, and he set the price so high that they spent all their cash buying grain in the first year, and in the second year the poor people of Egypt had to sell all their flocks, cattle and asses in order to live. The same thing has gone on all through history.
I also find that for over 1,000 years the merchants of Tyre and Sidon had a complete monopoly of trade, prices and distribution in the Mediterranean area. If you go into the matter carefully you will find that most of the wars of that time were fought as a result of the greed of these monopolists in

the early days of marketing and merchandising. When we come to the middle ages we find that combines arose then to control the marketing of goods and to control prices and, just after the plague in Great Britain, to control wages. A few people got together in their own interests, which is very natural. When we are dealing with this question we should always say to ourselves, "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone".
I mention these things to indicate what an ancient device this has been, and that it has continued throughout history. People have combined together for their own advantage. Then we come to the situation in the United States in more recent times. We know the history of the early development of industry in the United States involving transportation and the development of natural resources. The whole history is sordid and soiled with illustrations of a few persons getting together, combining and creating a monopoly for their own advantage to the disadvantage of the great majority of the people of the country.
That was what caused a former president of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt, to start his "trust-busting" mission, because they became so vicious in the early part of this century. The legislation that resulted from his efforts had some effect in preventing the further development of the grosser aspects of trusts, combines and monopolies at that time. It was not finally effective because they always find new ways of dealing with the problem of control, as they have done in Canada all through history.
All one needs to do is look at the combines and monopolies formed by the armament manufacturers. A former leader of the Progressive Conservative party, Mr. Drew, in a series of articles in Maclean's magazine prior to the second world war termed them "salesmen of death". Just read the history of the armament manufacturers in Europe and in other countries of the world, and you will see how these people got together, combined to get top prices and find markets, and even promoted wars. In the context of that development you have the Krupp armament industry in Germany, which we were told at the end of the war would be taken away from them and given to the German people. But the same people are still in possession, and if the same trend continues that continued prior to the first world war, the same monopoly of these instruments of war, it will result in war again.
What about combines in our country? As the minister mentioned, the first legislative approach to this question was in 1899, I believe.
Combines Investigation Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: In 1889.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Combines Investigation Act there were combines in the glassware industry, the packing industry, the milling industry, the flour industry, the rubber industry and so on, and in the food industry generally. But regardless of their good work throughout the years their efforts have been largely ineffective. They have not produced results because, regardless of all this work, within the framework of the combines investigation legislation monopoly control of markets, patents and prices is growing stronger and stronger every year.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that my attention was first focused on the monopoly situation as a result of practices in the fruit industry. I was a director of a co-operative society in the fruit industry shortly after the first world war and on into the 1930's. We discovered that something was wrong-we were nearly all starving-that we were being fleeced right and left by the managers of United States controlled companies that were distributing fruit on the prairies.
I will give you a couple of illustrations in order to show what happens when these people have control over fruit products. This is a typical illustration. I had a neighbour by the name of Sam Hall, a hard-working old gentleman who, before we formed the co-operative and before we had this investigation, started off for Calgary with a carload of McIntosh apples. He arrived in Calgary intending to sell his apples to the jobbers there. One jobber offered him a certain price; I think he offered him $1 a box or $1.25 a box in Calgary. The car was on the siding. He said, "Oh, no, I am not going to sell for that price". He then went to another jobber. He spent two days in going around to six jobbers. The first jobber telephoned to his friends and said, "This man Sam Hall called on me. If we all stick tight together we will get his apples for 70 cents a box and we will split the profit". That is just what happened. Sam Hall was paying demurrage. He was a man who could not afford to stay at an hotel for long, and at the end of the second day he sold his carload of apples for 70 cents and those distributors of fruit shared the profits.
Another friend of mine was determined that he would sell direct to the prairie farmers. He took a carload of apples into Moose Jaw, or out on a spur at some little town close to Moose Jaw. He arrived there on a Friday afternoon and advertised apples for sale directly from the car at a dollar a box. At that price he would have done fairly well. He had 800 boxes in the car. At least he would have obtained enough or the price would have been sufficient so that when he sold his crop he would have had something

on which to live. But what happened? The fruit wholesalers in Moose Jaw had him pinched that Friday night for selling fruit without a licence. They had him arrested and brought before the justice of the peace. Then he was told that his case could not be heard until Tuesday morning. In the meantime one big wholesale house in Moose Jaw had a carload of apples shipped to the siding where his car was located, and they offered the apples to the farmers at 75 cents a box off the car. When my friend was tried on Tuesday morning, of course, he was released because he had the right to sell apples. He was the grower of the product he was selling, and under the provincial law at that time he had a perfect right to sell the apples. But in the meantime his market was taken away from him by the sale of these other apples at 75 cents a box. He was therefore obliged to practically give his apples away and return home.
It was as a result of that kind of practice or monopoly that the growers insisted on an investigation into alleged combines in the distribution of fruit and vegetables in 1924. An investigation was held under the Combines Investigation Act. A report was made on February 18, 1925 by the commissioner Mr. Lewis Duncan, who was a prominent lawyer in Toronto at that time. I remember him quite well in this field because I did all I could to help provide evidence from the growers' point of view.
I use these illustrations in order to show what monopolies and combines will do without any consideration for the persons whose livelihood depends upon food production, and without any consideration for the consumer.
I will just read some extracts from a brief letter in this report, because it shows the vileness of these people; and these things are easily forgotten. This letter was written by Mr. G. H. Snow, manager of the Mutual Fruit Company of Vancouver. His name might be Snow but he was far from being white, Mr. Speaker. I just want to read this to bring to the attention of some of the prairie members who are particularly interested in the problems of grain growers the fact that the fruit growers also have their problems, and they are at times very difficult ones indeed. He says:
We have four men at work in the Hatzic district, including two directors, and we are sure that each one of the four has no idea that the others are wearing our brand. We think it will be quite in order to commit any crime, murder excepted, to land this Hatzic bunch as a unit, on the same basis as Gilland and Tanner. We are proceeding to do this, irrespective of how much it will cost, because once we get them they are ours for keeps. No matter what happens we must use the greatest of

care, in case our plans fall down and the Central operates again in 1924, to see that we still appear to have clean hands when we ask for the deal.
Then later the same gentleman goes on in another letter to say:
As far as we are concerned things are brightening daily on the berry deal. There is a possibility that we will get our views into Farm and Home-
That was the farmers' magazine in British Columbia.
-through an advertisement of Gilland's. We will not stand for the ad's going in edited by Farm and Home and it will have to go in as we have written it, as we are paying for it. Gilland wants to reach a section of the growers that are strong for co-operation, no matter what the cost.
We believe that we will have the handling of the rhubarb of the Dewdney association this year. This is the crowd that the growers sales had last year. It will amount to from 17 to 20 cars.
The whole of the evidence contained in this book shows the skulduggery of these people who had no regard for the producers and no regard for the consumers. It was as a result of this report that Tree Fruits Limited was formed in British Columbia and the growers' association received a measure of protection under the British Columbia tree fruits marketing act.
Even to this day the great tree fruits organizations or the co-operatives cannot sell to any other co-operative in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. And do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because the growers have their own brokers but not their own wholesalers, and that is a very expensive business on account of the cold storage costs involved. If a British Columbia grower goes to a co-operative or retailer in Alberta or Saskatchewan, for example, and says, "We would like you to buy from us direct", the possible purchaser will say, "I am sorry, I cannot; because if I buy my apples from you the wholesalers will not supply us with citrus fruits, nuts and oranges, and other things from across the line".
Mr. Speaker, I just mention this to show how the tendency to combine has found expression in our country throughout the years. All through the ages efforts have been made to curb monopolies. As I said before I give the minister and all those who have made efforts in this direction through the Combines Investigation Act and so on full credit, but to date these efforts have on the whole been completely ineffective and unsuccessful.
The practice of monopoly control is an ancient vice with which every civilization to date has had to contend. Because I am dealing with the principle of the problem rather than the details of the bill, with which my colleagues have dealt very fully indeed, I would like to quote from an edict issued by
Combines Investigation Act the Emperor Zeno to the praetorian prefect of Constantinople, A.D. 483, to show how the problem was then:
We command that no one may presume to exercise a monopoly of any kind of clothing or of fish or of any other thing serving for food, or for any other use ... nor may any persons combine or agree in unlawful meetings, that different kinds of merchandise may not be sold at a less price than they have agreed upon among themselves. Workmen and contractors for building, and all who practice other professions, and contractors for baths, are entirely prohibited from agreeing together ... and if any one shall presume to practice a monopoly, let his property be forfeited and himself condemned to perpetual exile.
I wish the minister would include that penalty in the Combines Investigation Act; then we would get somewhere. Even the Christian church in the early days spoke out very strongly against usury, that is, monopoly of credit and high interest rates, and the monopoly of the distribution of goods, and it supported price control and regulation. All through the middle ages numerous laws were passed to overcome the effects of combines and monopolies. As I said before, in the United States we had the "trust-busting" campaign of the late president, Theodore Roosevelt, and then in Canada we had the Combines Investigation Act of 1910. While it was effective in a limited way, the record proves that to date under the free enterprise or private ownership system, methods to control the practices of monopolies and combines have been ineffective.
Before proceeding further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have read with interest the minister's speech, and I am sure he spent a considerable time on it. I noticed the very careful wording on page 4344 of Hansard in which he preaches the new conservatism which, on reading it over carefully, sounds like the liberalism of 1910 in Great Britain. The minister said, as reported on page 4344 of Hansard:
The basic principle is that a free enterprise system is the system which will yield the highest material standard of living in conjunction with the greatest possible degree of political, economic and social freedom for the individual and that this system of free enterprise will be best maintained through the operation and preservation of active competition between the various sectors of the economy.
I am sure that when the minister says that he believes it, but the trouble is that while he is saying that, and has been preaching free enterprise and the control of monopolies for years, the fact is that every day they have been strengthening their ownership of natural resources and of manufacturing capacity in Canada. These rights are passing into fewer and fewer hands; there is no question about that.
I was also interested in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, and in fact I was

Combines Investigation Act a bit startled. As reported on page 4353 of Hansard he had this to say:
We on this side believe that in the circumstances Canada faces today and has faced now for a good many years, a mixed economic system is the most appropriate form of economic organization for the development of our country; a mixed economic system composed of a public sector, a co-operative sector and a private enterprise sector.
By George, I am sure he must have pinched that out of one of our speeches of some time ago. He continued:
We also believe that the private enterprise sector should be as large but only as large as compatible with the public interest-
That is a typical qualification. You leave yourself in a perfect position to manoeuvre under varying circumstances.
-and that it should be governed by the competitive rule applied in free markets, having regard, however, as the minister mentioned during his speech, to the changing nature of economic circumstances and the changing nature of economic development.
I want to congratulate, in the first instance, the Leader of the Official Opposition for taking a plank from the C.C.F. platform. If he continues in that direction the only thing he can possibly do is join the C.C.F. party, because we are the only party in this house that has preached the doctrine of the mixed or dual economy. Since I have been in the house this has never been mentioned by a Liberal speaker and used as a plank in the Liberal platform.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes. Mr. Mackenzie King mentioned it many times.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Mackenzie King, in his usual style, made vague references to this question, but never before has it been stated in such complete form, and in the language used by the C.C.F., as when it was stated by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Indeed, the only thing he could possibly do to give effect to that program would be to come over and ask for membership in the C.C.F. party. I strongly suspect that the hon. gentleman has been very much under the influence of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).


An hon. Member:: The left wing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Let me say this, however. Regardless of the statements of these people, under the Liberal and Conservative governments, that is under capitalism-and I am not blaming individuals-monopolists have continued to thrive and expand. Not only that, but they have become more powerful every day. Control of Canadian resources, Canadian banking institutions and Canadian manufacturing has fallen increasingly into fewer and fewer hands.

That is the situation today. In this connection I want to quote from a book by Mr. H. Percy Scott which was published in 1915. The book is entitled "The New Slavery" and its author was dealing with this very question of monopolies, which was at that time of serious concern to governments and to the people. This is what Mr. Scott wrote in 1915:
There can be no reasonable doubt that the production of food in Canada and the United States is ample to provide all of the inhabitants with plenty at the lowest prices.
The causes commonly alleged for the prevailing high prices will not bear the slightest scrutiny.
The experience of England and France proves that prices can be kept fairly stable where laws against extortion through combines and monopolies prevail.
In Canada, the United States and Germany, where such laws are not enforced, great distress results therefrom.
This is the greatest question of the day and the one most vitally affecting the great body of people that has come up since confederation. As we have seen, there have been many theories regarding it propounded, and views of it have been made from almost every conceivable point of view. These pages will have been written not in vain if they have demonstrated in any measure the folly of neglecting or allowing to fall into abeyance laws affecting the people's rights which have stood the test of centuries.
That was in 1915. Regardless of the good intentions of governments since that day we are still faced with the problem, as is clear from the introduction of amendments by the minister to the Combines Investigation Act. I would say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it is obvious that to date we have had no effective control. Monopoly of political power has been- broken by centuries of struggle in the western nations, the result of which has been the development of democracy and parliamentary institutions. However, in the opinion of this group these institutions can become a facade and a sham if economic power becomes the prerogative of only the few. Fascism was the direct result of economic royalists' fear of the people and their wish to perpetuate and extend monopoly control.
As I see it, the world moves in advancing cycles; and I should like the minister to listen to my argument from now on, because I think he may well be in agreement with at least the principles I expound. First we have the political and economic monopolies of the ancient world up to the middle ages. Then we have the competitive spirit of the industrial revolution which soon develop into monopoly control and, to some extent, the restriction of competition. In the middle ages we find public control and the regulation of prices, wages and markets. The doctrine of a fair price and a fair day's wage for a fair day's work was supported by the ancient church according to the principles of the

gospel as they were understood at that time. These principles became part of the canon law of the ancient church and the church in the middle ages, particularly toward the end of the fifteenth century.
Modern industrial nations have passed through a period of industrial expansion with almost complete freedom for monopolists with regard to the ownership of natural resources, the control of patents, prices, markets and so on. No legislation adopted to date, however well intentioned, has provided effective control of monopolies and combines. The disease is still with us, as it was with the ancient Greeks. I suggest that in Canada we are now entering upon a cycle in history that demands legislation which will provide effective control of our economic development by the representatives of the people for the people. I also suggest that the economic doctrine of the canonists of the middle ages- I said "economic doctrine"-finds its modem expression in the policies and programs of the C.C.F., the socialists. That means the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now about to be abandoned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Fortunate it is for mankind that ideals continue to hold their sway over the human mind from century to century, often new in form though always ancient in spirit. From century to century mankind has demanded recognition of these ideals; people have constantly called for their realization. From the point of view of this group, in view of the particular circumstances existing at present, now is the time for us to give effect to these ideals which have been expressed throughout the centuries by both church and lay authorities.
While we recognize what the minister is hoping to do and provide, we think this bill completely fails to meet the need to assure the development of economic democracy in Canada through the effective control of monopolies and combines, thereby effectively protecting the democratic and political rights of the people.
We are very glad that the bill is to be sent to the committee on banking and commerce. Representatives of this group will take the opportunity of advancing further suggestions at that time with respect to amendments, and so on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.
Combines Investigation Act


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: have listened with interest to all that has been said by hon. members opposite and by hon. members supporting the government in connection with this bill now before the house. In the minute or two remaining before one o'clock I will suggest that this debate has made it clear who is in favour of helping small business and who is against it. The vote will show that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Shear demagoguery. It is a bad bill. It is a bill that protects the privileged.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to all the remarks that have been made in the course of the debate on second reading of this bill. I feel bound to say that some of them-those coming from the opposition, whether the Liberal or the C.C.F. parties-have shown more of emotion leading apparently to misunderstanding than they have shown of reason leading to valid criticism of the legislation.
The field in which the emotion giving rise to the attacks on the bill has been most apparent is that part of the bill which seeks to give a measure of protection to small business against the damaging and unfair competitive practices which are sometimes engaged in by their big competitors. It is for this reason that I said just before one o'clock, and I repeat now, that it appears that the division which, if we are to take at their face value the things which have been said by the opposition we can safely assume will be coming, will show us on which side stand those who are prepared to do something to protect small business and on which side stand those who are prepared to talk about it but when the issue comes up and the opportunity is presented to do something about it, align themselves against small business and in favour of leaving them at the mercy of their large competitors.
Those, of course, are not the only issues in this legislation, but those are the issues in the main upon which the opposition has chosen to take its stand in its criticisms of the legislation. It is a fact that for years the Liberal party when it was in power, and now again in this debate, has shown itself ready to talk about the interests of small

Combines Investigation Act business and in sympathy with their position; but, Mr. Speaker, there is only one way you can protect small business and that is by doing something about it. We have faced that issue. We have brought in legislation designed to do something about it, and now we find that when the opportunity is presented to decide for or against doing something about small business it is clear that the Conservative party and the Conservative government is prepared to do something while those in opposition are prepared only to talk.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course that is not the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Essex East says, "Of course that is not the case." But the fact is that the vote will show whether or not that is the case, and if it is not the case I would expect the hon. member to vote in favour of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is indulging in trickery.


Frank Howard: The vote will show how some people distort the truth.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hear words such as "trickery" and "distortion". The criticism of this bill by the opposition has been fraught with trickery and distortion. They have made no attempt to examine the legislation calmly and dispassionately to see what it does. They have been the victims of their own mythology, that mythology which has sought over the years, fortunately unsuccessfully, to demonstrate that the Conservative party is opposed to anticombines legislation and seeks only to weaken it whereas only the Liberal party has done anything to strengthen anti-combines legislation.
I said that the Liberal party has been unsuccessful in establishing that mythology. I should like to correct that statement. The Liberal party has not been successful in creating that impression throughout the country, but it has been successful apparently in creating a distorted attitude of mind on the part of my hon. friends opposite. This debate has shown all too clearly that my hon. friends opposite, from the Leader of the Opposition down, are the victims of their own mythology. It is because they are the victims of that mythology that they have taken this incorrect and unfortunate stand in connection with this legislation.
It was obvious to anyone listening to the debate that it was the purpose of the opposition from the outset to seek to strengthen the impression to which I have referred-that Conservative governments have consistently sought to weaken anti-combines legislation.


The Leader of the Opposition made a great point of that. That hon. gentleman was obviously irritated by my humble efforts to set the historical record aright-


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member's effort was humble, all right.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The hon. gentleman was not even here.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I was.


Mr. Fullon:: I am always humble, Mr. Speaker. We on this side still remember that we are not a government of supermen as our predecessors believed they were. It was obvious that the Leader of the Opposition was irritated by that attempt of mine to put the historical record before the house in its proper perspective. The hon. gentleman therefore undertook to read me a small lecture in history and of course, bearing in mind that my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was an eminent historian before he became a politician, I think in this context I can only say it is obvious that the hon. member is now a better politician than he is a historian, because he repeated the mythological error of the Liberal party that the Conservatives' efforts over the years have been directed to weakening the combines legislation. I therefore feel it is desirable again to give the house a brief review of what are the historical facts in this regard.
I point out again that it was a Conservative government that first introduced anticombines legislation in Canada and placed the first bill on the statute books in 1889. In 1892 that law was redefined, and it is that law which virtually without change stands today as the central working definition of a combine. It is that definition now found in section 409 and 411 of the Criminal Code under which the great majority of combines prosecutions and convictions have been secured.
It is true that in the legislation enacted in 1892 there was no special machinery provided for investigation or administration, which were left to the ordinary processes of the criminal law.
It is also true that in 1910 the Liberal government introduced a Combines Investigation Act. This bill supplied a special machinery for investigation to supplement the ordinary machinery of criminal investigation, but this act had two important weaknesses especially when you assess it in the light of the present combines legislation. First, it imposed on private citizens the considerable responsibility and expense of initiating investigation; second, it provided no continuity in the administration of the legislation.

