1961-02-15

Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has been brought to my attention that on Thursday night last the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made certain remarks pertaining to a declaration which I am alleged to have made in the course of a meeting held at Papineauville in Quebec last October. These remarks appear in Hansard beginning at page 1909. The hon. member attributed to me the following words:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker had promptly closed the door on this immigration-
At this point the hon. member added his own comment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member proceeds further would he indicate on what date the remarks which he now attempts to raise as a matter of privilege were made? Was it Thursday?


Noël Dorion: It was last Thursday, but this is the first opportunity I have had to correct this statement because I was absent from the house.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not customary to permit matters of privilege to be raised on statements made in the house in full session unless the exception is taken at the time the statement is made. Yesterday I prevented an hon. member from referring back even one day. Unless there is a grave matter for correction, it would seem to me to be contrary to our practice to go back to matters occurring, in this case, almost a week ago. If any hon. member disagrees with my interpretation of the rules I shall be glad to hear him, but that is my view.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not in the house at the time of the attack made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Now the hon. member is in the house for the first time. I submit that he is entitled to rise on a question of privilege and deal with these personal charges which were made against him.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs has chosen to use that language, I may say that no personal attacks whatever were made. I read extracts from the newspapers, sir.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was present on the occasion when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate spoke. I considered the matter of such grave consequence that I rose to a point of order to draw to the hon. member's attention the denial which the Secretary of State had made in November of these various remarks. I believe this is the first occasion the Secretary of State has had to explain his position, and I think he should be permitted to proceed.


Mr. Pearson:: Why is it the first occasion?


Mr. Speaker:: If there is a serious question of privilege and this is the first opportunity that has arisen on which it could be raised, I think perhaps I should accept the hon. member's statement to that effect, although it seems to me that anything of consequence would certainly have come to his attention within the week. Would the hon. member give me the page reference?


Noël Dorion: Page 1909, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member state as succinctly as he can the matters complained of?


Noël Dorion: It is this very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. I believe I am perfectly right in re-establishing the facts. The hon. member attributed to me the following words:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker had promptly closed the door on this immigration-
And here the hon. member added his own comment:
-that is the English immigration-
The hon. gentleman went on to attribute to me the following words:
-and was trying to offset the Liberal angliciza-tion by fostering immigration from Italy.
This is absolutely and completely false.


Mr. Denis:: I was there when he said it. (Translation):


Noël Dorion: I believe the hon. member must take my word for it, and I have all the necessary evidence to prove the truth of my statement.

Question of Privilege
(Text):
This is absolutely and completely false. Never, at any time, did I say such a thing, and the comments of the hon. member are consequently unfounded.
As for two other statements attributed to me, I would point out that on November 18, 1960 I gave an explanation to this house. This appears at pages 11, 12 and following of Hansard. Despite this, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has ignored the well-established practice of this house that in such circumstances the member's declaration must be accepted.
With reference to Italian immigration, I did not myself approach that problem; I only answered an accusation brought up by a Liberal attending the meeting. Then I stated that this government stands for immigration on a selective basis taking into account the needs of employment and manpower. I can assure the house that my remarks were in no way designed to raise a question of prejudice toward either of the races of Canada. As a matter of fact, I then explicitly indicated that this explanation was not given in any spirit of prejudice.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that those words were spoken in a public debate which I attended in Pap-ineauville-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Azellus Denis: -and the words read by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) in the newspaper were the very same that were spoken at that meeting by the Secretary of State.


Noël Dorion: This is absolutely false.
(Text):	'


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I understood it, the question of privilege was raised with respect to something said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make an observation with respect to what the hon. gentleman said. I think the best observation I can make, sir, is to read the hon. gentleman's own words at page 12 of Hansard of November 18, where it will be seen quite clearly that the hon. gentleman was very careful on that occasion not to deny those words. I will read his own words.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be unnecessary for the hon. member to read, provided that he gives the reference, as the hon. member did. Hon. members could then read for themselves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What the hon. gentleman did say on that occasion, sir, as was given to 
the house the other evening by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Mr. Graffley:: Divide and rule; race against race.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may be allowed perhaps the same freedom to speak that the Secretary of State was allowed, without help from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi-


William Heward Grafftey: Divide and rule.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear interruptions constantly. If hon. members have any objection to the course which is being followed they should rise and state it; otherwise I expect them to maintain silence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I read certain statements on November 18, and I read them again from newspapers, in the English and French languages, which had correspondents at that meeting. On November 18 the hon. gentleman did say that the press reports were rather different from things he had said, but he was very careful not to deny the express words I had read on that occasion. It occurred to me that he had not denied them for the very good reason that there were a very large number of witnesses present on that occasion, and that was the reason I read them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Secretary of State is the person in the best position to know what he said, and he has indicated the exception he takes to words attributed to him and has made the correction which, it seems to me, is all that is necessary to be said at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When this matter came up in November the hon. member claimed that he had been misquoted. The minister also said at that time that he had with him the actual text of what he said. Perhaps the minister can set this matter at rest once and for all by reading to us from that text what he said.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I always understood on a question of privilege that an hon. member's word was accepted. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said on Thursday last that if there was a denial of this he would accept the word of the Secretary of State. That denial has been made and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that is the end of the question of privilege.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: No.


Azellus Denis: Ten witnesses.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the practice of the house to accept the word of a member given in his place. However, as has been pointed out heretofore, that does not prevent an hon. member

from indicating such inconsistencies or circumstances as were his reason for having made the prior statement. I trust the matter has been sufficiently reviewed.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Vicloria-Carleton)
presented the second report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on standing orders presented to the house on Thursday, February 9, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on February 8 I informed the house that I had accepted President Kennedy's invitation to visit Washington on February 20.
Detailed arrangements have now been made for that visit. I shall be accompanied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the ambassador in Washington. I understand that the President will be accompanied by the secretary of state, Mr. Dean Rusk, and by the United States ambassador designate to Canada, Mr. Livingstone Merchant, whose recent appointment evoked universal approval everywhere in our country.
I wish to take this opportunity to express again my satisfaction at the prospect of a private and informal meeting with the President. I feel certain that at this time of serious risk in international affairs all members of the house will agree that it is beneficial that there should be discussion between the leaders of the United States and Canadian governments.
I shall not be able to specify in advance or in detail any of the subjects for discussion. Naturally among those subjects will be the most critical international issues of the moment, and I hope it will also be possible to cover other international matters and the general field of United States-Canadian relations.
Army Benevolent Fund Act


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the house will have listened with interest to the further information from the Prime Minister about his visit to Washington. I think we all agree with him that it is important and is bound to be beneficial to have these talks, particularly at this time.
I can only repeat what I said the other day. We on this side wish him every success in these talks and in the effort which they symbolize to improve the already good relations between our two countries. May I say that I learned with particular pleasure from the Prime Minister that one of the United States participants will be Mr. Livingstone Merchant. I am sure everyone, as the Prime Minister has said, welcomes him back to Canada where he has already been stationed, and where he has already done fine service in the cause of good relations between our two countries.
May I presume to suggest to the Prime Minister that one of the things of value that might emanate from these talks would be a reaffirmation on the part of both governments of their strong support for the Secretary General of the United Nations, who is now under such a vicious and unjustifiable attack.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group wish the Prime Minister every success in his talks with President Kennedy working toward world peace and disarmament and the other policies that all of us in the house hope will develop in the months and years ahead. We trust that in doing so he will present what I think is the view of all the Canadian people by putting forward a constructive, co-operative but truly Canadian policy that represents our status as a nation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank both hon. gentlemen. May I say to the Leader of the Opposition that a reiteration of the attitude of Canadians as a whole respecting Mr. Hammerskjold and his contribution to world peace will certainly be in order and will be one of the first things to be discussed. All of us are agreed that the United Nations shall not be destroyed as a result of the truculent attitude of any one nation; nor shall it become, as the U.S.S.R. would have it become if Mr. Khrushchev's words of last September mean anything, a puppet of the U.S.S.R.