It was left to a Conservative government again to remedy those important defects.
In 1919 the Conservative government set up a special committee of the House of Commons, which in turn recommended the improvement of the legislation by the establishment of a permanent board to administer the laws relating to trade combinations and monopolies, and further legislation relating to profiteering and hoarding. As a result, the government of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen introduced legislation known as the board of commerce act and the combines and fair prices act, implementing the recommendations of the committee of the House of Commons. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the privy council declared some parts of that legislation ultra vires. That declaration related particularly to those parts of the legislation which gave the government power to take direct action by way of controlling the abuses of profiteering and hoarding.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker-again it is necessary to consider the legislation in the light of the economic conditions of the time after world war I, when this legislation was enacted-that profiteering and hoarding were real problems. The Conservative government did not hesitate to deal with them, and the only weakness of the legislation was that it went too far by way of giving direct power to the government to take steps in those fields. It was for those reasons that the legislation was declared ultra vires.
Lest there be any doubt as to whether the Conservative government was prepared to take effective action in this field, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer the house to the findings in the MacQuarrie committee report. I do this because the Leader of the Opposition sought to belittle this legislation of 1919, and to use it as an example to prove his myth that Conservative governments have traditionally been opposed to anti-combines legislation. I should like to refer my hon. friend to the findings of the MacQuarrie committee, a committee set up by the government of which he was a member. Those findings with regard to the 1919 legislation, as reported on pages 11 and 12 of the MacQuarrie committee report, read:
The act in its second part prohibited hoarding and profiteering.
This seems to me a strange thing to find in an act which is represented by my hon. friends as something designed to take the teeth out of combines legislation. I continue:
The board was empowered and directed to inquire into and to restrain and prohibit any breach or non-observance of the act. the making of unfair profits, and all such practices with respect to the holding or disposition of the necessaries of life, as, in the opinion of the board, were calculated to enhance their cost or price.
Combines Investigation Act
As I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a queer sort of thing to find in legislation which my hon. friends opposite characterized as a typical attempt of a Conservative government to take the teeth out of combines legislation. The only fault with that legislation was that it went too far in respect of the powers it sought to give to the government to deal with this problem. But here is the other interesting finding of the MacQuarrie committee as contained on page 12 of their report:
It is to be observed that the legislation overcame two of the principal defects of the act of 1910-
The act of 1910, I may remind the house, was an act of the Liberal government. I continue:
-namely the absence of a continuing enforcement authority and the initiation of investigations only on the application of interested private individuals.
Therefore you will see, Mr. Speaker, that a reading of history, supplemented in this case by a reading of the report of an impartial committee set up by a Liberal government confirms that the attempts of the Conservative government have been to strengthen and make realistic the anti-combines legislation of Canada. If this is not to be accepted by my hon. friends opposite let me remind them that when in 1923 the Liberal government re-enacted the combines legislation they took almost in their entirety the provisions which had been contained in the act of 1919, to which I have been referring and which were not declared ultra vires, and those additional provisions relating to administration and enforcement of the legislation remain still the basis of that part of the present anti-combines legislation.
My hon. friends, in their distortion of history, attempted to suggest that the legislation of the Bennett government in 1935 was a further attempt to take the teeth out of the combines law. Now, Mr. Speaker, a reading of history and the facts of history establishes that far from that being the case, the legislation introduced in 1935 was an honest and far-reaching attempt to deal with the economic situation of that day; was indeed based upon the report of a parliamentary committee which became a royal commission of that day, a royal commission of which my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was secretary, as he himself reminded us. It is a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, to find that on this question my hon. friend is prepared to fall victim to Liberal mythology to the extent that he is now prepared, as a result apparently of his reading of the Winnipeg Free Press, to condemn as being opposed to the spirit of combines legislation a bill
4550	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act which was based upon the findings of a commission of which he himself was secretary, and which was set up-


Mr, Pearson:: Since when does a civil
servant take responsibility for the acts of a government?


Mr, Fulton:: -to deal with the economic situation of that time. The fact is that the legislation actually went too far; but those are the actual facts of the situation, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred in his attempt to justify the Liberal mythology of which he is now a victim.
We now find, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative government is continuing the process of bringing the anti-combines legislation up to date, making it more realistic and improving its provisions with regard to enforcement, while at the same time seeking to provide for that very important segment of our economy, that segment represented by small business, the legitimate protection to which their position and importance entitle them.
In the course of this debate there have been one or two other evidences of this Liberal mythology to which I think I should refer before I come to deal in detail with what the bill does and what the criticisms of it have been. In his very helpful speech this morning the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Smith) referred to an example of this type of distortion when he asked me to comment upon an editorial appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press dated May 18 of this year. As he pointed out, this editorial contains statements which are so extreme that if proved they would certainly be an absolute condemnation of this government and of the legislation we have introduced. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, a reading of the editorial is almost sufficient to establish that it is one more in the series of attempts to create a distorted view of history, and to create by what I can only say is a matter of deliberate policy, an attitude of mind toward the Conservative government and toward Conservative policies to serve the political and other interests of that paper, and for no other purpose. The editorial departs so far from the true facts that I can safely say, and do say, that a moment's reflection on the part of any of the editorial staff of the paper would have indicated just how inaccurate and distorted was the version of the facts they are presenting to the public.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to matters of this kind, and with respect to legislation of this kind, there is room for honest difference of opinion. It may therefore be suggested that surely there is room for an honest difference of opinion between


myself and the Winnipeg Free Press on this point, and I would say that there is room for an honest difference of opinion; although with respect to this editorial, to use the word "honest" would be to give the paper the benefit of the doubt. There may be room for an honest difference of opinion but there is no room for deliberate distortion. I come to the sentence to which my hon. friend referred.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I think it is a well established rule which Your Honour has upheld many times in the house that we should debate with one another across the chamber, but that debates are not to be between editors of newspapers and members of this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the editorial has been referred to in the course of the debate, and it and the philosophy behind it have so obviously underlaid the criticisms of the Liberal party in this debate-


George James McIlraith: That is not right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that I think in referring to it and correcting it I am within the rules of the house. In any event, this sentence and its implication are so important that it does require to be dealt with. The sentence in question is:
The Minister of Justice is given authority-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order seriously. I think it is a well established rule that members of the house may not cite editorials about a debate in progress in the house while that debate is in progress.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point or order-


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Port Arthur first.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the course of the Winnipeg Free Press on this whole question as closely, I think, as the minister has, and my interpretation is that there are quite remarkable differences between the Free Press and the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore I not only think it is irrelevant for the minister to be attacking the newspaper but that his basic assumptions in his attack are wrong.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I point out that there was one point made by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate which I think requires to be dealt with. If the editorial were dealing with a debate in progress there would be something to the point he has raised, but the editorial appeared in the issue of May

14. It dealt not with a debate in the House of Commons but with legislation that had been introduced in the House of Commons, and was written before the debate had commenced. It is not my understanding of the rule that members of the house are forbidden to comment in debate on inaccurate and misleading things said outside the house, or that members of the government are precluded from commenting in debate on misleading and inaccurate statements about legislation which the government has introduced.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not heard anything said by the minister which would seem to support a point of order being raised. There is a rule that editorials reflecting on the conduct of members of the house and what they say or on decisions of the house should not be cited, but it does not seem to me that is what has arisen at this point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that was not the point of order I raised. The point of order I raised was that it is a well recognized rule of the house that editorials and other things written outside the house about a measure that is before the house may not be cited in the house in connection with a debate which is in progress when they are written; that we are supposed to do our debating in the house and not with parties outside the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is perhaps seeking to apply the rule too strictly. Opinions both pro and con on public matters which are expressed in newspapers are certainly used, and if opinions are expressed it does not seem to me it would be possible to limit any member from taking issue with opinions of that kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has, as usual, confused the rules of the house. The sentence in question to which I want to refer reads as follows:
The Minister of Justice is given authority to suppress an investigation without being answerable to parliament.
I think this is so important, Mr. Speaker, that it requires to be corrected. The bill does not contain anywhere, nor was it ever the intention that it should, a provision giving the Minister of Justice authority to suppress an investigation. That statement is completely without foundation standing by itself, and it is also without foundation-this is the more serious aspect-because it cannot be supported even by a misunderstanding of anything that is in the bill. Nothing in the bill even comes close to doing what the Winnipeg Free Press has alleged in that sentence.
Combines Investigation Act
The other distortion contained in that sentence is that the minister can suppress an investigation without being answerable to parliament. By what device this newspaper, whose policies and whose support my hon. friends opposite usually embrace, seems to have found a way in which a minister can do something without being answerable to parliament certainly passes my comprehension. It may be something that the Winnipeg Free Press and my hon. friends opposite would like to devise but so far, fortunately, they have not been able to devise a method of accomplishing that end. We have not devised it, and it would never be our intention to devise it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot condemn too strongly the attitude of those people within or outside the house, an attitude that has been revealed inside the house in this debate, who without reference to or proper analysis of what the legislation contains seek to create a distorted impression and to play upon the emotions of those who listen to what they have to say with respect to the contents and the intent of legislation in a way which is so far from being accurate or justified by anything that has been said or done now or in the past that all I can say is that it does call into question the motives of those who write articles of this kind and the motives of those who by their attitude seek to advance the point of view that is contained in such an article.


George James McIlraith: Before the minister leaves that point, I wonder whether he would permit a question. Would he agree that clause 17 (4) of the bill gives the minister a discretion to suppress a prosecution under this act without being answerable to parliament?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I would not agree for a moment, and I am coming to the argument the hon. member made in that respect in a few moments.
There were other evidences in the debate of an intention, deliberate or accidental, to deal with this legislation not on its merits but in the context of the Liberal mythology. They are almost too numerous to mention, but I want to refer particularly to the attempt made by the hon. member for Hull to suggest that the government and myself did not have in mind the interests of the consumer or the importance of protecting the consumer. Just as an example of this kind of attitude, which takes no account of the facts, may I point out that, as found on page 4391 of Hansard, the hon. member for Hull stated that he had noted that I as minister had mentioned the consumer in only two places in the course of my remarks. I find that in

Combines Investigation Act the course of my speech when opening the debate I made at least 10 references to the interests and position of the consumer.
I mention this in part because it was not only the hon. member for Hull who sought to convey this impression but also the Leader of the Opposition. In his opening speech, very shortly after he had begun he sought to convey the same impression although the object he had in mind was so far from the fact.
The inconsistent position taken by the opposition with regard to this legislation is again revealed when one analyses what has been said in the past and what was said here by the Leader of the Opposition. You will recall that I referred to his statement made at the annual meeting of his party to the effect that this government is persecuting big business. I challenged the Leader of the Opposition to produce a single shred of evidence to that effect. He failed to do so. Yet at the same time that he refuses to either withdraw or prove the words he used, that we are persecuting big business, he accuses us of taking all the teeth out of the anticombines legislation-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course I never said that at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -for the purpose, as he suggests, of assisting and promoting the interests of big business. Such inconsistency shows the absurdity of the position taken by the opposition with respect to this legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister goes on, would he permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, but I find that I am getting to the end of my time. I will endeavour to deal with questions at the end if there is any time left.
I find that the C.C.F. have fallen victim to the same mythology. As a result the whole opposition attack on this bill has been based on an unsound position. They have deprecated if not ignored the problems of small business. They have misrepresented the intention and effects of the legislation and have exaggerated the difficulties of enforcement. They have failed to take into account the practical advantages of the alternative procedure provided and have beclouded the discussion of this point with allegations based on incomplete understanding, if not indeed on a complete misunderstanding of what the legislation does.
In this connection I could perhaps remind the house briefly of what I said in my opening remarks on Monday of last week as to the effects of the bill. It seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to clarify and consolidate the legislation. Second, it seeks to

bring a measure of protection to the legitimate interests of small business. Third, it seeks to make the legislation more flexible in the light of the mid-twentieth century economy, both with respect to what it accomplishes by way of clarification and with respect to the new procedures for enforcement which are provided. Having ignored these objectives of the bill, it is quite understandable that the criticisms made by the opposition would be, as they are in my submission, unfounded and misdirected.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that all that should be done or that all that requires to be done lies within the scope of administrative changes, and he listed three things. First, he said the government should take care to make sure that the director does not abuse his powers. Second, he said that reports of the commission should contain recommendations for alternative remedies, that is to say remedies alternative to prosecution. Third, he said there should be emphasis upon research in this field in addition to enforcement.
It is interesting to note that two of these three recommendations were contained in the MacQuarrie committee report. That report was brought down some five years before the government of which my hon. friend was a member was dismissed from office. It is therefore interesting to find that, even in spite of that fact, my hon. friend still is suggesting that these are the changes that should be made, and the only changes that should be made. It does not speak very highly of his opinion of what his government was doing during that last five years of office. However, I can assure him that in so far as the administrative changes are concerned, we take them seriously. In concert with the responsible officials, I have taken steps to see that these administrative improvements have been given proper emphasis.
The hon. member for Ottawa West made a number of detailed criticisms which related directly to the bill. He accused us of introducing three new principles which he described as damaging to the content of the legislation. But while, under the heading of these three new principles, he dealt with certain objectives of the bill, in my submission he succeeded again in distorting and misstating the nature and effect of these three things which we have done.
First, with regard to combines themselves, he said we are introducing a principle which makes certain combines legal. Mr. Speaker, this is a completely inaccurate statement and represents a misunderstanding of what the legislation does. What the legislation does in



I960

[Stage Direction]
this respect is to clarify the law with regard to what things may be done by business which are not harmful and what may not be done which are still harmful. All that is done in this respect is to make it clear that if the activities relate only to one or more of the six purposes set out in the legislation, then it is clear that there will be no danger of prosecution or conviction.
There is nothing new in this situation. If the activities of a business were at any time confined wholly to these objectives, it is my advice from the legal advisers that this would not have constituted an offence. But we have been told-and it has been submitted to us most seriously by business -that they are not certain about the matter; that the law and the cases seem to extend the combines legislation so far that they do not dare carry on even these beneficial practices without which I think it is incontrovertible that our society suffers. The legislation therefore does not make a combine legal. It merely establishes that certain things can be done and that if these things, and these things alone, are done, then the activity does not come within the definition of a combination.
Then my hon. friend suggested that we have imported a new principle with regard to procedures for prosecution, that we have in effect created a new civil procedure as an alternative and that this is potentially damaging to the substance of the legislation itself. May I point out to the hon. member that the change in this respect is merely in the procedural law, not the substantive law. Even if he were correct-something which I do not accept-then all that would happen is that this new procedure would not be open to us to follow; I refer to this procedure for enforcement of the law. The law itself would not be affected, but only the procedure by which we seek to enforce it. Since, as he himself points out, it is an alternative procedure it would, even if he is correct, in no sense have weakened or detracted from the present power to enforce the legislation as it exists.
Second, he objected because the right to determine whether to proceed by way of prosecution or information is vested in the Minister of Justice. I do not know by what other method you could bring about this change in procedure. Somebody has to make up his mind as to what procedure will be adopted. In a complicated law of this type I am aware of any other way by which such a decision could be made. I should like, however, to point out to the hon. gentleman, in connection with his criticism of this new type of procedure, that it is recommended in
Combines Investigation Act the MacQuarrie committee report at page 40. May I read the relevant section to him. It is as follows:
The use of a judicial restraining order has been suggested from time to time as a promising addition to remedies. It would be of marked service in certain types of situation, of which the incipient combine, questioned practices in the twilight zone between competition and monopoly where the law is unsettled and the operations of the singlefirm monopoly are illustrations. The analogy of the American injunction suggests itself. In the United States it has been widely used and found of value. Especially when employed in the framing of consent decrees it reaches situations where criminal prosecution may be ineffective or unsuitable, and introduces a useful element of flexibility into the administration of the legislation.
I think on reflection, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will agree with me that the MacQuarrie committee recommendations are well founded and are carried into effect in the new provisions of the legislation contained in the bill before the house.
George James McIlraith: Just on that point I should like to ask a question. Perhaps the minister would like to leave my question until the conclusion of his remarks. I have a question I should like to ask by way of clarification of the point he has just raised.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am just concluding this part of my remarks. Possibly I shall have time to deal with questions at their conclusion.
I think it is essential that we bring our minds back to a consideration of what the bill does. It does three things. It clarifies the law and, by clarification of the law, it seeks to make clear that certain practices beneficial to the economy and to the consumer may be carried on by business. It does this because we believe that in the mid-twentieth century, and in the type of competitive economy in which we exist, it is essential to encourage business to do those things which it can do without damage to the economy and which, if done, will produce positive benefits to the economy and to the consumers of Canada domestically, and will enable business to compete more effectively in international markets. I doubt if my hon. friends would quarrel with that objective. I only ask them to look at the bill to see if in fact they do not agree, when they look at it dispassionately, that it accomplishes that objective.
Second, it provides a means whereby small business can be protected against the unfair economic practices of their large competitors and particularly against the loss leader device. In this regard I ask my hon. friends to look at what the MacQuarrie committee report itself says and see how it categorizes the loss leader practice.
Third, it is designed to give a more flexible procedure for enforcement of the law thus, I

Division
suggest to you, sir, making the combines law not weaker but more effective by providing a means of enforcement which can be suited to the type and nature of the offence, providing any administration, whether this or a succeeding administration, with a more readily enforceable piece of legislation.
Looked at in this light; accomplishing, as I submit to the house it does, these objectives, it seems to me that anyone who has the interests of the Canadian consumer, the Canadian economy and particularly that section of our economy represented by small business, at heart cannot, if he honestly desires to advance their objectives, do other than vote in favour of the bill.


George James McIlraith: Before the minister concludes his argument might I put the question to him which I had in mind. The part of the MacQuarrie committee report which he quoted is entitled "Supplementary judicial remedies". The point of my argument was that by clause 17 (4) an alternative remedy to criminal prosecution was provided rather than a supplementary remedy. Would the minister explain to the house the difference between the bill and what the MacQuarrie committee report says at page 40 when it uses the term "supplementary or additional remedy"?