ARMY BENEVOLENT FUND ACT
Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go

Starred Questions
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 Army Benevolent Fund Act to increase the rates of interest to be credited to the fund by the receiver general semi-annually on the minimum balance to the credit of the fund in each month; and to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Howard: 1.	Is the Canadian National Railways planning to move any of its facilities or works from Smithers, British Columbia?
2.	If so. what facilities or works, to which other community, at what reduction in staff, how many personnel will be obliged to move, and when will the changes take place?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	It is planned to transfer the dispatching office to Prince George in order to bring about more effective handling of traffic.
2.	Thirteen personnel will be involved in the transfer. Preliminary notice has been given to the employees and their union representatives. The move is expected to be made in approximately three months' time.
architects' fees and commissions


Mr. Fisher: 1.	What is the total, by year, of the federal moneys paid for architects' fees since 1957?
2.	What proportion of such commissions annually went to the top 10 firms who received commissions?
3.	How many firms of architects were and are considered suitable for designing government buildings?
4.	How many of these firms have gained commissions since 1957?


Noël Dorion: Since a number of government departments are involved in this question, I would suggest that the question be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	How are the design contracts or awards given to architects by the Department of Public Works?
2.	Has the department received or noted any communications or views since 1957 which have been critical of the procedure in awarding commissions to architects?
3.	If so, by whom, in what way, to what effect?
4.	How many competitions of a provincial or a national kind have been held for architectural design since 1957 by the federal government?
5.	What buildings were involved in each case, and how many entries were received?
[Mr. Churchill.!


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of the question is, on approval of the minister and authorization of treasury board.
In answer to part 2, no such communications have been received by the department. The answer to part 3 is, not applicable. The answer to part 4 is, none; and the answer to part 5 is, not applicable.



FEDERAL EXPENDITURES ON QUEBEC ESKIMOS

Mr. Michaud: How much was spent in the fiscal year 1959-60 by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources on Eskimos per capita in the province of Quebec?


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the department's records are not kept in such a manner as to make possible the extraction of precise figures on matters of this kind. The best estimate that can be provided as to the department's expenditures on behalf of Eskimos in the province of Quebec during 1959-60 is something in the neighbourhood of $400 per capita.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Have there been any net realized losses, i.e., excess of book cost over selling price, on sales of securities from the unemployment insurance fund?
2.	If so, what are the amounts between October 1, 1958, and January 1, 1961, by quarters?
3.	Have there been any government advances to the fund?
4.	If so, what are the amounts, by months, from March 1, 1959, to date?
5.	Have there been any repayments of any such advances?
6.	If so, what have been the amounts, by months, from March 1, 1959, to date?
7.	What rates of interest were paid on any such advances?
8.	What amount of interest was paid by the fund to the government on any such advances?
9.	What was the average rate of interest earned on the book value of the assets of the fund in the fiscal years, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, and during the current fiscal year, excluding interest payments to the government on advances?
10.	What was the net rate of interest earned, on the same basis as in preceding question (net defined as gross income less interest paid to the government on advances) ?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this question is in ten parts and the answers include a number of figures and statistical information. I therefore suggest that the answer be printed in Hansard without my reading it.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to have his answer printed in Hansard as suggested?


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

Starred Questions
1.	Yes.
2.	Loss	ProfitOct.	L	1958-Dec.	31,	1958 	
$4,849,005.18	Jan.	L	1959-Mar.	31,	1959 	
6,956,512.85	Apr.	1,	1959-June	: 30,	1959 	
525.00	July	1,	1959-Sept	. 30,	, 1959 	$ 2,280.00Oct.	1,	1959-Dec.	31,	1959 	
2,152,837.50	Jan.	L	1960-Mar.	31,	1960 	
6,262,609.00	Apr.	1,	1960-June 30,	, 1960 	
5,337,453.50	July	1,	1960-Sept	. 30,	, 1960 	
2,190,810.83	Oct.	1,	1960-Dec.	31,	1960 	158,066.03Jan.	1,	1961-Jan.	31,	1961 	318,540.54
(Note: Under U.I.C. accounting procedures the differences between purchase prices and sale or realization prices of treasury bills are recorded as profits.)
3.	Yes.
4.	March 1959, nil; April 1959, $45,000,000.00;
May 1959,	$27,000,000.00; January 1960,
$7,000,000.00; April 1960, $19,000,000.00; May 1960, $18,000,000.00.
5.	Yes.
6.	July 1959, $20,000,000.00; August 1959,
$10,000,000.00; September 1959, $8,000,000.00; October 1959, $9,000,000.00; November 1959, $20,000,000.00; December 1959, $5,000,000.00; March 1960,	$7,000,000.00; June 1960,