James Ross Fulton: In that regard I can only say that the decision will be made as to the more appropriate method of procedure. If it is felt that the proper procedure is a criminal prosecution, which can be combined with an order for dissolution, that course will be followed. If, because of one or other of the situations envisaged in the MacQuarrie committee report at page 40, which I have read, it seems that the injunctive procedure alone is the desirable one, then that course will be followed. So in my submission we have in fact given effect to the MacQuarrie committee recommendation in the legislation before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the indication I gave to the house as to our intention to refer the bill to a committee, I move, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) that the said bill be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-63, to amend the Old Age Security Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding this present bill was before the committee I gave a detailed statement of the background of the problem and of the reasons which prompted the government to recommend to the house these present amendments. I also gave an outline of the nature of these amendments and of the effects which they would have in permitting all pensioners who leave Canada to continue to receive their pension for a minimum period of six months, as well as making it possible for the vast majority of pensioners who leave Canada to continue to receive their pensions for an indefinite period of time.
I do not propose to repeat all that I said in the course of my statement on the resolution, but I might perhaps repeat the four main effects of the present legislation:
1.	By repealing section 5 (1) of the present Old Age Security Act these new amendments will do away with the requirement that an old age security pension must be suspended when a pensioner absents himself from Canada for a period in excess of one month. Henceforth, no recipient of old age security will have his pension suspended when he leaves Canada.
2.	The new section 5(1), contained in clause 1 of the amending bill, will substitute for the present provision-requiring immediate suspension of pension-a new procedure which will in effect permit pension payments to be continued in all cases of departure from Canada for a minimum period of six full months of absence in addition to the month in which the pensioner leaves Canada. This new provision will apply to all pensioners who leave Canada regardless of the length of their previous residence in the country.
3.	The new section 5(1) will also provide that in the case of pensioners who have resided in Canada 25 years or more after their 21st birthday there will be no limit whatever on the length of the period during which they may continue to receive their pensions outside of Canada.
4.	Only in the case of pensioners who have less than 25 years' residence in Canada following their 21st birthday will the six-month limit to which I have already referred have any effect. Such persons, instead of having their pensions suspended as soon as they leave Canada-which is the requirement under the present law-will receive their pension cheques in the normal way for the month of their departure and will continue to have their pension cheques mailed to them wherever they may be outside of Canada for a further period of absence up to a maximum of six consecutive months in addition to the actual month of their departure. If, in the
79951-0-287
Old Age Security Act
seventh month following the month of their departure, they return to Canada their pension payment will be paid as usual and will be continued thereafter without any interruption whatever. In the event, however, that they do not return to Canada before the end of the seventh month following the month of their departure pension payments will be suspended and will be resumed only with effect from the month in which they actually return.
I have already explained in my statement on the resolution why it is that the government considers that a distinction should be made between the periods of absence permitted in the case of those individuals with long periods of residence in Canada and the somewhat shorter period of absence permitted in the case of those who have relatively short periods of residence in the country. Both groups of pensioners-those with shorter periods of residence, as well as those with longer periods-will receive substantially more generous treatment than is possible under the present legislation, but no limits of any kind will be placed on the periods of absence permitted to those pensioners who have resided in Canada for at least 25 years after attaining their 21st birthday.
I feel confident that the principles which the government has recommended for inclusion in the legislation will commend themselves generally to the members of the house.
Some question may be raised as to the reason why the period of 25 years has been stipulated, and I think I can explain this by pointing out that this period represents approximately one half of what might normally be regarded as an individual's active working life between the time when he attains his majority and the time when he reaches the age of 70 years which the Old Age Security Act assumes to be the point of full retirement.
I might also say a word about the purpose of the supplementary provisions contained in clauses 2 and 3 of the amending legislation. In clause 2 we are concerned with the position of pensioners who may be absent from Canada on the day when the amending legislation comes into effect and who if they return to Canada within the time limits specified by section 5(1) of the present legislation would be entitled to pick up certain retroactive payments for the months during which they had been absent.
If clause 2 of the amending bill were not included there might be some doubt as to the position of these returning pensioners with respect to the retroactive payments to which they are entitled under the present

Old Age Security Act
legislation. We wish to make it absolutely clear through clause 2 of the amending bill that returning pensioners will be fully protected with respect to any retroactive payments that they might have been entitled to pick up, covering the months of their absence, under the existing legislation.
Clause 3 of the amending bill is also transitional in character and is designed to cover the position of a pensioner who is out of Canada at the time when the new legislation becomes effective, and who continues to remain outside of Canada for a further period following the passage of the new legislation. Any such individuals who have the required 25 years' residence in Canada following their 21st birthday may, without returning to Canada, make application to have their pension payments resumed, and if found to be eligible for such resumption of payments they will be reinstated with effect from the first day of the month when the amending legislation comes into force.
No time limit is set in the making of such application. It does not matter whether such a pensioner files his application in the month following the passage of the legislation or six months later or a year later. In all cases, the applicant, if found to be eligible for reinstatement, will be reinstated with effect from the month in which the new legislation comes into force.
I might mention in this connection that there is no provision in the amending bill specifying the date upon which the new legislation becomes effective, or providing that the legislation shall become effective only upon proclamation. In consequence it will be clear that the amending legislation will come into force on the day when it receives royal assent.
It will be noted that the provision contained in clause 3 of the amending bill applies only to those pensioners who are outside of Canada on the day when the act comes into effect and who can establish that at the time they left Canada they had resided in Canada at least 25 years after reaching the age of 21.
Of course, it may well be asked, what happens in the case of a pensioner with fewer than 25 years of residence in Canada after his 21st birthday who happens to be absent from Canada on the day when this new act comes into force? Such a pensioner will not, of course, be entitled to apply for reinstatement of his pension in absentia but when he returns to Canada clause 2 of the amending legislation will apply and he will receive any pension payments in respect of the period of his absence which he would have been entitled to receive under the provisions of the existing legislation.

I think I should perhaps leave to the committee stage of the bill any further explanations which might be required with respect to the more detailed provisions of the various clauses, as well as any explanations which might be desired with respect to the more detailed procedures we propose to put into effect in the actual administration of the new provisions.
It will be appreciated that the old age security administration will now for the first time be faced with the requirement of sending old age security payments outside of Canada to persons who may move to any other country in the world. This will present a number of new problems to the administration, but fortunately we will be able to call upon the experience of other branches of the government service which have already had to deal with this problem. I might mention in this connection the annuities branch of the Department of Labour, the Canadian pension commission, the superannuation branch of the Department of Finance, all of which have had a considerable experience in issuing payments of one kind or another to beneficiaries in other countries.
It is not expected that the problems to be faced by the old age security administration will be in any important respects different from those which have already been successfully handled by the agencies to which I have referred. It is, of course, true that the volume of payments to old age security pensioners outside of Canada is likely to be substantially greater than in the other programs which I have mentioned.
While it is difficult to estimate for the years ahead the extent to which this amendment will result in increased expenditures, on the basis of experience to date it would appear that the cost in the initial years may be of the order of $2 million or $3 million annually.
In the discussion of the resolution the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) raised the question of proof of age. His complimentary comments concerning the sympathetic understanding with which this matter has been dealt is appreciated and I can assure him that this practice will continue. He also mentioned the question of proof of residence in determining the 25 years of residence and asked whether 25 years would have to be a continuous period. As he will note, now that he has the proposed amendment before him, it only requires that a pensioner has resided in Canada for 25 years after attaining the age of 21 years. In other words, it is not necessary for the 25 years to be a continuous period of time.
If this amendment receives approval it will, of course, be necessary to amend the regulations under the Old Age Security Act to take

into account this change. While consideration of the regulations must await the passage of this amendment, it would be my hope and expectation that the approach to be followed would be consistent with the existing regulations relating to residence provisions for the purpose of qualifying for pension. For example, present regulations provide for continuation of residence in special cases such as for members of the armed forces when they have to spend part of their service outside of Canada; also, there is provision for periods of temporary absence prior to application which are deemed not to interrupt residence. Considerations such as these would have to be taken into account when the regulations are being amended with respect to the 25-year residence requirement after age 21.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned when the resolution relating to this bill was introduced in the house, there was some discussion about the basic principles involved in the amendments, the full details of which have now been exposed.
I have listened with care to what the minister said and while he was speaking I followed the text of his remarks when he presented those amendments on the resolution stage. I am not aware that he has added very much to the general statement that he made on that occasion. The reaction that one has to what the minister said is consistent with the position which we took when this matter was first presented. We are in support of this bill but, as we said on the resolution stage, in the light of the experience which we have acquired since the Old Age Security Act was first placed on our statute books, we submit the government is warranted in going much farther than this particular legislation does. The position taken by hon. members opposite when they sat on this side of the house was such as to warrant this bill going much farther than it does. In order to be consistent with the assurances and the demands made by hon. members opposite, this bill should not have the exceptions that are provided for in the explanatory statement of the minister.
When he presented the resolution the minister said, as reported at page 4057 of Hansard:
It seems to me, and it seems to my colleagues in the government, that while the right of a retired person to carry his old age security benefit with him wherever he goes should be recognized in principle and should be clearly enshrined in the law, it should at the same time be coupled with the principle that to qualify for such a lifetime benefit an individual should have contributed over a substantial period of years to the development of this nation and to the provision of those tax 79951-0-2871
Old Age Security Act
revenues which are required for the maintenance of government and services in this country, as well as the stability of the old age security fund itself.
I would remind the minister that the position taken by those who sat opposite was not so extended as the remarks just quoted indicate. The position formerly taken was that there was a right of a retired person, regardless of the length of residence in Canada, once he has become entitled to the benefit to carry his old age security benefit with him wherever he went. That was the principle established by hon. gentlemen opposite, and particularly by the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker). They asked, what right did the government of the day have to restrict any individual, who having earned a pension as a matter of right, from receiving his pension when he left the country?
That was the argument made in this house and the argument addressed by hon. gentlemen to the people of Canada. There are thousands of individuals in Canada who will not benefit from the bill and who were given the solemn assurance that if this government came into office they could leave the country without losing their right to receive their pension under the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Brunsden:: They may for six months.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill does not do what hon. gentlemen and the Prime Minister in particular said.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Where did he say it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said it all over the country.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Give me a quotation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen do not like this, but we will establish not only what the Prime Minister but also what other hon. gentlemen said. They said that people had won the right to this pension as a result of their hard work and they should not be faced with the restriction provided by the legislation, of which this is a part.
The minister said the other night that the position originally taken by the administration that introduced this act was a wise one, that it was wise to be cautious and await the results of experience.


Edwin William Brunsden: Is that not still true?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said that it was as a result of that desirable attitude that the government now is going part way. All I say is that if in the light of the experience we have had since the establishment of the Old Age Security Act we are right and justified in saying that any pensioner who has resided in Canada 25 years

Old Age Security Act
or more after having attained his 21st birthday will be entitled under the law to a continuation of his pension payments during the entire period of his absence from Canada -I believe that it is right and that is why 1 support the bill-what justification is there for saying to an individual who has lived in Canada 20 years after his 21st birthday that if he leaves the country for one reason or another he cannot carry with him the pension which he has obtained as a matter of right, having reached the age of 70 years?
I am sure the minister has not given us any satisfactory reason for the fact that the individual who has spent the period I mentioned in this country is going to be denied a right under this legislation that will be accorded to one who has spent 25 years after his 21st birthday. It would be interesting to know from the minister the number of people who have spent 20 years in Canada after their 21st birthday. My recollection of the statistics which the minister now has in his portfolio is that it is a very substantial number, as great if no greater than the number who have spent 25 years in the country after their 21st birthday.
The minister has not given a satisfactory explanation for the arbitrary cut-off. If the argument is sound for those who have spent 25 years in the country then I say it is equally sound for other categories. It will be found that the number who have spent less than 15 years after their 21st birthday is relatively insignificant and the charge on the treasury could not possibly warrant the position that the government takes. Now that we have had experience I say that the government is wise in taking this action. I support the reasons given by the minister for bringing in this amendment with regard to those who have spent 25 years in the country after their 21st birthday but I am not satisfied with the reason for not extending the same provision to other groups.
It should not be overlooked that the present act provides for absences in the months of October, November and December in one calendar year and in January, February and March in another calendar year without occasioning loss of the pension. That is something that has been forgotten.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Who was it that brought it up to six months?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is there to do some worth-while things, as he himself said.


Mr. Speakman:: And he surely has after years of nothing being done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "after years of nothing being done".

This particular measure is an amendment of the Old Age Security Act, the only act of its kind which eliminated the means test, and it was introduced by the former government. As a matter of fact, the only legislation my hon. friends have ever brought into the house in the field of social welfare-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Completely wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -has always been by way of amendment to acts introduced by governments under either Mr. St. Laurent or the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. We have yet to see one single social measure introduced by the government that has not represented an amendment of something that was basically provided for by a Liberal government.


Mr. Spencer:: We have not been in office for 22 years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were 22 of the best years in the history of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members are diverting the hon. member who has the floor from the main argument. I hope they will allow him to make his speech uninterrupted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not one who regrets that kind of diversion because it always affords one the opportunity of putting on the record facts which hon. gentlemen have so readily forgotten. The bill, however, should not be interpreted as justifying the government's failure to go much further in the field of old age security. This should be an opportunity for the minister to explain to the house carefully and responsibly whether he proposes to allow dust to gather in greater and greater quantity on the Clark report. That was a very serious study. We were told by the Prime Minister that there could be no delay in making that study and the inference was clear that there could be no delay in implementing any of the conclusions, explicit or implicit, in whatever assessment was made. Why does the minister not take the house into his confidence? Are we going to have alongside the present old age security system, in part based on the principle of contribution-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, is this in order? I am not saying it is not. I am just looking for information.


Lionel Chevrier: You should not interrupt. You read your whole speech a while ago.


Jay Waldo Monteith: My speech was completely in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think it was indicated at the resolution stage that discussion of the Clark report was not in order on the present bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in that context your memory may be more accurate than mine but I do not recall that that was the situation. In any event, the minister has told us that this bill is going to result in an additional cost of two or three million dollars. We had always understood that the cost of this provision would be much higher, but surely one should be allowed to suggest to the government that supplementary to these provisions some indication of what action is contemplated by the government should be given with regard to the matter of the old age survivor system which commended itself so much to the Prime Minister. I simply say to the minister that if he believes the people of Canada are going to be satisfied with further delay, particularly delay that brings the proposal involved in the Clark report to the period of the next general election, he will find that will not make the impression which that particular timing is intended to have.
The minister should not hesitate to tell us whether he believes that the United States system is possible for Canada. He should not hesitate to tell us whether he agrees with the all-party committee so ably represented at that time by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). We should know whether or not, in making these extensions, we are to have introduced by this government the old age security provisions that are incorporated in the old age security laws of the United States. Those laws commended themselves to hon. gentlemen opposite. This continuous delay, postponing or allowing dust to gather, is simply an indication that those were measures designed not to provide further assistance to the aged of our country but to enable the government in 1958 to capture more support from the Canadian people by promises that were made with no real intention to implement them.


An hon. Member:: Ridiculous.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should much prefer to rise in order to debate a bill which had in it some provision that would increase the present low and inadequate old age pension. However, I expect I may be obliged to wait for that occasion until just before the next federal election is called. In any event, I rise to indicate, in my way, the attitude of the C.C.F. which coincides somewhat with that expressed by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who has just resumed his seat. I should also like to point out that if the hon. member for Essex East had been as assiduous when he was in office as he is today we might not be taking up the time of
Old Age Security Act
the house in debating this measure. However, as I have stated many times, it is surprising how stimulating defeat at the polls is to the imagination and to the desire to do things in behalf of the citizens of this country.


An hon. Member:: Besides, there is no responsibility.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says, "Besides, there is no responsibility". If it comes to the question of responsibility, I assume that we can use that word and connect it with the responsibility of the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) and say that he is shirking his responsibility to the aged citizens by bringing in legislation drafted in the manner in which this legislation is drafted. That statement does not imply that we intend to oppose it as such but merely to point out that there are some discriminatory features in it. The government, no matter how it may try, cannot quite get over that hurdle of wanting to set up two classes of citizens, and that is precisely what this particular bill does.
On the one hand under this government a few years ago-I believe it was during the 1957-58 session; although I stand to be corrected there, I believe it was at that time- the qualifying period of 20 years was reduced to 10 years and at that time, in passing legislation sponsored by the government, parliament decided that after 10 years a person in Canada would have obtained an equity in the pension fund that would entitle him to a pension. Surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare should have, toward these people who have attained that equity after a period of 10 years, that sense of responsibility to ensure that in this particular bill they also retain that equity if they happen to move outside the country and live somewhere else, instead of setting up at least two different classes of old age pensioners. One is the group of old age pensioners who remain in Canada and continue to receive their pension after they have established their equity in it through the 10-year clause. Another class consists of those who, if they want to move back to the old country from which they came, whatever that country might be, in order to live their last years with their relatives, will find that they must have lived in Canada for 25 years since their 21st birthday in order to continue to receive the pension during the time they are away if that absence is for more than six months.
I cannot understand why this particular discrimination must be placed in this particular bill. The minister made some reference to the fact that 25 years is considered to be the half-way point in a person's working life between the time he reaches the age of 21 and the time at which the Old Age Security

Old Age Security Act
Act presumes that he should be retired. That correctly one of his colleagues will undermay be precisely what it means, although take to move it-an amendment to the prothere does not appear to be any logical reason posed new subsection 1 of section 5 which why this pension outside of Canada, if the would make it completely equitable all across pensioner chooses to live in the country of his the board to pensioners, whether they live or her origin with his or her relatives, should in Canada or whether they choose to live be tied to that consideration.	in some other country.
I do not intend to make remarks going much beyond that point, Mr. Speaker. The opinion of this group has been expressed; it was expressed by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) during the debate on the resolution preceding this particular bill. I should like to point out that we should like to see presented a bill which would be nondiscriminatory and would allow for the pension to be received by and payable to a person once he obtained an equity in the pension fund, whether he continues to live in Canada or whether he wants to move to some other country.
There is a method whereby pensioners are able to obtain their pensions right at the moment-and I am sure that pensioners will continue to use this procedure for obtaining their pension

while they live outside the country. The procedure is a simple one, and I do not blame the old age pensioners for resorting to it. As I say, I think they will continue to resort to it. I am sure the minister knows of this arrangement whereby pensioners living outside of Canada beyond the prescribed time at the moment are able to continue to receive their old age pensions. The system is extremely simple if the pensioner has relatives or friends living here and it is this. The relatives or friends in Canada merely send to him, if he is living outside of Canada, the money in either cash or money order form an amount equal to the amount of the pension cheque and send the pension cheque along to the old age pensioner who is living outside the country. The pensioner gets the cash that is sent to him, signs the pension cheque, sends it back again, someone in this country endorses it or re-endorses it and cashes it accordingly. That system is in effect. It is being used and I am sure it will continue to be used. As I said, I do not blame the pensioner one bit because by law we have said that he has obtained a certain equity in the pension fund after a certain number of years. As a result he feels-and justly so-that if the law says he obtains that equity after 10 years, he is entitled to the pension just as a person feels entitled to a pension on any other sort of contributory basis with some private organization.
I certainly would recommend to the government, even at this late stage of the proceedings on this type of proposed legislation, that they undertake to consider-and perhaps at the committee stage the minister or more
[Mr. Howard.)


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), it is my intention to vote for this bill. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member. He sought to take credit for the initiation of this legislation. So far as I am concerned I am not a bit interested in the initiation of it; I am more interested in the old age pensioners.
It does seem to me that in this debate to date, apart from the minister's introductory remarks, we have lost sight of the pensioner. It is true that the preceding government initiated the legislation. It is also true that it took a humanitarian Conservative government to lift the level to the point where the old age pensioner could live. I can think back to dozens of cases in my home constituency where $40 a month, perhaps $80 a month for an old gentleman and an old lady, almost meant starvation, and it took this government to make it possible for them to enjoy a few of the amenities of life.
Let me say to you, sir, that with respect to the six months clause we have a large number of elderly people in western Canada who for reasons of health are required to go south during the winter months. The hon. member for Essex East intimated that this type of legislation was progressive. Of course it is, and here we are progressing. These persons who require the Arizona air or the Californian air during the hard winters of the west are now free to go in good conscience and receive their pensions without any blush on their faces.
My colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), indicated a method by which they might have done that before. That method is not acceptable to all Canadians, thank God. It has taken this government to regularize the procedure and make it an honest one.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the minister has brought in this measure. There is one question I should like to ask him which he might be able to answer when he replies at the close of this debate, and it is this. If a pensioner has 23 years' residence in Canada and then at the age of 70 draws a pension for another two years, does that give the pensioner 25 years' residence in Canada and therefore make him eligible to leave the

country at the age of 72 or 73 and take advantage of this change in rules?
I have made many speeches in Vancouver and throughout British Columbia last year forecasting this legislation. It is in line with the philosophy of this government; I think it is a wonderful piece of legislation and I wish to compliment the minister on bringing it in.


Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to voice my opinion. I am pleased at this legislation because the people in the north country like to get away in the winter. They love the warmth, and now they can stay six months and can stay for a year if they get their pay. I am all for this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, might I first of all voice my appreciation to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) for his support of this measure.
In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome), at the age of 72 or 73, as the case may be, a pensioner would be able to take his pension out of the country. The bill says "25 years after the age of 21".
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) endeavoured as well as he could to confuse the issue. He indicated various words which have been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the past, but he refused to quote him direct. It was just something out of the air that the hon. member was supposed to have inferred. He criticized us, while intending to vote for the measure, for making the period 25 years or more after the age of 21 and says "Why not 20 years?"
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) went further, and I think his words were "whenever he obtained equity". I do not suppose that real equity has been obtained in any pension as yet due to the fact that the taxes allocated to this particular pension fund have only been paid for a limited number of years. In my remarks at the resolution stage I indicated that the feeling was that they had obtained some equity, and there is no doubt that they have. But I do not think one could say that the pension should be paid to anybody entitled to the old age security-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is what the Prime Minister said on more than one occasion.


Jay Waldo Monteith: -who at this stage was residing outside the country. If we had
Old Age Security Act
in fact said 20 years, I am sure the hon. member for Essex East would have said it should be 15, and so on. He would have found something to argue about.
The hon. member for Essex East rambled on at some length about the Clark report. I asked if this was in order and you, Mr. Speaker, indicated it was not, so I will not contravene the rules and get into any discussion on that particular matter.
I do not feel that this measure is discriminatory in any way. I do not feel that the people of Canada would like an amendment brought in to the effect that a person could come here, for agument's sake-I mentioned this in my remarks on the resolution stage- live for ten years in this country, perhaps being in semi-retirement or retirement in some other country, and then go back to his homeland taking a pension with him. I do not think that is what is wished by the citizens of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have anything further to say in reply to what has been said. I do not feel that I can go along with the hon. member for Skeena in condoning disobedience of the law on the part of these people who may have cheques sent to them for endorsement while out of the country, have them mailed back to somebody in this country and meanwhile have the money remitted to them, which is a practice of which I am not aware in any specific instance. I think that is all I have to say in reply. I thank hon. members for their contributions and I hope we can get on to the committee stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Suspension of pension.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister tell us the number of persons that it is estimated will be covered by the provision in (1)(b)?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have some figures as to the number of pensioners who may be affected. We have in excess of 850,000 old age security recipients on our pension rolls at the present time. Actually for the month of March the number of pensioners totalled 876,410. It should be kept in mind in this connection that the vast majority of these pensioners qualified for old age security benefit at a time prior to 1957 when the requirement was not less than 20 years' residence in Canada. Even in the case of those pensioners who have come on the rolls since the residence requirement was reduced in 1957 from 20 to 10 years, the vast majority

Old Age Security Act
of them have well in excess of 20 years' residence in this country. From this it will be seen that the great majority of pensioners presently on the rolls, or likely to come on the rolls in the future, would have no difficulty in establishing that they have resided in Canada 25 years or more following their attainment of the age of 21.
It may interest the house to know that we have made an analysis of some 2,696 pensioners who in February of this year were known to be permanently absent from Canada. A review of the individual files revealed that in 77.7 per cent of all cases, or 2,095, the pensioners possessed the required number of years residence after the age of 21 to qualify them for a lifetime pension. Only 3.7 per cent, or 100 pensioners, on the basis of the residence history already on file had less than 25 years' residence in Canada after the age of 21. The remaining 18.7 per cent, or 501 cases, were cases in which a precise determination of the residence status could not be made from the evidence on file, since these cases had been transferred from provincial old age assistance rolls and detailed status so far as residence was concerned could only be determined by reference to the original residence history contained in the provincial records.
It would seem, on the basis of these figures, however, safe to assume that well over 80 per cent of all pensioners will have no difficulty in establishing that they have 25 years or more of residence in Canada following their 21st birthday, and it may well be that experience will show that this percentage will be closer to 90 per cent than to 80 per cent of all cases.
Fortunately, of course, for the administration, not all of these old age pensioners will leave Canada either for temporary or for permanent periods of absence, and thus the number of cases in which pension payments will henceforth have to be made outside of Canada will be very much smaller than the 876,410 cases which I have mentioned.
In actual fact, we have made an analysis covering a 21-month period from January 1, 1958 to September 30, 1959 which shows that slightly more than 24,000 pensioners left Canada during this period to spend from one to six months outside of Canada, but returned in time to avoid any loss of pension under the law as it existed at that time. All of those 24,000 cases experienced, of course, under the existing law a suspension of pension during the period of their absence and picked up their pension payments for the months of their absence when they returned. The figure of 24,000 to which I have referred

works out to an average of approximately 1,160 departures each month.
I would point out that in all of these cases where the pensioner left Canada and returned within a six-month period the new amendments will provide uninterrupted payments of pension during the period of temporary absence.
I can also report that in the same 21-month period-January 1, 1958 to September 30, 1959-some 441 pensioners overstayed their leave and forfeited one or more months of pension in respect of the period of their absence under the law at it then existed. This works out to an average of 22 cases a month of persons who returned to Canada after extended periods of absence lasting more than six months and who, under the existing law, would forfeit at least a portion of their pension. I hope that answers the hon. member's question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we are grateful to the minister, but he has given us so much information that it is difficult to follow. My specific question was: how many will be affected by this provision in clause 1(b)? I think the hon. gentleman said 2,690. Was that the number he gave?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was 2,696. We made an analysis of that number of cases.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is an estimate, I know.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is not an estimate of the number we expect. We worked on that number of cases to come to an average percentage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And of that average percentage the hon. gentleman said that all but 100 would be able to qualify. Am I correct in that statement?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, 77.7 per cent could qualify, plus 501 cases which we could not determine. We came to the conclusion that between 80 per cent and maybe as high as 90 per cent would be affected.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Were any calculations made as to the number that might be affected on this percentage estimate basis if the required period for qualification was reduced to 10 years residence after the age of 21?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was not done?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No.



I960

Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not apparent from those figures that it would be a relatively insignificant figure?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It might be an insignificant figure. I would not say it was insignificant. The vast majority of people would be able to qualify if it were reduced to 10 years. There would not be, possibly, more than 10 to 20 per cent, which would be some 80,000 or 160,000, who might be able to qualify under those terms. I still feel, however, that the citizens of Canada would not like it, at this stage at least, if a resident who retired from some other country came to Canada, for argument's sake, at 60 years of age, lived here for 10 years and took a fully qualified pension back to some other country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not a question of whether one agrees or not. The fact is that that was the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were on this side of the house and now, as in so many other instances, they do not observe their own recommendations.


Frank Howard: It is pleasant to be able to carry on a discussion of these points in almost an informal way. I still think it would be just and fair to all concerned, since the act at the moment says that after a period of 10 years a person has sufficient equity either by monetary contribution or physical contribution or in some other way to draw a pension-if we are going to adopt the principle of this proposed bill in the clause we are adopting now, that a person is eligible to receive a pension within certain limits outside Canada-that we should certainly act accordingly. After 10 years we say, a person is eligible for a pension at the age of 70. Surely, it naturally follows that if we are going to say to some percentage of those who are liable for that pension that they can receive it and live outside Canada, we should say that to the rest of them and make it uniformly applicable. That is the suggestion
1	make. It is in that sense.
This would prevent the establishment of two types of old age pensioners with different standards of qualification referred to by the minister. Perhaps the minister says, "At one stage we reduced the qualifying period from 20 to 10 years and at another increased the income tax contribution from
2	to 3 per cent and this division into two groups of people, or possibly three, justifies the present division." If that is the reason for the establishment of two pension groups that is a different thing again. Perhaps the minister would tell us what bearing this had on the selection of the 25-year period.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think we should go back to the time when old age security was 79951-0-288
Old Age Security Act
established in 1951 at $40 a month. At that time there was put on a 2-2-2 formula, 2 per cent of sales tax, 2 per cent of income tax and 2 per cent of corporation tax. There was no equity at all at that time. In other words, the people who were qualified were paid the amount of money monthly as a pension. I do not think anybody at that time argued that from then on it was completely contributory.
In 1957 some adjustments were made to the act. The 20-year qualifying period was reduced to 10 and the period of permissible absence was increased from 3 to 6 months. The pension was raised to $55 with no change in the 2-2-2 formula. As of a year ago the Minister of Finance announced an increase in the formula from 2-2-2 to 3-3-3 which provided more money to the pension fund. I believe the hon. gentleman mentioned in his last budget address that there would probably be a surplus in the fund this year.
In my opening remarks at the resolution stage I said that as time progressed people felt they had developed some equity in the fund. Everyone is subject to the pension whether or not they contribute to it and indeed they contribute automatically by way of sales tax, of course. Regardless of whether they pay personal income tax they still receive the benefit of the pension. It has been felt that if over the years they have contributed in one way or another to the welfare and development of Canada-if they contributed for 25 years of their so-called working life, if you want to put it that way, the half-way period between ages 21 and 70- they should be entitled to take the pension with them out of the country. I do not think I could go any further.
I still feel that a person who may retire at age 60, let us say for argument's sake, in some other country and who comes to Canada at age 60 and lives here and who may or may not contribute anything-he may not be in a taxable bracket and not contribute anything-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He would contribute by way of the sales tax.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, everybody does that but I was referring to his not contributing by way of personal income tax. He may do so, and I am not saying he does not. I still do not feel it would be proper for him to come and live here for 10 years, let us say, and then take the pension back to his native country.


Mr. Benidickson:: As a result of a letter I received last Saturday from a constituent who left for the United Kingdom a few months ago to visit his son I am curious about the effect of clause 1 on the circumstances

Old Age Security Act
he relates. He had heard of the intention to pass legislation along these lines. Through a letter written on his behalf he states that it was his intention to come back to Canada but while in the United Kingdom he suffered a stroke. He doubts that his physical condition will permit him to return to Canada. I read the explanatory notes to the bill and am wondering if he will be entitled to his pension if he does not return to this country.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What is his category so far as-


William Moore Benidickson: He has become entitled to the old age security pension. I take it this has been suspended because of what was intended to be a temporary absence from Canada.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Has he lived here 25
years since age 21?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, I am satisfied about that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then he will get his pension.


William Moore Benidickson: The explanatory note reads this way:
1. (a) that any pensioner who leaves Canada following the passage of the amendment-
And then if you look at subparagraph (b) of the explanatory notes it opens with the words:
1. (b) that any such pensioner-
I take it that "any such pensioner" is a pensioner who leaves Canada following the passage of the amendment. It would seem to me very unjust-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Clause 3, I think, covers that. He will receive the full effect of the present legislation as well.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad to hear it. It may be that the man's health will not permit him to return to Canada.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He will not have to return in order to receive the pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we want to ascertain from the minister why the period of 25 years has been selected. I suggest that a person who was here 20 years after attaining his 21st birthday would in principle certainly be as justified in receiving the benefit of this amendment as one who had been here 25 years. How did we arrive at the figure 25? Why did we leave out those who have been here for 15 or 20 years? What are the numbers of people it is estimated will be covered in those categories? If it is justifiable, as I believe it is, to do this for those who have been here 25

years after attaining their 21st birthday I believe in principle it will be difficult to justify not extending it to others.
It is true that the present Old Age Security Act is not fully contributory. As the minister said, it is partially contributory based on contributions through the sales tax, the income tax and the corporation tax and individuals who are here for any period before attaining the right to benefit do make contributions in all of these three forms or in one of them. Everyone regardless of the length of time spent in the country does make a contribution toward the sales tax which is by no means an inconsequential source of revenue.
If this particular proposal is justified in principle, as I believe it is now, I should like a more precise explanation from the minister as to why the principle is not extended to categories other than those who have spent 25 years after their 21st birthday in Canada. Certainly the person who has spent 20 years in Canada does not come within the mischief of the criticism made by the minister about those who had spent 10 years, who had come here at the age of 60. I think the same would apply to those who had been here 15 years. As a matter of fact, I find it very difficult to accept the view that if it is right in principle it should not extend to those who are as a matter of right now in receipt of a pension.
I know it is not easy to arrive at those solutions but, having accepted the principle, as the minister has done, that there is a right of a retired person to carry his old age security benefit with him wherever he goes; having established that as a principle of acceptance-and this is what the minister did when he presented the legislation-it seems to me he has not made out a satisfactory case for refusing to extend it to all who have won the right in law to receive the old age security pension.


Norman Leonard Spencer: For the same reason that you made it 20 years and not 19 or 18.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the government feels that this legislation is very fair. As the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out, this has not been completely contributory. It has been on a contributory basis of any nature only since 1952. It is felt that a person who has contributed one half of his presumable working life, up until what might be called the compulsory retiring age of 70, to the development of Canada by way of taxes and otherwise over the period prior to the contributory feature entering into the picture is entitled to this extra concern. A person who has given all those years of service to Canada in one way or another and

has contributed to the development of Canada in one way or another and by taxes is entitled to this extra consideration. I think that answers the question, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: May I pose a question to the minister? May I set up a sort of hypothetical circumstance and see whether this is what would apply? As I read this it seems to me that one would be able to come to one or two conclusions. Under the proposed legislation could a pensioner absent himself for six continuous months and continue to receive the pension? I refer to one that does not fall within paragraph (b), the 25-year qualification. I refer to someone who has not resided here for 25 years but returns to Canada upon the conclusion of the six months and lives here for another one or two months and then absents himself for a further period of six months. Would he be eligible to receive the pension during the second consecutive six-months period or the one or two-months period, or is it for one period only?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No; he could repeat.


Frank Howard: There is no limit to the number of times that he can be absent?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am informed that this could be done.


Frank Howard: So presumably a person could be absent within a few days of the calendar year and still continue to receive his pension outside the country for the whole year or practically the whole year, and keep this up indefinitely?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is so, Mr. Chairman, but it is felt, of course, that a person is not going to be moving back and taking up residence in Canada every six months and continue that sort of thing.


Frank Howard: I would submit that this could be done very easily if the person happens to live in the United States or wants to move or has moved to the United States, or originally came from the United States and has relatives there who live fairly close to the border. This would be establishing a silly situation, or a discriminatory situation because we are saying to those people who live in the United States from which it is easy to return to Canada that they are in a class different from those who move to the United Kingdom for a six months period or longer if they want to live there permanently. If they are not able to take advantage of the provision of the legislation in the same way as a person who moves to the United States might be, it is discrimination. I couple this with the thoughts that I have expressed about the need to make it universally applicable. While there may be some complications in this regard in so far 79951-0-2881
Old Age Security Act
as the rules are concerned, nevertheless I should like to have this appear on the record in a clear way. Perhaps, therefore, Mr. Chairman, an amendment is in order. I move:
That the proposed new subsection (1) of section 5 in clause 1 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(1) Where a pensioner absents himself from Canada payment of his pension for any period he continues to be absent from Canada shall be continued unless the pension is otherwise suspended or voided pursuant to the provisions of this act".


Jacques Flynn: This proposed amendment would replace the one which is now in the bill as paragraphs (a) and (b). It seems to me this would constitute an increase in expenditures because it would certainly qualify for a pension people who would not have resided in Canada for 25 years after attaining the age of 21.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is so, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Peters:: Is it not technically correct that this fund, in which there is going to be a surplus this year, is made up by contributions and not necessarily only by government money? If there is a surplus therefore part of that surplus is made up of contributions.


Mr. Palleil:: The hon. member knows better than that.


Jacques Flynn: I could hardly subscribe to the view of the hon. member because the principle is that any initiative which will involve spending money of the treasury must come from the government, and whether or not there is a surplus in the fund is not relevant to the point. If there are no other views to be expressed, I would rule the amendment-


Frank Howard: Before you do so, may I
speak to the point of order. I am in complete agreement. I had in mind that the amendment would not be accepted in the first place but I thought it was necessary in order to put our thoughts on the record in clear form.


Jacques Flynn: I have even less hesitation, therefore, in ruling it out of order.


Mr. McMillan:: I have had an inquiry from a lady in Niagara Falls, New York. She is eligible for the United States pension and since she was 25 she has lived in Canada for 18 years. She is a little under 70 and she is moving back to Canada in order to qualify for the pension. Is it possible for a person to draw a pension in two different countries?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, if she qualifies under our pension provisions she automatically receives it.

Old Age Security Act


William Hector McMillan: I know that fraud takes place in connection with some of these cases. Suppose we are paying a pensioner who lives abroad and who passes on and somebody cashes his cheques. What method have we to detect fraud in such cases? How can we prosecute and how can we recover the money in case of fraud? I do not suppose it is an extraditable offence.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would be very happy to go into more detail as to administration if required, but as I pointed out in my remarks this afternoon this is a system which has been followed by the annuities branch of the Department of Labour, the superannuation branch and the war veterans pensions administration. Several departments of government actually do have this machinery in force now and we will of course take their experience into consideration.


William Hector McMillan: I am not asking about their experience in Canada but about their experience abroad.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am referring to all payments of this type that have been made abroad in the past.


Mr. Taylor:: I should like to ask the minister a question. I understand that if a pensioner, for example, dies after say five months' residence outside of the country his estate does not receive the monthly payment under the present provisions of the act even though it may have been the clear intention of the pensioner to return to Canada. I am thinking particularly of an estate where the pensioner had qualified and had gone to California for a very few months. His family and relatives were in Canada and he intended to return but his estate did not receive the two monthly payments.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This was so under the old legislation but the situation will not exist now because the cheques will continue to be issued for the months in question.


John Russell Taylor: I understand that. I was going to follow up with another question. It is possible that very few estates may be concerned, but I wonder whether some relief could not be provided in the case of those who have died outside of Canada within the six-month period and where it is clear that they intended to return to Canada.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is no provision for that under the present act. When this amendment comes into effect upon receiving royal assent it will be possible from then on but there is no retroactive feature.


William Arnold Peters: In clause 1 why is the word "may" used rather than "shall"? I can see why there should be discretion with regard to certain contraventions of the regulations, but why is "may" used instead of "shall"?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As a non-legal light myself, I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member but I am informed-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May means shall.


Jay Waldo Monteith: -that may means shall in legislation. I cannot tell the hon. member anything more.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Savings.
William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the minister what the words "notwithstanding section 1" mean. Do they refer to clause 1 above, section 1 of the old legislation or subsection 1 of section 5?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Does the hon. member mean section 1 of the bill or section 2 of the bill?


William Arnold Peters: In clause 2 it says "notwithstanding section 1". Does that refer to clause 1 of the bill, section 1 of the old legislation or subsection 1 of section 5?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This section is intended to preserve and protect the rights of a pensioner who is absent from Canada on the date when the amending legislation becomes effective. It provides that any rights he has under the existing legislation will not be adversely affected.


William Arnold Peters: Do these words apply to section 1 of Bill No. C-63 or to the Old Age Security Act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: They apply to this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no, not today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Next sitting of the house.



WINDSOR HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-4, to amend the Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Boundaries of harbour.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to be here?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, he is unavoidably absent but I am taking his place. I look forward to co-operation from the other side of the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is not a question of getting co-operation. There were a number of questions I wanted to ask. Is there anyone here from the department? Are there any department officials here or is the minister all alone with these bills?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am all alone. I was here when these three bills that are now before us were debated in the house and I listened with great attention to the discussion on them. The bills went to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and I was assuming that the questions had been answered during the course of the committee hearings.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wanted to take advantage of the minister's presence with the officials to ask him something about expropriation and the powers of these harbour commissions. This matter has again become a live issue in my area. The bills are identical in so far as these harbour commissions are concerned. That was a little bit of extraordinary information I wanted to get. I quite agree that the bills have been examined by the committee.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1 carry?