7.	5 per cent on $72,000,000.00, 5J per cent on $44,000,000.00.
8.	$1,743,173.97.
9.	1957-58, 3.101 per cent; 1958-59, 3.523 per cent; 1959-60, 3.913 per cent; 1960-61, 3.398 per cent.
10.	1957-58, 3.101 per cent; 1958-59, 3.523 per cent; 1959-60, 3.551 per cent; 1960-61, 3.301 per cent.



PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the Minister of Justice examined each public bill introduced by a private member during this session in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the bill of rights?
2.	If so, has he found any such inconsistencies, and what are they?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, and the answer to the second part is no.



C.B.C. ASSIGNMENTS, ALGERIA AND TUNISIA

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Have Mr. Gerard Pelletier, Mr. Claude Syl-vestre, and Miss Rita Martel left Montreal to go to Algeria and Tunisia at the expense of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, for what reasons have they been authorized to make such a trip abroad?
3.	How long have they been away, or how long will they be away on the said trip?
4.	What amount of money, including salaries and remuneration, has such trip cost, or how much will it cost the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
(Translation):


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part: of the question is yes; to the second part: as a team of producers for a series of programs on Algeria and Tunisia, for use on the French network. The answer to the third part of the question is the following: those persons left Montreal on January 25 and are expected to be back on March 6.
Fourth, the expenses are expected to amount to about $8,200.
(Text):



POLICING OF FEDERAL AIRPORTS

Mr. Bourgel: 1.	Did the Department of Transport establish a group of special personnel to police federal airports?
2.	If so: (a) when was such a group established? (b) what were its specific functions? (c) how many persons were employed for this purpose? and (d) what is the present status of this particular group?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes, the Department of Transport established special groups of personnel to police federal airports at Malton, Dorval and Ottawa.
As to part 2, the answer is as follows:
(a)	These groups were established at Malton and Dorval on April 1, 1955, and at Ottawa on April 1, 1959.
(b)	Their specific functions are policing the airport, checking on infractions of the law committed on airport property; as necessary, arresting and holding violators of the law in custody; enforcing the airport vehicle control regulations; as required, appearing in court to give evidence; patrolling government properties on the airport, including building, hangars and parking lots; checking for vandalism, fire and trespassing; controlling crowds; and preparing reports related to their duties.

Starred Questions
(c)	Initially at Malton five personnel were employed for this purpose. At Dorval there were six, and at Ottawa eight. Effective April 1, 1959, there was an increase in the groups at Malton and Dorval to 17 and 11, respectively.
(d)	These groups are to be replaced effective April 1, 1961, by the R.C.M.P., who are assuming complete responsibility for the policing and security of federal airports.



WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, SPRINGHILL, N.S.

Mr. Batten: 1.	Have any projects been approved under the winter works program for the town of Springhill, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, in what amounts, and how many persons have been employed?
3.	Are any projects under the winter works program still under consideration?
4.	If so, what are these projects?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker,
the answer to part 1 is yes. Under the 1960-61 municipal works incentive program three projects have been approved for the town of Springhill, Nova Scotia.
The answer to part 2 is that the estimated total cost of these projects amounts to $9,375, with the estimated federal government share amounting to $3,325. Fourteen men were to be employed on these projects.
The answer to part 3 is that no other projects for the town of Springhill have been received under the municipal winter works incentive program. The answer to part 4 is answered by the answer to part 3.



U.S. PIPE LINE WORKERS, B.C.  REGULATIONS

Mr. Batten: 1.	Do any regulations exist with respect to the admission of workers from the United States to Canada for employment in the construction of pipelines in British Columbia?
2.	If so, what are the provisions of these regulations?
3.	Have any American workers been admitted to Canada, since January 1960, for such work and pursuant to these regulations?
4.	If so, how many, and in what classification of employment?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question 1 is yes. The answer to question 2 is as follows. Section 7 (l)(h) of the Immigration Act provides that persons engaged in a legitimate profession, trade or occupation may be allowed to enter and remain in Canada as non-immigrants for the temporary exercise of their respective callings. It is the government's policy that such persons shall not be admitted unless the examining immigration officer is satisfied that the individual's services are required in

Canada. In the case of such trades and occupations as pipe-line workers, where it is considered that the employment of a permanent resident may be adversely affected, the national employment service is consulted to ensure that the services of local residents with the required qualifications are not available. Admission of workers from the United States for temporary employment in the construction of pipe lines in British Columbia is governed by this section and the policy I have outlined.
The answer to question 3 is yes.
The answer to question 4 is that 17 persons have been admitted to Canada from the United States since January, 1960, for temporary employment in the construction of pipe lines in British Columbia. Five of these were described as superintendents, one of an entire project, with an assistant, and the others of various phases of the operation; three were engineers and three were foremen, all with specialized functions; there were two office managers, a project manager and a chief inspector. One was described as a material co-ordinator and the last was a representative of the United States concern interested in the purchase of the gas from the Canadian owners. All of these men except one foreman, who has since been admitted to Canada for permanent residence, and the representative of the United States purchasers, were destined for employment to one or other of the two concerns who are engineering and constructing the pipe line in the Cranbrook area. Temporary admission was allowed for various periods of time up to a year, pending completion of the project, and in each case the approval of the national employment service was obtained.



FORMULA FOR DESIGNATING CHRONIC UNEMPLOYMENT AREAS

Mr. Martin (Essex East): Will the Minister of Finance inform the house if a decision has been reached on the formula that has been or is to be adopted in designating areas of chronic unemployment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the precise terms are under consideration at the present time. As I indicated in reply to a similar question on February 8, information on this subject will be communicated to the house at the appropriate time.



SELECTIVE DOUBLE DEPRECIATION PLAN PROCEDURE

Mr. Martin (Essex East): Within the framework of the selective double depreciation plan announced in December, will the Minister of Labour give some clue as to the

proposed procedure; for instance, will the units of population to be designated be those embraced by the local national employment service offices?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, information about this program, as has been stated earlier by the Minister of Finance will be communicated to the house at the appropriate time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE SITE, TORONTO

Mr. Bourget: 1.	Has the government acquired a site for an unemployment insurance office in Toronto?
2.	If so: (a) what is the location of this site, and when was the site acquired? (b) is it the intention of the government to undertake construction on this site? (c) when?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes. The answer to part 2 is as follows:
(a)	Dundas street east between George and Jarvis streets. Title documents registered December 15, 1959.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	When plans and specifications are completed.



LOANS TO SMALL ENTERPRISES

Mr. Racine: According to the latest reports received by the government, how many loans have been made to small enterprises?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, section 19 (1) of the Small Businesses Loans Act provides that every bank shall prepare and mail to the Minister of Finance by ordinary post, within 30 days following the last day of each month, a monthly report of loans made in the preceding month.
No returns have yet been received for that portion of January during which lending was permissible, namely January 19 to 31 inclusive.



POLICING OF CITIES BY R.C.M.P.

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Has the Minister of Justice received a letter from the mayor of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, requesting clarification on the policy of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to policing of cities?
2.	If so, has the minister made a reply setting out the details of any such policy, and, if so, what are these details?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of the question is that a letter has been received from the mayor of Portage la Prairie requesting clarification of such policy as it affects Portage la Prairie.
The answer to part 2 is that no reply has yet been made.
Starred Questions



REXTON, N.B.  PAINTING OF POST OFFICE

Mr. Michaud: 1.	Was a contract let recently for painting the post office at Rexton, N.B.?
2.	If so, in what places were advertisements for tenders for this work published or displayed?
3.	How many tenders were received, and from whom?
4.	What was the amount of each tender?
5.	To whom was the contract awarded, and where does the successful contractor reside?


Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes. The answer to part 2 is that no tenders were advertised, but in accordance with the department's normal practice with small projects, a number of contractors were invited to submit bids.
The answer to parts 3 and 4 is that tenders were received as follows: Mr. Valmond Leblanc, Richibucto, New Brunswick, $1,175; Mr. Augustine King, Richibucto, New Brunswick, $1,450; Mr. Honore Robichaud, Richibucto, New Brunswick, $1,600.
The answer to part 5 is that the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, Mr. Valmond Leblanc of Richibucto, New Brunswick.