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-5, to incorporate the Oshawa Harbour Commissioners.
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a bill which, I am sure, commends itself to the committee. It is a bill establishing a harbour commission. I know that the hon. member for Laurier who has had considerable experience with these matters wished to say something. I observe that he has now come into the chamber. Just before he takes my place, however, I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce feels particularly competent to deal with the particular matter. I do not expect the minister to reply. I merely put the question in order to give to my friend the hon. member for Laurier a cue which understandably, in the circumstances, is desirable.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce going to say anything on this bill?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I had been asked for a comment prior to the hon. member for Laurier entering the chamber. I had mentioned the fact that I was present when the three bills were debated in the house. I recall vividly the pleasant exchange between the hon. member for Essex East and the Minister of Labour with regard to the Oshawa bill. I went on to say that after that debate the bills were referred to a committee and that at that stage I was under the impression that all questions of detail would be dealt with so that on coming back to the house now at this stage, unless some trouble occurred in the committee, the bill would receive rapid passage. However, I for one would be pleased to hear from the hon. member for Laurier because of his experience in these matters.


Lionel Chevrier: There is nothing that I should like to add other than what has already taken place in the committee. I think there was a general interest in the committee. It was unfortunate that the members of this commission did not appear before the committee. What happened was that the team referred to by the Minister of Transport, composed of officers of his department and officers of the Department of Public Works, gave evidence. My chief concern in this matter was to ascertain from the government what plans it had for the development of harbours in the great lakes-St. Lawrence system. Following a request of mine to table the reports of studies made along the upper St. Lawrence system from Dorion to Oshawa the Minister of Public works refused so to do. After having referred to 29 of these reports made by the team to which reference has


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I find that the hon. member is perhaps straying a little from the bill to incorporate the Oshawa harbour commission.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I entered into this discussion, which I agree is not strictly germane to the bill, because earlier there was a consideration of facilities for all of the ports on the upper St. Lawrence from Oshawa right down to the international boundary line at Cornwall, and the only reason why I went somewhat oft the main discussion was because of what transpired earlier. However, if you want to hold me strictly to the discussion of the bill itself, I suppose I could not do what I am doing at the moment other than draw your attention to the fact that on an earlier discussion of this matter this was allowed. If you say I am out of order I will not proceed any further with my remarks on that point.
What I did want to remind the house of once again was that I think the government should offer some explanation about this. I understand it cannot very well do so on this occasion because the Minister of Transport is not here, neither is the Minister of Public Works; but there should be during the consideration of the estimates of one or other of these two ministers a complete statement by the government on what it intends to do with reference to the development of port facilities along these harbours.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to speak on the point of order which you drew to the attention of the hon. member for Laurier. However, if I could just review the situation, the minister came into the committee hearings and to the surprise of the committee, and certainly I think the hon. member for Laurier will agree with this, he came out with what were in effect statements on government policy so far as development of harbour commissions in general were concerned. That is why I would assume that what the hon. member for Laurier was talking about was relevant.
Oshawa Harbour Commissioners
I feel just as critical, and I know our party does, about the surveys as the hon. member for Laurier. We have had the minister, I am not going to say trying to give the Impression-he was acting-but, in effect saying that any time you have a survey team which turns out over 25 reports in a relatively short period of time those reports are kept privy to the minister or some of the people in the particular communities and are not available to members of parliament. One cannot help but have certain doubts about the scope of the reports. This is with all due respect to the very excellent economists, such as Dr. Weekes, who were on the survey team. I agree with the hon. member for Laurier that we should at the very least have a sample of these surveys. Perhaps they could be completely depersonalized or have extracted from them all personal community references so that we could get an idea of what the surveys encompass and how large a projection they give.
When this bill was before the house at the resolution stage, or it may have been for second reading, the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) got up and pointed out that there were some smaller ports down the lake towards the St. Lawrence from Oshawa which were also interested in development of their harbours.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At that point he was called out of order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: "At that point he was called out of order", the minister interjects. Well, he was attempting to make the point, I think, that all along the great lakes system every place which abuts on the water feels it is potentially a port.
When one looks at the Oshawa situation he can see that a great deal of dredging is almost certain to be necessary. The Oshawa harbour is not a large one. It is some distance away from the main lake channel and to bring it up, say, to seaway standards to give a draught of 25 feet or 26 feet will take considerable dredging. I should like to know how much is involved here in terms of expenditure, and what commitments, if any, the government has given to the people in Oshawa or to this harbour commission which we are going to have on our hands. How far does the government intend to support these endeavours?
If I can judge from the situation at the lakehead, the government made a commitment that it would spend about $4 million. Since then, that commitment has been raised to $7,500,000. There is still considerable confusion in the lakehead area about the development of the port. The actual ownership of

Oshawa Harbour Commissioners the property upon which construction is now taking place has not been cleared up. We have a - fight there. All this suggests to me that the mere creation of a harbour commission, or the setting up of legislation to enable a commission to be established, does not complete the job we should be doing. We should know more about what is in the mind of the government, and the minister seemed to suggest in the statement he made before the committee that these survey teams have mapped everything out. In fact we do not know, because the minister will not let us look at the surveys, nor will he give us much indication of what is in the surveys. We cannot but have doubts about any survey team which produces 29 surveys in so short a space of time.
I agree with the former minister of transport in his contention that on the estimates of either of the ministers concerned we have the right to expect much more information about these surveys and with regard to just how much encouragement has been given to those communities where surveys have been made. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works could assist us in this connection. I see we now have the hon. gentleman with us. He is looking up expectantly as if ready to take part in our discussion, so I will raise the question again: could the minister give us some information about the scope of these surveys in which his department is cooperating with the Department of Transport in connection with all these harbours on the great lakes transport system.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have listened with interest to the remarks made by the two hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. They ranged widely afield, but I realize the subject is of great interest to people living on the St. Lawrence waterway and, indeed, in all Canada. However, I judge from the speeches which have so far been made that hon. members opposite are not opposed to this first step to be taken with regard to setting up harbour commissioners for the city of Oshawa. I will draw to the attention of the Minister of Labour, who represents that city so ably, their interest in the matter. As to the other steps which are to be taken afterward, that matter could quite properly be raised, as both hon. members have suggested, when the estimates of the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works come before us for consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to delay this legislation, but I hope the Minister of Public Works who is now here or the Minister of Transport, or both, will be in a position when their estimates are up for consideration to

give some indication of the plans that either of them have with regard to these harbours.
The Minister of Transport seems to have carried the load in the discussion of these bills. It is true that they come under his jurisdiction, but in so far as harbour development is concerned I believe they come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. I do not think it is sufficient for either of the ministers to say that 29 surveys have been made without giving some greater indication of what the intention of the government is with respect to these ports. I can understand that in this discussion the minister would not have this information available, but I do hope the Minister of Public Works or his colleague the Minister of Transport will be in a position on his estimates to deal with this subject in greater detail than is possible at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-10, to incorporate the Nanaimo Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


William Arnold Peters: This is the third bill of this kind and I have been thinking that possibly it might be the intention of the government to set up an over-all authority which would bring some similarity into these measures both during the initial stages and at later stages. In each one of these cases there must have been development work before the stage of setting up a harbour commission was reached. I am very interested in one in which the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport and others are concerned, which must be in the initial stage now. I am referring to the port of Moosonee.
It seems to me it would be advantageous if the government were to set up an over-all authority making it unnecessary for these bills to be introduced individually. When the stage was reached where the setting up of a port authority was felt advisable, that would be done as a matter of course.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must
remind the hon. member that this bill refers only to the Nanaimo harbour commissioners.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am merely suggesting that rather than passing individual bills we should establish an authority to determine when a harbour has reached the point of development where commissioners require to be appointed and take action with respect thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to inquire into the prices of farm machinery and to report to the house thereon.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the past 10 years the most frequently heard general complaint on the part of farmers has been over the cost-price squeeze. This arises from the fact that during this period the prices received by farmers for their products either have not increased or have not increased in anything like the proportion of the increase in cost of the goods and services farmers have to purchase.
One of the big items in a farmer's costs is the cost of machinery and the cost of repairs to keep the machinery in operation. There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of farmers about the increase that has occurred in the cost of farm machinery. One seldom attends a meeting of farmers without hearing instances cited of the comparative costs of tractors or combines 10 or 12 years ago and today with various figures being adduced to show that the cost has increased two or three times over what it was in the previous period.
In view of the desirability of bringing down the costs to farmers and particularly of preventing further increases in cost of the things they have to buy I feel that an inquiry into the reasons why the costs of farm machinery have increased as they have would be in the public interest. I would hope that this inquiry would enable the committee not only to determine the reasons why this increase in cost has occurred but also to make recommendations as to how further increases
Agriculture Committee
could be prevented or how present prices could be turned down a bit or reduced.
There are a number of facets to the whole question which I think could be profitably studied. One way in which costs have been held down and have not increased at the rate at which they otherwise might have has been because of standardization and I believe much more could be accomplished by way of standardization in the manufacture of farm machinery. I have received a considerable number of suggestions from farmers saying that the standardization of nuts and bolts alone on farm machinery would save them a great deal of time and money. Each machine they buy requires nuts and bolts of a different size and type. If one of these breaks they often have difficulty obtaining the proper type to replace it. Greater standardization would save a considerable sum of money in repairs and the saving of time in the period of harvesting or seeding would be substantial and perhaps of even more importance. Any time lost by farmers in those periods represents a financial loss.
That is only one phase of the matter. In addition, I think more could be done by way of standardization from the point of view that instead of there being a considerable number of large heavy separate machines, one for each operation which has to be carried on in farming, there could be two or three basic machines and through the use of simplified and cheaper attachments it would be possible to carry on the work that now requires several large expensive and heavy machines.
This is a large subject for inquiry, of course. I would not anticipate that the committee would be able to complete its study in the remainder of this session. I would hope, however, that it could make a good start on the inquiry this year, lay out the general lines it will develop, hear some evidence in connection with the matter and then be in a position to proceed with an investigation at the next session and complete the inquiry and report.
It is my hope that the motion will be passed expeditiously and that the committee could immediately start to work on this inquiry.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, any effort that will assist the farmers of Canada in meeting the economic problems that confront them will win wide support, I am sure, in every quarter of the house. There can be no doubt that agriculture today is faced with a critical situation as we have had occasion to remind the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) from time to time.

Agriculture Committee The cost-price squeeze is still a fact notwithstanding the statement made by the minister a few months ago to the effect that the government had resolved this problem. The fact is that the cost-price squeeze now is as great as ever.
Undoubtedly, one of the considerations the government had in mind in bringing forward this proposal was, I am sure, the desire to examine the cost of agricultural machinery but also to remove an embarrassment which doubtlessly confronts the Minister of Agri-cuture and the government at every step. The government, I have no doubt, particularly from the words which have just been used by the minister, namely that the study is not one that need be terminated now, indicates that what the minister has in mind is what will be the situation when the next federal election comes and when the farmers will be confronting the minister with the fact that the cost-price squeeze still exists.
I have no doubt that with the great imaginative powers that are his the minister is now anticipating that situation and he will be in a position to say to the farmers, "Oh, but we have done something about this; we have established a committee to look into the matter of the high cost of farm machinery; this was done by us; this was an indication of our concern about the fact that farmers operate under difficult conditions". Farm prices are down; the cost of necessities are up. That is undoubtedly what the minister had in mind-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can assure the hon. member it was not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -although the minister did not say that. In any event, it is so obvious that such is the case that I should not be given any credit for reading this motive into the words of the minister.
The fact is that agriculture is now confronted with critical situations. This is admitted on all sides. The economic return of many thousands of farmers in this country at this time is such that it should be the concern of governments on all levels to ascertain, both by way of fundamental action and by way of what might be characterized as temporary remedial action, as to how to deal with this situation.
It will be recalled that the previous administration took the iniative of abolishing the tariffs on farm machinery thereby very considerably bringing farm machinery within the reach of many thousands of farmers who otherwise would not have been able to provide themselves with the necessary equipment. This study will be welcomed as a means of confirming the decision of the previous administration to reduce tariff rates


on farm implements completely; but the minister should be warned that this study, desirable as it is, will not be regarded as satisfying the obligations of the government in terms of an agricultural policy which it assured the Canadian people it would give them, a policy that would improve the economic situation of agriculture at this time.
The minister mentioned the fact that consideration and study should be given to the standardization of equipment. We will have to look at that in the light of the fact that we recognize the private sector of our economy is something that we wish to encourage. That should not deter us from making an examination of the problem from every point of view. There is also the constitutional aspect as to whether or not a committee of this house has the power to recommend standardization. It will be doubtful that it has the power to take any steps pursuant to the results of a positive study on the question of standardization. But I have no doubt that a study along those lines will prove constructive and valuable.
Those of us who represent agricultural constituencies in part know many farmers who are loaded with equipment beyond their means. Of that there can be no doubt. I have in my own mind as I talk right now some cases of individuals who find themselves economically embarrassed because of the heavy overhead which they have had imposed on them. When I say "which they have had imposed on them" I use the words deliberately. So, to the extent that this will reveal a situation which disturbs farmers and should disturb us we welcome this proposal. But I say to the minister that this looks too much like an effort on his part to divert the charge that he has not dealt with the cost-price squeeze situation along the lines indicated by him and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and those who have been spokesmen for the government.
We shall do our part in seeing that this study is complete, that it is vigorously pursued, but we shall also be vigorous in our examination of other aspects of the government's agricultural policy which more and more gives evidence of being wanting.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this group agrees with the purpose of the resolution. We think it is a very necessary inquiry. We also think it is very late in the session to introduce a resolution and to refer such an important matter to the committee on agriculture. We are of the opinion that this resolution should have come before the house in January so that the committee would have had full opportunity to

study all aspects of this question, and there are a lot of aspects to be probed.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr Martin) that while this is a very important matter, the question of how costs are affected by the rising price of farm machinery, the farmers are also interested in hearing of government action with respect to prices and improvements in that regard.
1 am inclined to think that this is rather a diversionary tactic, you know, to take the attention of the farmer away from the main things that concern him at the present time and focus it on one segment of his present problems. There is no doubt about this inquiry being necessary. As I look over the latest return from the dominion bureau of statistics, which I received recently, I find it shows that while the index of some agricultural costs dropped in recent months, the index of equipment and material advanced 1.4 per cent since January, from 218.8 to 221.9.
The minister informed us that the committee was to be instructed to inquire into the reasons for the increase in the cost of farm machinery. That is a very good purpose, and it will have power to make recommendations to prevent further increases or stabilize the present costs of farm machinery. We agree with that.
There are a number of important aspects of the cost of farm machinery to which the committee could give some careful attention. That will require considerable time. The minister has implied that the committee could not finish its work this session.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not imply it; I said definitely it would not.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did not hear quite correctly. Some of the members opposite me were talking and I could not hear too well. I must always lay the blame on the Conservative members opposite. I think it far better to take time to make a full report than to hurry through in a few short weeks time and make an early and incomplete report.
The minister mentioned the standardization of parts, bolts and nuts. I think that is a very important suggestion. Anyone who has had anything to do with farm machinery knows what time can be lost, what expenses can be incurred in this way. I know from my own experience in the interior of British Columbia and from the experience of other persons working in our district that this lack of standardization makes it necessary sometimes to wire to Vancouver for a special size of bolt and nut and things of that sort. It is very important. I think that some study
Agriculture Committee should be made with respect to the standardization to a greater extent of types of farm machinery, manufactured types of machinery for purposes on the farm. There could be greater standardization of the types of machinery as well as the parts of machinery.
I was interested in the minister's suggestion with respect to basic machines. I think there is a lot in his suggestion. In my opinion a great deal of duplication of expense is caused to farmers today by farmers owning expensive machinery when with proper arrangements there could be cooperative ownership of certain basic machines. That is particularly so in the case of land clearing, draining, diking and things of that sort. In those fields there is an opportunity for co-operative ownership of large basic machines to the advantage of farmers within an area. Thus farmers could reduce to some extent their capital investment in machinery which is becoming so large that more and more land is being required to carry the load.
I think there should also be an examination into how sales charges affect the cost of farm machinery. While the dealer has to have adequate remuneration, I think there is some duplication in respect of distribution which adds to the cost of machinery. When you have a certain limited market it is all right to talk about the spirit of competition but there is very little competition with regard to the price charged for a tractor, a binder or a mowing machine of a certain type as between one company and another. I have noticed that where outlets are limited you will find two or three engaged in the distribution of farm machinery and I think something should be done by the companies themselves to reduce the cost of distribution and sales charges by some consideration of that aspect of the problem.
I think the committee should also inquire into the application of the tariff structure with respect to the admission of farm implements into Canada free of duty. In my own personal experience since I have been a member of the house I have on various occasions had poultry producers and fruit farmers come to me and say that certain parts they required for their equipment were not duty free, and after considerable representations being made to the minister the matter was corrected in one or two cases. But I do suggest that the committee should have officials of the Department of National Revenue come before it in order to get their views as to what is considered to be agricultural equipment.
I remember that on one occasion some parts were required for a particular type of incubator and the customs officials said that

Agriculture Committee according to the act an incubator was not an agricultural machine. Yet it certainly is a piece of machinery used for the production of chickens which is a part of agriculture, and after some time I think an amendment was finally made to the regulations and these parts were admitted. There may be other cases like that and I suggest that the committee should have officials of the Department of National Revenue come before it and explain what actually is allowed into Canada under the term "agricultural implement", shall I say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would be interesting to know why this matter was brought forward in the month of June, so late.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not think the officials of the Department of National Revenue would be able to answer that question but it might be a good idea to have the minister come before the committee in order to find out the reasons for the delay in bringing in this resolution.
I think there should also be some consideration of the cost of transportation of farm machinery. This is also related to the matter of the outlets for distribution. I think some savings possibly could be made by more scientific and economical loading of equipment from eastern factories destined to western points so that the costs could be reduced as far as possible by following the most economic route and moving the machinery to the centre most easily available to the farmer who may be making the purchase.
I have dealt with these matters because they have been brought to my attention throughout the years. This group wholeheartedly supports the purpose of the resolution. We hope the committee will make a thorough study of the question while they are at it even though it will extend into the next session and that the work of the committee will result in a lowering or stabilization of the cost of farm machinery and to that extent be of benefit to the farmers.


Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and the government for this important step. I have been hoping for some time that such a resolution would be introduced by the government and I am very glad indeed that the minister is bringing it in now. This is one of the problems that the government inherited when it took office. Despite what the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has said, there are a lot of people in western Canada who are interested in the price of farm machinery and who feel that the former government did

not do a great deal over the years when he was sitting on the treasury benches. We are all very glad to note that now he is in the opposition he has developed an interest in the prices of farm machinery.
This matter is of particular interest to the farmers of Saskatchewan and western Canada generally. The cost-price squeeze is something we have heard a great deal about in recent years. Tractors and combines that used to cost from $2,000 to $3,000 now cost between $6,000 and $7,000. Other farm machinery is on the same level. The price of repairs is out of all proportion to the money received by the farmers for their produce. Therefore the farmers are all interested in this matter. I am glad the minister has intimated that the committee is going to have wide powers. I hope it will be entitled to inquire into the prices charged and the profits being made by the machinery companies. There is a general feeling throughout western Canada that they are making tremendous profits. I have my doubts whether that is so but I think it would be advisable for the committee to have full power to inquire into that matter, to inquire into the cost of their raw materials and find out what has made it necessary for the price of farm equipment to be increased so much.
I shall only be about two minutes, Mr. Speaker. I hope that all these matters will be gone into by the committee. The minister has intimated that it will have power to sit after the session is over and that it will be a continuing committee to investigate all these various matters that are of interest to the people of western Canada. As a result of the deliberations of the committee and the recommendations that are made, I hope the prices of farm machinery will be brought more into line with the prices of the products that the farmers have to sell.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the minister for having taken the action he is taking in setting up this particular committee. It is one that I am quite sure all of the farmers in eastern Canada in particular will appreciate. However, we deplore the fact that it should be set up as late in the session as it is being set up. It is unfortunate that committees in the House of Commons do not function between sessions. If we are going to make a real success of this

particular committee and if it is to accomplish what I am quite sure the farmers, the minister and other segments of the economy are interested in having it do, it would seem to me that it is going to have to go fairly extensively into the whole field of machinery costing and pricing.
I should like to see labour called before this particular committee because continually the charge is made to the farmer by the machine distributor, the machine manufacturing industry and politicians also that the reason farm machinery is at such a high price and that the cost to the farmer is so high is that labour is getting too much of the machinery dollar. I should like to see called before the committee representatives of the farm machinery industry-particularly the management side of it; labour representatives; representatives of the unions; the distributor representatives and the retail merchants themselves. I think we shall find in Canada a situation similar to that found in the United States about 10 years ago or a little more when an investigation was conducted there into farm machinery.
In Ontario one of the problems affecting the machine industry that I think should be investigated is the retail price of or the cost involved in secondhand machinery itself. When a farmer can no longer use the machinery he has and he is obliged to trade it in on something new, the amount received for the equipment is not in keeping with the amount of money that he has had to pay for it. Yet somebody buying that machinery for the second time finds there is not a great deal of saving in it.
I am thinking mainly of the milk-producing industry in Ontario in the last few years where they have changed over from farmers who are operating with milking machines and modern cooling equipment that went along with the milking machine in dairy production. All of a sudden in southern Ontario-it is into this matter that part of the investigation might take place-there seemed to be a terrific impetus for bulk haulage. Bulk haulage not only meant that the milk was going to be hauled in bulk trucks but that the farmer had to have bulk coolers and the equipment all had to be changed over. The cost was phenomenal. At the same time the farmers in those areas that were not going into bulk haulage found that the cost of cooling equipment for the old type of milk set-up was a very expensive proposition even when they were buying secondhand.
It would also appear that some investigation can take place, particularly in the east, in relation to patents that are held on an
Agriculture Committee international basis. I am referring to equipment that has been manufactured and that appears to have been very much cheaper than former farm equipment that is held under international patents, and where this equipment has only been available from one major company. It would seem to me that this situation has caused other companies to go into producing costly equipment that has in many cases been an experiment tried out on the farmer, at the farmer's own cost; and that after he has used the new invention for a short time he finds it has been replaced by something that has been further developed and is much more satisfactory than the other property.
This investigation also, I would think, should give close consideration to the price of farm machinery replacement costs. In Ontario, and particularly in northern Ontario, parts are not stocked in the main at any place in the area. If you have a major breakdown the distributors, or the small distributors anyway, have not parts for a great deal of major machinery. There is not the same requirement that there is with regard to automobiles where you must in Canada for a number of years by law stock parts for this equipment. But it often seems that the part you need for such things as discs and plows and other articles of farm machinery that will last a much longer time than normal farm equipment are not available anywhere in Canada and it takes months to get them. It is wise to order parts in the fall so that you will have them in time for spring. When these parts come the cost has no relationship to the normal cost of parts but they would appear to have been made especially for a custom job.
As I understand the situation with automobile parts, the automobile supplier is by law compelled to keep the equipment for manufacturing parts for a particular model for a certain length of time after the particular year. Parts should be available, I think, by law, for a period of 10 years or something of that nature. Some consideration could be given to that problem with regard to agricultural machinery repairs also.
I think the minister is quite right in saying that a great deal of advantage can be gained from the farmers deciding on a basic type of equipment and having that type developed. But I would be greatly interested in knowing just how the minister expects there is going to be this basic type development. I am quite sure we will all agree that there are basic units that could be modified and added to and one of them, of course, is the Ferguson set-up. But I would suggest that we are going to have a great deal of
4576	HOUSE OF
Agriculture Committee difficulty in getting all the companies to accept this basic type of equipment and to limit the manufacturing of those that wish to manufacture other things. As long as there is competition I would assume that the price is going to have to go up, that distribution costs are going to increase as well as advertising costs and all the others costs. I agree with the minister that if standardization of basic units could be accomplished it would reduce the price of farm equipment considerably.
This statement also would be true with regard to automobiles in Canada and a great number of other things. A basic unit could be produced for a very reasonable sum of money. But we have not yet found any method of persuading companies to produce according to our needs and desires. Rather they produce to satisfy the market in which they can sell their particular product.
I believe the various segments of the industry should be given an opportunity to appear here. Not only should they be given the opportunity but they should be instructed to appear before the committee. Time is limited. I would suggest that we should have this investigation completed before too long, either this session or early next session, because we know and realize the fear the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) expressed, that we will be facing an election and that this will be a promise in the election platform rather than an actual fact.
I am pleased that the minister has now seen fit to do something with the agricultural committee which I think is constructive and which is very basic. I hope that the committee will be givan all the authority it needs in order to get a true picture so that parliament itself can decide who is the fly in the ointment. When they decide who is the fly in the ointment they can do something about the problem.
Mr, C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-
Camrose): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes of the house's time to answer a couple of charges which have been made by members of the opposition that this is an election issue.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) suggested that the farmers should buy co-operatively. For his benefit, let me tell him that every farmer needs his own machinery. I have an expensive combine, and last year I had three days of fine weather to take off my crops. If four or five farmers together bought that piece of machinery, what could they do with it on an occasion like that? The previous year we had four days of good weather, so suggestions like that seem to me to be ridiculous.


I always like to listen to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) speak on agriculture because he can rant around and always turn it into a political speech. May I say that when I speak of agriculture I have had experience. I would say I have had twenty years more experience than the hon. member for Essex East has had, or perhaps I should say 19 years and 364 days. I have before me an editorial from the Ottawa Journal of February 17, 1960 which reads, in part, as follows:
Political piglet gives Paul rough time.
He was speaking in Kingston, Ontario, so I will give the hon. member credit for one day's farm experience that week.
I would also like to draw the attention of this committee to the fact that on April 23, 1959, at page 2985 of Hansard, I drew the attention of the house to the situation with regard to the price of machinery. On page 2991 of Hansard for the same year the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) drew the attention of the house to the price of machinery. If we look back to the year 1953 when the Liberals were in power, did they do anything to help us out of the squeeze we were in? Absolutely nothing. The only thing I can remember their doing was at a meeting in Manitoba when one of the farmers got up and asked the Right Hon. C. D. Howe "How about the price of oats?", and he poked the farmer in the stomach and said, "You look well fed". That is the kind of support we had from those gentlemen. This government has been interested in the price of machinery and the welfare of the farmer, ever since elected. This matter is no election issue because this question has been brought to the attention of the minister by the farmer members of this party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, might I say at the
beginning of my remarks that the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) boasted about the greater agricultural experience he had had than the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). While listening to him I looked at the Parliamentary Guide and discovered that I had lived on a farm for ten years before the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose was born.
However, it was not to give that autobiographical detail that I rose to speak. I rose to speak because of something said by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Han-bidge) before the dinner recess, when he said that the Liberals when in office had not done very much about this matter. I think the hon. member for Kindersley perhaps has forgotten that at the end of the war the tariff was taken off farm machinery completely

by a Liberal government and that the farmers in Canada are able to buy their machinery in the cheapest market there is anywhere in the world, thanks to a Liberal government.
In view of the fact that there is that free choice anywhere in the world in the buying of machinery, it seems to me that there is not very much hope of much that is really practicable being accomplished, particularly when starting a committee inquiry which, if there were any justification for it at all, should have been started in February and not late in June when the house is sitting in the mornings as well as in the afternoons. One wonders whether the real purpose of this motion is not to try to provide some sort of feeble substitute for the deficiency payments that the government has denied the farmers or for the acreage payments which, despite what one of their spokesmen in western Canada is saying, the government is doing nothing whatever about.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the strange thing to me is that no matter what is brought before the House of Commons there are always two or three hon. members on the far side of the house who cannot refrain from putting in a few political jabs for their own benefit. The only thing wrong with the Liberal members of this house as far as this bill is concerned is that-


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a bill.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Well, resolution, whatever you want to call it-is that they are afraid it will be of benefit to some of our farmers. I have sat in this house for 20 years and most of that time I faced a Liberal government. In the time I have been in this house I can say that the Conservative government has done more for the farmers of this country in the three years they have been in operation than the Liberals did in 22 years. Nobody can deny that and you can go to the country any place. Regardless of that fact, although the farmers are not getting their share of the national income they still think that this government has done more for them than the Liberal government did in 22 years.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to what has been said and to ask the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), one of the farm experts, if when he suggests that the union officials be called he also suggests, or agrees with me, that the money which is paid to the union officials who are nonproducers adds to the cost of machinery.


William Arnold Peters: No, it does not.
Agriculture Committee


James Stanley Speakman: I would also like to urge that when the committee does have these people before them they inquire into the stocking of replacement parts for older machinery. That matter is now a rather sad one because farmers using old machinery find it difficult to get replacement parts. This matter has been urged by the farmers unions of Alberta for some time and I hope the committee will inquire into that question.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion, first because it was in the committee where the subject was raised. Since I was the one who suggested it I feel that I should stand at this time and tell the opposition the reason why it was suggested.
There was no thought in my mind of political motives; I can assure the hon. members opposite of that. It was out of a feeling which comes from having lived in close association with farmers in western Canada and of being a farmer myself. Let me say that the agriculture committee when it has made the study and completed its deliberations will report back to the house. In the meetings of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, which is made up of a cross section of all people in all parties in this house, each member of the committee will have full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which appear before the committee.
I see no political implications in this whatsoever. The purpose behind this suggestion contained no thought on my part of any persecution of any machine companies. It was simply to provide an opportunity of which advantage can be taken to study the price of farm machinery. It will be the function of the committee to call witnesses before it and to examine the facts; in other words, to get the facts clarified and get them on the table so that they can be examined. Let everyone who can make a contribution to the solution of this problem do so when the matter is before the committee.
As one moves among the farmers of western Canada he finds there is no problem which occupies more attention or causes more discussion than the cost of farm machinery. I am told that the costs of some machines have risen by 200, or even 300 per cent. If this committee wants to find out what are the reasons behind this startling rise in the cost of machinery, let it devote its best efforts to the task. The farmer is faced with the problem of costs on one hand and the price of his commodity on the other. He is caught in the squeeze which is known as the cost-price squeeze. His net income is shrinking year after year. It is to examine this question, to go back behind costs and prices in order to

Agriculture Committee see what can be done to give the farmer a square deal-that is the end result hoped for in this study of farm machinery prices.
I want to say in closing how grateful everyone in this house should be for the forwardthinking and considered motives of the government and of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) in permitting this resolution to come before the house. It is a constructive proposal. It is one for which the farm people are asking. It is a subject upon which letters reach me every day. Perhaps this is because in my constituency of Macleod in southwestern Alberta I happen to be a farmer as well as an economist; perhaps it is because one third of the wheat in the province of Alberta is grown in my constituency. Little wonder I rise at this time to say what I have said concerning the need of a thorough and far-reaching investigation into the price of farm machinery as it affects the net income of farmers.


Walter Clarence Henderson: No one can
dispute that I am a farmer. That is one thing. Another thing is that no one can say: "I was born ten years before you", because I certainly am no chicken. I have been through all the stages of farming. I came into the Peace river country very early on. We had four horses and four bottom plough, also a breaking plough but we came to the point where we did not know whether we owned the place or whether the machinery company owned it.
That is what is wrong today. The cost of machinery is too high. The cost of repairs is too high. The farmer out west does not want to milk cows. He wants to buy milk at the store or he wants to buy his margarine at the store. He does not buy butter. That is one of the things that is wrong with farming. When we were on the farm we milked a slew of cows every night. We worked the horses long hours. Now a young fellow wants to work ten or 12 hours on a tractor costing $10,000. The tractors have to be large; they have to draw five ploughs instead of the old-time gang plough. They have to be diesel, and everything has to be done in a hurry. That is another of the things that is wrong with farming.
Then again, the cost of machinery repairs is too high. Why that should be, I do not know. That is what this committee is going to do. We are going to find out why.
We know that farming is in a dire situation. In the Peace river country we are getting by. We are growing grass seeds. We have a market in Europe, and we sell all kinds of grass seed. We are even growing blue grass seed. As long as there is a good market, you are all right. Again, we

grow lots of barley there, and our wheat is doing fine. The wheat was up, probably three weeks ago, then we had a snow storm. We had two feet of snow there. But that does not hurt the wheat, though it would probably affect oats and barley.
We have to find out where the farmers' extra money is going. A farmer makes $7,000, $8,000 or $10,000 a year, yet he probably has nothing after he has paid off his creditors. He is broke and has to start right back in again. It is the greatest "next year country" you ever saw, especially the country where we live. Always next year. But it is a great country, and one of the best.
We shall make out all right. We are Canadians. We have always made out and if this committee can just help us a little we shall do just fine.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Hearing the remarks of the previous speaker reminded me of one of my favourite House of Commons stories. The comment I have in mind was made by a former Liberal member from Saskatchewan by the name of Studer. He was speaking of how long he had lived on the prairies, and he went on to say that unfortunately he and his dad had not started in a sod hut in the way so many people who had gone to the prairies had done. "We did not start in a sod hut" he added, "but once dad made a little bit we sure moved into one fast".
I mention this story in a sense as an excuse for speaking on this occasion. I have not much agriculture in my constituency, and if the present trend continues we are going to have even less. However, there are several points in connection with the operations of the committee that I should like to bring to the attention of the house. I think we all recognize that this kind of investigation is likely to require considerable statistical analysis and a great deal of economic figuring. I have not heard from the minister whether he believes that this committee should be provided with economic assistance; I mean, the assistance of economists and also of some kind of counsel to arrange for appearances and that type of thing. My experience is that committees of this house in the main are not equipped to carry on an investigation, especially from one session to another, on a topic as complex as this without any type of economic advice. I think the best thing the committee could do would be to search around and find a good agricultural economist to be its guide in the analysis, especially, of company reports.
I have in my hand a pamphlet put out by the Canadian Labour Congress called: "The

real story behind the rise of prices of farm machinery". This was published in 1958 and the figures contained in it were taken from the dominion bureau of statistics. I want to outline what this pamphlet seeks to put over in order to make the point that economic analysis is going to be very important in getting to the root of this problem. The pamphlet starts by saying that prices rose 94 per cent in the 12-year period between 1945 and 1957.
It makes the point, again from statistical analysis, that workers' earnings were up 108 per cent but the total number of workers required in the agricultural implement industry in Canada was down 31 per cent; that the total wage bill was up 43 per cent-there are statistics and charts to support it-that the total gross production was up 113 per cent; the net value was up 93 per cent; the production per worker was up 180 per cent but the wage share of sales was down. In 1945 wages made up almost 65 per cent of the net value of agricultural implement production and in 1957 the percentage had fallen to 48. The pamphlet goes on to ask how a fall in wage costs can cause a rise in prices. In my opinion this kind of analysis will have to be made of the agricultural industry before any conclusions can be reached.
In the last hour or so I checked the indexes of Hansard over the years to discover how much interest had been shown in this topic in the house. Going back to 1952 I was surprised to find that the topic was not raised very frequently. It was raised occasionally by Social Credit members from Alberta and by C.C.F. members from Saskatchewan but it has not been a topic of much concern since 1952. At that time there was considerable interest because of the investigation that had taken place in Saskatchewan. I propose to read from Hansard of April 22, 1952 at page 1487. Mr. M. J. Coldwell speaking on that occasion said:
I wanted to say something about farm implement prices. I have just examined a copy of the final report submitted by the Saskatchewan legislative committee on farm implements and passed unanimously by the legislative assembly of that province on April 4. This committee was appointed to inquire into the prices of farm machinery with the object of determining the possibility of establishing parity in prices between farm machinery and the prices of farm products.
Its significance can be determined when one considers the importance of machinery to those engaged in modern mechanized agriculture. The trend toward mechanized farming, not only in Saskatchewan and the prairie provinces but indeed all across Canada, has progressed with great rapidity over the years with the result that farm implements are more important than ever to the farmer. Yet despite the importance of this subject to a large section of our economy the committee reports that the four major companies of the farm implement industry, namely, John Deere, International
Agriculture Committee Harvester, Cockshutt and Massey-Harris, failed to provide the committee with the necessary information to carry out its inquiry. However, this did not prevent the committee from obtaining evidence which clearly indicated high prices and resulting high profits in that industry.
The Saskatchewan committee recommended that in view of the failure of the above companies to comply with the committee's request for information and in view of evidence submitted indicating very high prices and profits the federal government be urged to immediately institute an investigation of the farm implement industry by a parliamentary committee. Despite the Liberal party's great love for the farmers and the wonderful deeds it performed for them it never got around to following up that recommendation and establishing a parliamentary committee. Mr. Cold-well went on to point out that the parliamentary committee established in 1937 brought out a report similar to that brought out by the Saskatchewan committee. It, too, was very critical of the machinery manufacturers.
The present committee has a real job on its hands. I am pleased that it is going to tackle the problem even though it is late in the session. The establishment of the committee indicates that the minister is listening to some of the backbenchers from the west. From talking to them I know it is a major concern of theirs. I hope the minister will do his best along with the committee to encourage the work of the committee on a basis that has expert advice.
In launching a study of this nature, as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said, you have to take into account the union relationship. I know there is a strong feeling on this question in the united automobile workers which is the union that happened to organize most of the farm machinery plants. They would like an opportunity to present and prove the case-they think they can do it-that it is not the wage part of the costs of machinery that has sent prices skyrocketing to the extent they have. I know they will welcome an opportunity to cooperate with the committee in its study.
Before taking my seat I want to rebut the hon. member who suggested that the salaries of union officials have contributed to the increase of farm machinery costs. I think the hon. gentleman should be fair to union officials and recognize that they are not on the payroll of any of the companies. Their pay comes from fees paid by members of the union. As far as I know membership fees have never been a part of the contribution management makes. That is the contribution the employee makes-


James Stanley Speakman: Yes, out of his wages.

Agriculture Committee


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, what is wrong with that? I hope the Conservative party to a degree is supported out of the wages of some Canadians.


David James Walker: Mr Speaker, I was going to say something about the setting up of the committee but since there is such unanimity on all sides of the house may I respectfully desist from saying anything in the hope that perhaps the motion could be put.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I trust the minister's wishes will be met eventually as they are on all matters. It is regrettable that a motion of this importance should have been introduced in what some hon. members opposite like to think are the dying weeks of this session. It follows the pattern established by the government of holding up matters of importance until the last moment. It would have assisted the farmers and members of the committee if the matter had been brought forward early in the year.
In the past five or six years there has been a 6 per cent increase in farm implement prices, as those qualified to speak about agriculture will verify, with no relationship to the wages paid in that industry. Wage increases have not kept pace with increases in the price of machinery.
About two years ago farm machinery prices increased by 6 per cent across the board coincidentally with the dollar an acre payment made to the farmers from the federal treasury. Farm people tend to attach the blame for high farm machinery prices to the wages paid to the workers in that industry. I know, too- not having a farming background but an industrial field background-that I can look back to the time when industrial workers were of the opinion that the main reason farm products were high priced and increasing in price was that the farmer spent six months of the year in California or in Florida. We know how ridiculous that is, but this attitude existed and this feeling was developed by those who apparently did not want the industrial workers to know the facts but wanted to leave the impression with them that the farmer was at fault in so far as the cost of his products was concerned. I am not getting away from the subject matter under discussion, Mr. Speaker, but I did want to make a comparison between the two industries and the attitude that existed at that time.
In 1936 or 1937 a committee of this house studied substantially the same question and came to some conclusions about farm machinery prices. This may be good background information for the members of the committee

when they study this particular subject. I should like to give one brief quotation from page 18 of the report of the committee, which reads as follows:
The committee concludes, therefore, that there is competition in the matter of securing sales, but little or no effective competition in the matter of prices as between companies. In January, 1936, and throughout the period, increases in the price or maintenance of prices when a decrease should have been expected occurred simultaneously in all the companies.
There is one reference to the fact that there is a fairly co-operative spirit and there was a fairly co-operative spirit among farm implement machinery companies some 25 years ago. The same thought exists at the moment. I have the 1958 report of Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited. This is a report made directly to the annual meeting. In this report reference is made also to price agreements and price collusion and that there was no price competition between farm implement companies in the sale of their products or of their machinery and equipment. I do not wish to read the whole report but merely to refer to this reference to show that this is part of the annual report. As the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) pointed out

I think this is a valid suggestion and is one which should have been given consideration before-what affects farm machinery prices, what causes them to rise, takes in the whole field of profits, wages, transportation costs, distribution costs, production costs, productivity, all sorts of other similar factors.
Most committees of the house have some difficulty in dealing with complex problems of this nature and operate on a sort of scatter-gun basis. This is no reflection on the members of this house or of the committee; it is just unfortunate because of the other work that members have to do, because of the lack of research facilities and assistance available to them. Because of this most members of the committee find it extremely difficult to go too deeply and thoroughly into any such subject as this which involves all of those complex and interrelated factors. In order for this committee, even at this late date of the session, to do an effective job in analysing and carrying out the responsibilities which this house is about to give to it, it should have attached to it a research staff on agriculture consisting of agricultural economists and someone in that field who is able to counsel the committee and study and prepare material for the committee to come to grips with the problem. Without such research facilities and research staff being made available to the committee I am of the

opinion that it will be relatively ineffective in getting to the root of the particular problem itself.
Because there is a short time between now and the end of the session I would rather expect that this house should also give authority to this committee to function, to meet, travel and study this question in the time between this session and the next session of parliament in order that they may make an unhurried approach to this problem and, with the research staff that they should have at their disposal, be able to make as thorough a study as possible of this particular question.
I also think that the committee should have complete and ready access to all of the information and files of the combines investigation branch which periodically over the years has dealt with and followed up the question of farm machinery prices. If these three things are done, Mr. Speaker, we will have an opportunity to do something about this matter and we shall have every hope to expect from the committee a report that will indicate a thorough study in depth and an analysis and be able to make recommendations based on a thorough study of the problem and what should be done to overcome it.
I reiterate the three points. I think the committee should have attached to it a staff of research men, statisticians, economists; people of that nature who would work with it and counsel it. I think it should have authority to meet between now and the next session and during the next session also, if necessary; it should have the authority to travel and to study this question as thoroughly as possible. I think it should also have complete access to the files of the combines investigation branch, as well as being given the opportunity to hear every last possible person, union, corporation, and otherwise who wishes to appear before the committee to present their arguments and their cases.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad to learn that this motion has received strong support from every part of the house. But in view of that fact, it was rather odd to hear the amount of carping criticism of the motion which managed to be produced by hon. gentlemen opposite. They appear to be strongly in favour of the setting up of the committee but still they want to strongly criticize it.
Agriculture Committee
I must say I was disappointed in the line taken by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), followed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and to some extent by members of the C.C.F., in which they imputed to me entirely political motives in setting up this committee. While I was disappointed in their taking that line I must say, Mr. Speaker, I was not a bit surprised because some people's minds run only in one groove and they just cannot get out of it. However, I can assure, Mr. Speaker, and through you, hon. members opposite, that their ever present suspicions along those lines are followed by their own thoughts along that line and have no foundation in fact so far as I am concerned in connnection with this particular matter.
As far as the procedure followed by the committee is concerned, hon. members here are aware that the procedure in each committee is in its own hands; it makes its own decisions in regard to how the inquiry it is engaged in will be carried on, and I have no doubt that that procedure will be followed in so far as this committee on agriculture is concerned. In this particular case the committee has the full powers of any other committee to send for persons, papers, and so on.
Some question was raised by hon. members opposite and criticism voiced over the fact that the committee is being given this particular inquiry to carry out at this particular time in the session. The answer to that is very simple indeed. The agriculture comittee has been occupied up to this time with an inquiry into the milling of feed grains and the marketing of such grains in western Canada. That was an urgent matter requiring investigation and the committee has been quite fully occupied with that field of inquiry. But now that that inquiry has drawn to a close the committee is being given this subject matter for investigation by them.
I was rather interested in seeing that all of the members of the C.C.F. party present seemed to think it was necessary to speak in support of the motion and they also seemed to think it was necessary in a way to put up a defence of the labour cost factor in farm implements. Why they should have felt that was necessary I do not know.


Frank Howard: Why don't you be factual once in a while?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member who has just spoken is one of the last people in this house to interject "why don't you be factual once in a while". He is the greatest example to the contrary among hon. members of this house. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I was

Income Tax Act
surprised that the C.C.F. seemed to think it was necessary to enter a defence of the cost of labour with relation to farm machinery before the inquiry has been held.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was a charge made by one of your own members; one of your own members made an attack on labour.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No attack on labour was made by one of our members.


George James McIlraith: Oh, yes, there was.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is part of the general line followed by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) of attempting constantly to attribute to somebody something which the actual words uttered do not really bear out. In any event, I can only reiterate that I am glad that apparently all hon. members of the house support this move. I also express the hope that the inquiry will prove to be very fruitful. It is certainly a big field and I am sure that the committee will do a good job.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that is it expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide among other things:
(1)	That the increase from 10 per cent to 13 per cent in the deduction from tax granted to taxpayers in a province which imposes an income tax on individuals be continued for the 1960 and 1961 taxation years.
(2)	That for the 1960 and 1961 taxation years the deduction from tax allowed to corporations in respect of income earned in a province which imposes an income tax on corporations and in which arrangements exist for the replacement of federal grants to universities by additional provincial grants in accordance with the proposed amendments to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act be increased from 9 per cent to 10 per cent in respect of income earned after December 31, 1959.
(3)	That for the 1960 and subsequent taxation years the maximum amount deductible from income on account of medical expenses be increased to $3000 for taxpayers who are entitled to claim the deduction for married status and $2500 for other taxpayers (not exceeding $3000 for husband and wife together) plus $750 in respect of each dependant of the taxpayer up to a maximum of $3000 in respect of dependants.
(4)	That for the 1960 and subsequent taxation years, where a person who formerly carried on a business in Canada the income from which was

computed by the cash method has ceased to be a resident of Canada, there shall be included in computing his income from the business for the last year in which he resided in Canada the value of the accounts receivable and inventory at the time he ceased to reside in Canada.
(5)	That with respect to any amalgamation after March 31, 1960 any share other than a common share of a new corporation resulting from an amalgamation shall be deemed to be a liability of the new corporation for purposes of section 105C of the act.
(6)	That for the 1960 and subsequent taxation years no deduction shall be made as an allowance in respect of an oil or gas well or a mine in computing the income of a non-resident-owned investment corporation.
(7)	That for the 1960 and subsequent taxation years, for purposes of calculating the amount of the credit a taxpayer may claim in respect of taxes paid to a foreign country, the limitation at present computed by reference to the tax paid to the foreign country on that part of his income from sources in the foreign country that is also subject to tax in Canada be amended so as to be computed by reference to the income tax (other than income tax on dividends which are deductible by the taxpayer) paid to the foreign country.
(8)	That for the 1960 and subsequent taxation years the rules for determining income from a source be amended to specify the deductions that shall be made in computing the income of a nonresident person from a business or employment in Canada and in computing income from sources outside Canada for the purpose of calculating the foreign tax credit allowed to a person resident in Canada.
(9)	That for the 1961 and subsequent taxation years for purposes of the provision that only one of a group of associated corporations shall receive the benefit of the lower rate of tax on the first $25,000 of taxable income the present rule for determining whether one corporation is associated with another, which is based on ownership of shares, be replaced by a rule related to control of the corporations.
(10)	That the four-year period, after which the minister may not make a re-assessment of the tax payable for a taxation year unless there has been fraud or misrepresentation by the taxpayer or the person filing the return, shall commence with the date of mailing by the minister to the taxpayer of the original assessment or of a notification that no tax was payable for the year.
(11)	That the four-year time limit, after which the minister may not make a re-assessment unless there has been fraud or misrepresentation by the taxpayer or person filing the return, may be waived by the taxpayer by notice to the minister.
(12)	That for the 1960 and subsequent taxation years a corporation whose principal business is production or marketing of sodium chloride or whose business includes extraction of sodium chloride from halite deposits may deduct in computing its income drilling and exploration expenses incurred by it in the year in exploring or drilling for halite.
(13)	That for the 1960 and subsequent taxation years an individual who receives a superannuation,

pension or death benefit or a benefit under a registered retirement savings plan in respect of which any tax under the Estate Tax Act or succession duty imposed by a province was payable in respect of a death occurring after December 31, 1958 may deduct in computing his income for the year a portion of the benefit received by him determined by reference to the tax or duty applicable to the benefit.
Jacques Flynn: May 1 point out that the terms of an amendment to this proposed resolution will be found on page 2 of the appendix to Votes and Proceedings for Friday, May 6 last.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two observations I wish to make and one or two questions I should like to put. First, however, I should like to ask the minister if we are doing to deal with the resolution paragraph by paragraph.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whatever meets the convenience of the committee is satisfactory to me. I think it would probably contribute to a more orderly discussion if the resolution were called paragraph by paragraph and if we were to adopt it a paragraph at a time.
On paragraph 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with the minister that would be the best way to do it. When the minister replies to the observations I wish to make I wonder whether he would tell the committee how much the increase from 10 to 13 per cent has netted in the fiscal years since April 1, 1958 when the increase was first made. The reason I am asking is that I have been seeking in one way and another to get this information for some time but with very little success. I put a starred question on the order paper some considerable time ago in which I asked if there had been any increase in federal payments to the provincial governments between the fiscal years 1956-57 and 1958-59 and, if so, how much. Then I asked a second question as to how much of such increase is attributable to (a) legislation enacted before June 21, 1957 and (b) legislation enacted since June 21, 1957. The third question had to do with hospital insurance which is not relevant to this item. I am not going to take the time of the committee to deal with any part of these returns except that which is really relevant to this item.
When the first return was made on April 4 it dealt only with the so-called conditional payments. I drew the attention of the house to that and a supplementary return was made on April 12. The supplementary return dealt with both conditional and unconditional payments and replied to question 1 but did not
Income Tax Act
reply to question 2. A further supplementary return was made on April 26 which said that the answer was complete.
The answer is obviously not complete because there never has been any answer to the second part of this question. What I am anxious to find out, and what I am sure the minister will agree at once any member of the committee is perfectly entitled to know, is how much of the increase from 1956-57, when the old tax rental agreements were in effect, up to the present time is attributable to this particular provision which the minister is asking us to enact for another two years and how much of it, not being attributable to that, is obviously therefore attributable to other legislation, that is to say, the taxsharing arrangements legislation of 1956. Perhaps the minister could reply to that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not a copy of the return before me. So far as the Department of Finance is concerned, the question was answered as far as it can be answered, because if the hon. member will examine the answer I think he will find that in some cases it is just not possible to say how much is attributable to legislation that existed on June 21, 1957 and how much is attributable to legislation subsequently enacted. In many cases the exemptions have changed and there were other matters of that kind that make it quite impossible now to answer precisely in all cases.
However, as to the matter with which we are dealing specifically now, namely the increase from 10 to 13 per cent in the deduction from tax granted to taxpayers in a province which imposes an income tax on individuals, in other words, the value to the province of the increase from 10 to 13 per cent in the yield from the personal income tax. I pointed out in the budget speech on March 31, page 2677 of Hansard, what this would mean. I said, as recorded in the first column:
The increase in the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax from 10 per cent to 13 per cent, which has benefited the provinces by $120 million in the past two years and it is estimated will mean a further $68 million to them in 1960-61, by itself accounts for approximately one third of the total increase.
That was the increase in the total cost to the treasury by way of unconditional payments and tax abatements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course I recognize that under this particular item I cannot ask the minister to do more than to give information similar to that which he has now given, and that is all I did ask at this time. But I might point out to the minister, since he has suggested in his answer that this is a difficult thing to do, that in fact his department did do

Income Tax Act
it with respect to practically all of the unconditional payments and seemed to have found relatively little difficulty, I take it, except with respect to unemployment assistance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was of course, a reason for that, with the removal of the threshold provision in late 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that matter perfectly. But in so far as the tax-sharing is concerned, there would appear to be no difficulty whatsoever about being precise about it. As the minister knows very well, apart from the Atlantic provinces grants which are a fixed sum-and therefore anybody knows what they are-the only other change that has been made by the present government is precisely this change here. Therefore everything that is paid under the tax-sharing arrangements act, except whatever change there is here, it attributable to legislation enacted before June 21, 1957. As the minister must readily admit, there is no change whatsoever in the tax-sharing arrangements act except this change which we are now being asked to extend for two further years. I wonder whether the minister could give the precise figure for each of the two years. In the budget speech he said $120 million. He gave a fairly precise estimate for the current fiscal year. Can he give the precise figure for the two years that are past?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have given that information on several occasions in the house previously. I do not pretend to have the figure with me just now. I may be able to direct the attention of the hon. member to some earlier reference in Hansard where I have given the figure. I shall be glad to supply it to him. It has been put on record at least a couple of times I think this session, but I shall be glad to supply it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to hold the matter up, Mr. Chairman. If the minister will undertake to supply it at a convenient opportunity that will be quite satisfactory to me. But in saying that I might point out one thing. When this question of mine was made an order for return I protested in the house because I anticipated that if it was made an order for return there would be precisely the kind of difficulty there has been. I should also like to remind the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that once a question is made an order for return, it is an order of the house and the minister is under an obligation to provide the information; he has not any of the option that a minister has with regard to a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer was given to the hon. member's question as fully as it was possible to give it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I simply cannot accept that statement, Mr. Chairman. Of course, we in the opposition feel that there seems to be quite a bit of difference between the kind of information that is given to us and the kind of information that seems to be used by ministers of the crown, notably by the Prime Minister in that extraordinary and fantastic broadcast which the Prime Minister made on November 25 over television on "The Nation's Business" when he asserted that the present government was responsible for all the increases in payments to the provinces since the last full year that the Liberals were in office. That was one of the most thoroughly misleading performances that any public man has ever been responsible for. In this house on February 1 I showed that the greater part of those increases was due, not to legislation by the present government but to legislation by the previous government. It seems to me that when claims of that sort are made and when we seek in one single place in the record to get the information as it really is-the real facts so that they can be used properly- the government should show enough respect for parliament to provide it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can only repeat that on the question put by the hon. member, which was made an order for return, the information was given as fully as it was possible to give it, according to the form in which the question was asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I draw attention once
again to the fact that no answer has been given to question No. 2 in so far as unconditional payments are concerned.


George James McIlraith: Read question No. 2 into the record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Question No. 2 reads as follows:
How much of such increase is attributable to (a) legislation enacted before June 21, 1957; (b) legislation enacted since June 21, 1957?
All that would be required to answer that question is to say how much is attributable to this increase from 10 per cent to 13 per cent, how much comes from the Atlantic provinces grant and say that is attributable to the period since June, 1957. Obviously it is a simple matter of subtraction to arrive at the amount that is attributable to the legislation before that time. If the minister has not officials-and I know he has them- who can do these simple arithmetical operations, he ought to get them.


Mr. Rapp:: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is in a position to give a break-down as far as the provinces are concerned. In particular, I am interested

in my own province of Saskatchewan. How would this amendment affect the grants to the province of Saskatchewan?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That information was given at the resolution stage on the measure to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act considered recently. I put on the record a break-down indicating the distribution among all the provinces. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will also find there the figures he asked for earlier.


Jacques Flynn: Shall paragraph 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 2.
William Hector McMillan: I think I recall that when the Minister of Finance was replying in closing the debate on the amendments to the university grants he said at that time that this government during the last fiscal year and the present fiscal year would have contributed in respect of those two years $190 million more than the Liberal government under the old formula. This statement may be true. But it is also true, I think, that the provinces and the municipalities will be no better off. I think-and I have seen figures to prove it-that in that time the provinces and the municipalities will be paying more than $190 million in extra interest. I know that in the same period of time the very same people in the provinces and the municipalities will be paying something over $300 million in extra interest in servicing the federal debt.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This clause has nothing whatever to do with interest. It has to do with a provision arising out of legislation already adopted during this session to increase from 9 per cent to 10 per cent the abatement in respect of income tax in the case of federal corporate taxpayers residing in provinces which collect their own corporation income tax.


William Hector McMillan: It has to do with the need of the provinces and I think anything that has to do with the need of the provinces is relevant. We are providing for that need here in voting this money from the corporation tax. I do not want to spend any time on this matter but it seems to me that the provinces have greater need for this money than they had previously.


Jacques Flynn: May I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that paragraph No. 2 refers only to the increase from 9 per cent to 10 per cent in the percentage of the federal corporation tax which may be
Income Tax Act
deducted only in cases where the federal grants have been replaced by additional provincial grants. Therefore this 1 per cent additional can have reference only to the provincial set-up of university grants and may not have reference to the general use of the money collected heretofore by the provinces by way of corporation taxes.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, do I understand you to rule that it is not proper when discussing this resolution, which has to do with additional benefit being given to the provinces because, presumably, of the need of the provinces for additional moneys, to show what causes their need?


Jacques Flynn: It might have been indirectly relevant to paragraph 1, but we are now discussing paragraph 2. Paragraph 1 has been adopted. It has been agreed that the committee will study this resolution paragraph by paragraph, and paragraph 1 has been adopted. Paragraph 1 had general reference to the finances of the provinces but paragraph 2 has relation only to the 1 per cent additional tax permitted for setting up grants under provincial legislation. That is why it may not have to my mind reference to the general needs of the provinces.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I thought we were still on paragraph 1, but I was of the opinion that if the provinces did not need the money we would not be voting it.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Paragraph 1 has been adopted by the committee. If the committee wishes to give permission to the hon. member to revert to paragraph 1 I have no objection, but he certainly cannot discuss what he has been trying to discuss under paragraph 2.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Hector McMillan: Am I allowed to speak on No. 1?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree that it would have been permissible on paragraph No. 1 to talk of the needs of the provinces. That is not the point of these resolutions at all. We passed legislation earlier in the session on that subject when it was debated at great length. We had a whole series of debates at various stages of the bill to amend the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act, and that is where it was discussed at great length.
This is simply legislation designed to amend the Income Tax Act to carry out certain effects. There is nothing in the resolution we are now discussing making any provision for the provinces at all. On the contrary, we are dealing with the matter of an abatement

Income Tax Act
in the case of federal corporation taxpayers in a province which collects its own corporation tax.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I will not pursue the matter further except to say that in closing the debate, as I said before, the minister said there was $190 million coming in in those two fiscal years to the provinces. We thought he was out of order at that time in bringing the matter up on the amendments to the university grants, and if we cannot bring it up at this time, we can probably bring it up during the course of his estimates.


Jacques Flynn: Shall paragraph 2 carry? Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 3.
James Stanley Speakman: I would just like to ask the minister a question with reference to paragraph 3 in which the amount deductible from income on account of medical expenses is being increased. Could the minister tell me if any portion of this is allowable for domestic help in the case of a chronic female invalid, where domestic help is required on a full time basis in the household?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. This applies simply to husbands, wives and dependants.


William Hector McMillan: I had an inquiry yesterday about this $3,000 exemption. Does that apply to the calendar year or to any 12 months which the taxpayer might select?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Taking the last question, Mr. Chairman, section 27 of the act deals clearly with that matter. It is within a period of twelve months ending in the taxation year in question.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on this paragraph.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
before the hon. member proceeds, may I say I may not have fully apprehended the previous question. I apprehended it as applying to a person in the same domestic household as the wife or dependant child on whom there had been expended certain medical expenses. But it may be the hon. member was asking rather about the definition of medical expenses. If so, I would direct his attention to the provisions of section 27 (1) (c) (iv) of the act, which provides that the definition of medical expenses will include payments made-
As remuneration for one full-time attendant upon, or for the full-time care in a nursing home of, the taxpayer, his spouse or any such dependant who was throughout the whole of a 12 months' period ending in the taxation year necessarily confined by reason of illness, injury or affliction to a bed or wheelchair.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, on this paragraph, which we are all pleased to see in that it is to some extent providing a more generous provision in the exemption of medical expenses, I must remind the minister, as I did last year-indeed he acknowledged that my reminder was in order- that he himself throughout a great many years in this house felt that these limitations should be removed completely. His reply last year simply was that he had not forgotten his earlier statements, but in a year when it was necessary to raise taxes, while he did not think it was a good time to drop the floor with respect to medical expenses, we were not at that time dealing particularly with the ceilings.
I know that the minister this year has been receiving representations from a great number of very large organizations across Canada, such organizations as chambers of commerce and organizations representing workmen, such as the national legislative committee of the international railway brotherhoods. The latter in its submission to the cabinet in January urged that this section be amended much beyond what is proposed in this legislation, and it urged that all expenditures made by the taxpayer for medical care for himself and for his dependants be deductible.
I also hope that the minister will discuss some of the proposals which were made to him by the national chamber of commerce. They went a little further; at least they had some more specific suggestions to make with regard to medical expenses. They recommended that the 3 per cent floor apply to incomes after personal exemptions under section 26; and in addition they recommended that any excess not deductible in any one year due to insufficient income be deductible from income of the preceding year or that of the next succeeding five years. These are among recommendations that have been coming forward from year to year and when improvement in the section is taking place I would hope that perhaps they might be included in the bill which is to be presented to us at a later date. Perhaps the minister might comment on that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have no comment to make on the various representations which have been made. The representations are all considered along with other representations, and so far as this particular subject is concerned the resolution embodies the proposals of the government respectfully tendered to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.

On paragraph 4.
William Moore Benidickson: This is a rather interesting resolution, Mr. Chairman. I take it that it contemplates that the crown would hope to match for taxation purposes the accounts receivable, say, of a professional man or businessman who was leaving the country. If he has been on the cash method and leaves the country taking his assets with him I am wondering just how in a practical way the revenue department proposes to enforce this provision?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot be specific in every regard in answer to the question raised by the hon. member, but the paragraph proposes an amendment to block a loophole which at present exists where a person who has carried on business in Canada, for which the income was computed by the cash method, gives up residence in Canada.
If a person calculates his income by the cash method he does not take into income accounts receivable or the proceeds from the sale of inventory until they are actually received. It may happen that a person who has carried on business in Canada and built up a volume of accounts receivable gives up residence in Canada before collecting these accounts. These accounts represent income earned in Canada but at present they would escape tax if paid to a non-resident. The proposal is that they be valued and included in the income of a person for the last year in which he resided in Canada.
Specifically concerning the question asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, one can say that the department will have open to it the normal methods of collection in such a case. If the individual concerned should decamp to another country taking with him everything he owns and leaving nothing behind, it will obviously not be a simple matter to collect, but that is no reason for leaving a loophole in the act which in such a case would create no tax liability in these circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 5.
William Moore Benidickson: I think this refers to section 105(c) which has been subjected to amendment at this stage annually when we are looking at the Income Tax Act. I take it the minister has found some further loopholes which were not anticipated last year. I think, in the accounting phrase, we are referring here to something in the nature of vertical merger dividend stripping. Do I understand that what the minister is attempting to do is to assure that when two
79951-0-289
Income Tax Act
firms join there will be in all cases a 20 per cent tax on the amount of their assets less their liabilities?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and to prevent the corporation in that case escaping liability for the tax by the provision of preferred shares as consideration instead of an indebtedness.


William Moore Benidickson: I believe this will become effective only on March 31-budget day of this year-so that since the amendment last year perhaps a couple of hundred corporations have been able to take advantage of this loophole.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct. This provision will apply to any amalgamations occurring after March 31, 1960, which was budget night.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 6.
William Moore Benidickson: I understand the change here will simply mean that with respect to a non-resident-owned corporation it will no longer be able to deduct from the 15 per cent tax the 20 per cent depletion allowance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct. The committee will appreciate that non-resident-owned investment corporations are Canadian companies all of whose income is from investments and 95 per cent of whose shares are owned by non-residents. Such companies are taxed at a rate of 15 per cent. When such companies pay dividends to their non-resident shareholders no non-resident tax is withheld. In other words, the 15 per cent tax paid by the non-resident-owned investment corporation is in lieu of the 15 per cent tax which non-residents would have to pay if they derived dividends or interest directly from Canadian sources.
As the law stands at present a non-resident-owned investment corporation may deduct a depletion allowance in respect of dividends it receives from Canadian oil, gas or mining companies before paying its 15 per cent tax. If a non-resident received dividends directly from Canadian oil, gas or mining companies instead of through an N.R.O. he would not be entitled to any depletion allowance. This amendment is intended to withdraw this unintended advantage now available to those who receive oil, gas or mining company dividends indirectly through an N.R.O.
Accordingly this paragraph would place dividends from Canadian mining, oil or gas companies received by a non-resident through a non-resident-owned investment corporation on the same basis for tax purposes as dividends received directly by non-residents.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Income Tax Act
On paragraph 7.
Ernest James Broome: I want to say a few words on this paragraph, more for the purpose of trying to get clarification than anything else. This is a one-sentence paragraph of some 95 words which I have read half a dozen times. I have asked three or four of my colleagues what the exact meaning is, but it is very difficult to understand. This is what I would call a first class example of officialese, and I would suggest there is no reason why the income tax department cannot write in clear English readily understandable to the ordinary Canadian. Other statutes and other provisions are written in language which is our native tongue and which we can understand. I simply say I sincerely hope that in future a greater degree of clarity will be given to the various decrees, amendments and so on brought forward by the Department of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect to my hon. friend, I think this is a perfectly clear paragraph. It is perfectly clear.


Ernest James Broome: Ninety five words in one sentence is rather extensive.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We try to draw up all these paragraphs in the income tax resolution in single sentences and I think the draughtsman-a very competent draughtsman indeed-has succeeded admirably in this respect. Now it is not at all new for hon. members of this house to ask questions for the purpose of clarification of such resolutions, and the minister is here to provide that clarification if he can, should it be sought. That, believe me, is no indictment of the draughtsman of these clauses. I think they have been admirably drafted by a very competent draughtsman whose services are made available to the Department of Finance by the Department of Justice for this purpose.


Ernest James Broome: All I want to say is that the draughtsman has completely confused me, anyway.


William Moore Benidickson: I think it indicates that perhaps it would be as well to have a statement from the minister at this stage. I, particularly, would like to know whether this has the effect of reversing a recent decision of the supreme court which dealt with this question of income from a foreign source and whether or not the result is going to be that we shall again have a continuance of double taxation in this situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is anticipating the decision and if I correctly apprehend his meaning I think he has in mind paragraph 8 and not paragraph 7. I may say that the purpose of paragraph 7

is to offer a less restrictive method of computing credits for foreign taxes. This is a relieving provision. I am sure that as such it is welcomed vociferously by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver South.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 8.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, could I now have the statement I requested. This is the item with which I was concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is quite correct. The part of this amendment to clarify the rules for computing income from sources outside of Canada will override the supreme court decision on this point in the Interprovincial Pipe Lines case.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 9.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, when delivering his budget speech the Minister of Finance had this to say, as reported on page 2682 of Hansard:
I am also bringing forward an amendment to deal with the problems of associated corporations to which I drew attention last year. At that time I said that perhaps it was becoming too easy to divide a corporation into a number of smaller components, each of which may qualify for the low rate of tax on its first $25,000 of income. I indicated that consideration was being given to the possible necessity of introducing some appropriate measure to deal with this method of tax avoidance. In the meantime further study has indicated an amendment of this kind to be necessary.
This again apparently is proposed loophole legislation but for the benefit of all of us in the committee I wonder if the minister could give us a few of the common examples to illustrate the kind of loopholes this is aimed at correcting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I gave some warning in the budget speech a year ago of the steps that might have to be taken if there was not some indication forthcoming of less proliferation of small corporations with a view to taking broad advantage of the provision for lower taxation on corporations on the first $25,000 of corporate income. Notwithstanding the warning we found that this proliferation has continued and accordingly the only way in which the situation can adequately be met is to change the rules for determining what are for this purpose associated companies.
In recent years the law has provided that only one of a group of associated companies may qualify for the lower rate on the first $25,000. The rule for determining if companies are associated has been based on the ownership of 70 per cent or more of the

issued common shares of the companies concerned. When I spoke on this subject last year I indicated that an amendment might be necessary to revise the rules for determining when companies shall be deemed to be associated. I indicated that it was becoming too easy to divide a corporation into a number of smaller components each of which may qualify for the low rate of tax on its first $25,000 of income. I also indicated that consideration was being given to the possible necessity of introducing some appropriate measure to deal with this method of tax avoidance.
The amendment here proposed will necessarily be technical and I think can best be studied when we have the provisions of the bill before us. Briefly it will replace the 70 per cent ownership rule with a rule related to control of the corporation. This change is necessary because it has been found that companies can be split up under the 70 per cent ownership rule in such a way that control of the new companies and a large part of their income remains in the hands of the owners of the original company. Also the reference to common shares has been found to be inadequate because of the use of other kinds of shares. An effort will be made in the bill to recognize the fact that there may be bona fide arrangements under which control of a number of new companies remains in the hands of one person for a temporary period during the establishment and early financing of the new companies.
I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the proposed amendment is not to go into effect until the 1961 taxation year. This will afford all companies an opportunity to become familiar with the new legislation and to adjust their affairs accordingly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very interested in this clause. Suppose there are three separate small companies all formed in good faith to perform certain operations within a certain industry some years ago but the three companies are all owned by the same five, six or seven men. There are the same shareholders in each company. Although not directly related they were formed to perform certain functions in the same industry. Would they be considered related companies?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think if one avoids some qualifying circumstances, generally speaking in that case the companies would not be deemed to be associated companies, but the hon. gentleman has put his case very simply and I have given a simple answer. If there were some qualifying circumstances I might have to qualify that answer.
79951-0-289j
Income Tax Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I put my question simply because it is a simple case of which I have knowledge and I expected a simple answer.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 10.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment seems to meet one of the representations made this year by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in its submission to the minister. In referring to section 46 (4) (b) of the act the brief read:
Income tax appeal board cases have stated that it is not the date of mailing the notice of reassessment but the date on which the assessor completed the reassessment operation for purpose of the four-year limitation under the section.
This is unfair to the taxpayer and could lead to abuse by the department. The chamber recommends that the subsection be amended to contain a statement that any assessment or reassessment is valid only from the day it is mailed to the taxpayer.
I notice that the minister does not refer here to reassessment and it appears to be the original assessment; that is, the mailing date that will become effective.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The intention, Mr. Chairman, is that this should have application to the effective date of the notice of reassessment as well as the original notice of assessment. After all, a notice of re-assessment is a notice of assessment for the purposes of appeal.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, they are equivalent.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 11 agreed to.
On paragraph 12.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, may I say something on the original 12?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I gave notice, as recorded in Votes and Pvoceedings of May 6, that I would propose that the Income Tax Act resolution be amended by deleting paragraph 12 thereof and renumbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly. I would ask my colleague the Minister of National Defence to move the amendment.


George Randolph Pearkes: I move:
That the Income Tax Act resolution be amended by deleting paragraph 12 thereof and renumbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment
carry?


William Moore Benidickson: When I followed the minister in the debate on the budget, I think on April 4, I indicated I felt there was more in the intention disclosed in the original paragraph 12 than mere convenience to the tax administration offices. I felt it would be

Income Tax Act
found that in many instances the new provisions, although easier to calculate on the part of the tax collector, would involve a heavier burden on a number of people in receipt of certain lump sum payments after retirement. I know that I have received a great number of letters on this subject since budget night indicating that in connection with a number of retirement fund arrangements the tax would be considerably greater under the provision proposed on budget night than had hitherto been the effect of our tax rate. I think we will all be glad that the minister has decided to drop the original proposal.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On paragraph 13.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, What now becomes 12 is numbered 13 in the original resolution. Here I have a new amendment which I should like to introduce in order to broaden the effect of this new exemption. The exemption as proposed in the resolution applied to the production or marketing of sodium chloride from halite deposits. We have had representations concerning the production of potash. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, because of the similarity of conditions under which it is produced to those under which sodium chloride from halite deposits is produced, I should like to offer the following substitute paragraph for the one formerly numbered 13 and now numbered 12, to read as follows:
12.	That for the 1960 and subsequent taxation years a corporation whose principal business is production or marketing of sodium chloride or potash or whose business includes the manufacturing of products which involves processing sodium chloride or potash may deduct in computing its income drilling and exploration expenses incurred by it in the year in exploring or drilling for halite or sylvite.
I would ask my colleague the Minister of National Defence to move the amendment.


George Randolph Pearkes: I so move.


William Moore Benidickson: Most of the committee will welcome the amendment as proposed by the minister. I was going to make a proposal along those lines and question why potash mining had not been taken care of. I do not think the minister has gone far enough yet. I was going to raise another question. Perhaps it can be considered in the drafting of the bill. I note that the words in the resolution restrict this form of deduction by the words "in the year". I would point out to the minister that I do not think the entitlement for deduction for drilling and exploration expenses in the mining and in the petroleum industry is restricted to within the year. I was wondering why there is a difference in the

phraseology with respect to the deduction for this mining as opposed to the present provisions for drilling and exploration expenses in ordinary metal mining and in the petroleum industry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This question of the hon. member brings out clearly certain differences between the normal operations of companies engaged in mining and those engaged in the production of sodium chloride from halite deposits and those engaged in the production of potash from sylvite. Here production results from the drilling operations virtually in the same year, I think in probably every case, and it was not thought that there was any occasion for carrying over a period of years, as in the case of ordinary mining, the drilling and exploration expenses. The two cases are not in this regard strictly comparable. I think that corporations that come within the scope of this new proposed exemption will consider themselves to have acquired under this provision an exemption or benefit of some proportion.


William Moore Benidickson: Have the corporations in this line of business indicated any dissatisfaction with the wording since it was announced on budget night?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The wording of this amendment to include the extraction of potash from sylvite has not been previously announced; but as to those engaged in the extraction of sodium chloride from halite deposits, the intimations we have received are of warm approval on the part of corporations that would derive benefit from this resolution.


William Moore Benidickson: On a question of amendments, except for this one, the minister has adopted a new practice-I think it is a new practice this year; I do not know whether he followed it last year or not-with respect to amendments. When he reached a decision with respect to a reasonable number of changes from his budget proposals he announced to the house his intention to put those amendments in Votes and Proceedings. I think perhaps that new step has a fair amount of merit in it. It is easier at least for those of us who are concerned with the amendments to see them as early in advance of debate on the resolution stage as we can. There is also at times an additional interlude for consideration of the amended proposals by the public. What is the administrative practice in dealing with the tax changes? Do the tax collectors deal with the minister's amendments which are included in Votes and Proceedings in the same way as they deal with the proposals in the budget resolutions

on budget night in so far as the effective date of application is concerned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: First, may I express appreciation of the hon. gentleman's comment on the practice with respect to amendments which I inaugurated, I think two years ago-certainly I employed it last year-of giving as far in advance as possible the text of any amendments that we propose to introduce with respect to any of the budget resolutions and placing those in Votes and Proceedings of the house.
In the present case these were placed in Votes and Proceedings for Friday, May 6. The amendment now under discussion is one that has arisen subsequently as a result of further representations and further study of the proposed extension of the new provision. The hon. member has raised specifically a question as to the effective date of amendments. This gives rise to very little difficulty in relation to amendments of the Income Tax Act. It could give rise to questions in regard to the taxes on commodities-


William Moore Benidickson: I was thinking more of excise taxes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -where the practice has been to make the changes in taxes effective as from the night that the budget is introduced. This again is a matter of the legislation to follow. The legislation can select the date of amendment or the date of the budget. I think it will be found that in the cases here it is proposed that the amendment as well as the original resolution be made effective as from budget night. This is particularly sought by those concerned where the effect of the resolution is to relieve.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. I do not think the minister will mind my diverting by way of example to the commodity type of taxation because it is perhaps more relevant from the point of view of its immediate application if it is to be applied immediately. The minister is aware that after budget night the Department of National Revenue sends to all its officials across the country an indication of the minister's proposals. If the minister has indicated in the paragraph of a resolution that the effective date is to be budget night, the officials across the country are given that advice and as soon as they receive the document with this intimation they start to carry out the law as if it had already been passed in a statute. I am wondering with respect to the next stage, amendments by way of an appendix to Votes and Proceedings, whether the same practice is followed by the revenue department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, it is.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Excise Tax Act
On clause 14.
William Moore Benidickson: I think the minister perhaps might again make a brief explanatory statement. Perhaps it should be obvious to me but would he also indicate why the date December 31, 1958 is set?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the last
date that the dominion succession duty act applied to the estates of decedents. The new Estate Tax Act came into effect on January 1, 1959.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

[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.
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'1
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
[Stage Direction]
Excise Tax Act
and sold with the goods, and materials to he 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 1960.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I doubt whether we would make very much progress on a resolution having to do with a new act in three or four minutes. We might pass item 1 but with respect to item 2 I know that some explanation would be necessary. I wonder whether the minister would not be satisfied to have the committee report progress and have first reading of the income tax bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of the suggestion of the hon. gentleman I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


INCOME TAX ACT
Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-68, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow and Wednesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The house made very good progress today, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow the first item will be No. 17 on the order paper which is a resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with capital expenditures for the C.N.R. The second item will be No. 11 which is a resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the international development association. The third will be No. 12 on today's order paper, a resolution in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs dealing with amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The fourth will be item No. 13 on the order paper, a resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with certain matters affecting the Canadian National Railway Company. The fifth item will be No. 4 on the order paper, second reading of Bill No. S-2, to amend the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Agreement Act. On Wednesday we will carry on with any items not finished tomorrow, followed by the budget resolutions of which there are two remaining.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the order of the estimates for Thursday and Friday remain the same?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It remains the same.


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