JERICHO BEACH, B.C. MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT

Mr. Taylor: 1.	Is the federal government the registered owner of all lands and premises relating to the military establishment at Jericho beach, Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	When were all the lands and premises of the federal government acquired at Jericho beach?
3.	What prices were paid for the property, and what is the present acreage?
4. What is the present market value of the Jericho beach property of the federal government?
5.	What sums are paid to the city of Vancouver annually for taxes or grant in lieu of taxes?
6. Has the province of British Columbia any rights relating to this property at the waterfront?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: The answers to some of these questions require the compilation of a considerable amount of detail and statistics which it has not yet been possible to get together. In these circumstances I wonder if this could be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



C.B.C., VANCOUVER  PERSONNEL AND PREMISES

Mr. Taylor: 1.	(a) How many persons are employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Vancouver, British Columbia? (b) how many employed in radio, and how many in television?
2.	What are the addresses of each of the premises where the employees of C.B.C. work?
3.	What premises are owned by the C.B.C.?
4.	Have architects been appointed or plans made by the C.B.C. for the construction of suitable accommodation for the entire C.B.C. operation in Vancouver?

Starred Questions
5.	Has the Vancouver city council recommended construction at a particular site?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The answers to these questions are complicated and contain a lot of detail. I have seen the hon. member and he has agreed that this should be a simple question and stand on the order paper in that way. It would then be answered in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: In effect, then, this would be transferred to the order paper without the asterisk. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REPRINTING OF CENSUS FORM

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	How many copies of the main census form will have to be printed because of the revision of the questionnaire as outlined in the letter of the dominion statistician dated February 10, 1961?
2.	What cost will be involved?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The
answer to question No. 1 is, 7,104,000. The answer to question No. 2 is that the Department of Public Printing and Stationery has estimated the cost at $160,000.



SEATTLE, WASHINGTON EXPOSITION  CANADIAN EXHIBIT

Mr. Taylor: 1.	Is the government proposing to enter a Canadian exhibit in the 1962, $45 million, six-month "Century 21" exposition in Seattle, Washington?
2.	Has the government received a request from the government of British Columbia to consider sharing the costs of an appropriate exhibit in this exposition?
3.	If so, what is the nature of the reply given to the government of British Columbia?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The
answer to question No. 1 is, yes. The answer to question No. 2 is, no. Question No. 3 is answered by the reply to question No. 2.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether, in the light of his reply to my starred question earlier today concerning the exposition in Seattle, Washington, he can give the estimated cost of Canadian participation, and state whether we are going to build a pavilion there.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The
estimated cost in $300,000, and it is expected that we will occupy rental space rather than construct a pavilion.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 130
Mr. Howard:: For each year since fishermen have been covered by unemployment Insurance, what was:	(a) the
amount of contributions received from fishermen while engaged in Ashing? (b) the amount of contribution received from recipients of beneAts under the provision of coverage for Ashermen while such recipients were engaged in non-Ashing employment?


Richard Devere Thrasher: The answer to part (a) of the question is:
The amount of unemployment insurance contributions paid by fishermen in each fiscal year since they have been covered by the
legislation is as follows:
1957-	58	
$359,204.821958-	59	
387,699.921959-	60	
453,613.58
Apr./60-Dec. 31/60 ________ 472,281.94
There is no record which would enable part (b) to be answered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
architects' fees and commissions

Mr. Taylor: Is the federal government the registered owner of all lands and premises relating to the military establishment at Jericho Beach, Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	When were all the lands and premises of the federal government acquired at Jericho Beach?
3.	What prices were paid for the property, and what is the present acreage?
4. What is the present market value of the Jericho Beach property of the federal government?
5.	What sums are paid to the city of Vancouver annually for taxes or grant in lieu of taxes?
6. Has the province of British Columbia any rights relating to this property at the waterfront?
(Translation):


COPYRIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT ON CANADIAN ADHERENCE TO GENEVA CONVENTION Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question put to me in French by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) on February 9 last, whereby she wished to know why the government had not imple-

merited the recommendations of the Ilsley report to the effect that Canada should sign the Universal Convention on copyright, adopted in Geneva, in 1952.
I wish to inform the hon. member that Canada did sign that convention but that, in the interval, parliament has not yet been called upon to ratify it. Why? The hon. member will appreciate that I cannot answer on behalf of the former government. As for this government-
(Text):
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister has misunderstood. I asked whether there were any further questions to be made orders for return.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the addition of 165,000 persons to the ranks of the unemployed during 'he past month.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex East has invoked standing order No. 26 to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss an increase in the number of persons unemployed.
No one would question that the matter is one of public importance. What I have to determine is whether there is that urgency of debate in connection with this matter which would warrant our interrupting the normal course of our proceedings so as to permit a debate on this subject matter on the ground that there has not been, or is not, an opportunity, or sufficient opportunity, for the house to discuss this question. It seems to me that is the simple proposition before the Chair.
Similar motions have been moved in the past, or at least leave has been requested in the past, and I have on each occasion taken the view that to discuss unemployment in general terms under a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26, where there has been ample discussion or considerable discussion, or at least ample opportunity in general debates to discuss the question of unemployment, would not be in accordance with the urgency of debate which the rule contemplates, and I see no reason for taking a different course at this time, more particularly as we have had very considerable discussion of the serious problem of unemployment both in the immediately preceding days
Unemployment
and in the earlier part of the session. Moreover, I expect there will be ample opportunity in the ensuing days.
If the hon. member for Essex East has a word to say on the question of urgency of debate I will hear him on that subject only.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think Your Honour's statement of the procedural situation is one which will be accepted by all hon. members. We are not asking that there should be a general discussion of the problem. As you have pointed out, there has already been presented this session an opportunity for discussing the generality of the problem. What we are asking is an opportunity to discuss something new, namely the fact that the government's announcement today indicates that 165,000 more persons are out of work than in the previous reporting period.
This is a new fact, and if we are not given an opportunity to debate this matter at this time there will be no opportunity provided in the foreseeable future. The estimates of the Department of Labour have not been called. If they had been called, we might have urged the government to introduce those estimates forthwith. But there is nothing now before the house which would enable us under our procedures to discuss this matter which, as Your Honour said, no one will suggest is not a matter of urgent public importance.
This question has suddenly confronted us in its present serious proportions; and, because of its admitted character, it would seem to me that Your Honour would, on reflection, agree that there being no opportunity today, no opportunity that is presented unless the Department of Labour esimates were before us, we should not be precluded at this time from discussing this further development which arises out of the most important domestic problem which, regrettably, faces our country today. For these reasons I ask leave to present this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Peterborough wish to say something before I deal with the matter.


Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I
should like to support the position taken by the hon. member for Essex East. I think it is indicative of the importance and urgency of this matter that we in this corner had also decided to ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the same reason. The figures have just been published, and we shall have no further opportunity to discuss this matter in the foreseeable future.

Unemployment


Mr. Speaker:: I think I need not hear the minister, because I am not prepared to accept the proposition that the increase in numbers has altered the case. The hon. member has asked me to distinguish the over-all problem of unemployment and the problem which arises from a substantial increase in one month's unemployed as reported, but in view of the course of this session, which was called for the indicated purpose of dealing with the over-all problem of unemployment, it does not seem to me that the house would be warranted in following the hon. member's suggestion when so much of its direct attention in this session has been devoted to this specific problem, regardless of its proportions or whether it has increased to 10 per cent from 5 per cent or whatever the figures may be.
The session has largely been devoted and presumably will be devoted to that specific problem. With regret, then, I must inform the hon. member for Essex East that I do not accept the distinction.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been well established that the ruling is not on a point of order and that there is no appeal.


Erhart Regier: In that case I should like to rely on a precedent and appeal your ruling that there is no appeal to this ruling. There is a precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a precedent I, of course, would be interested in hearing it.


Erhart Regier: I do not have it with me at the moment. However, I believe all the older members of this house will recall when there was an appeal against a decision of the Chair that there is no appeal from his ruling.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that is so; and at that time the house upheld the decision that there is no appeal from the Speaker's ruling on this matter. Surely, then, there should be some termination to this question. There must be some finality as to the rules of the house and the decisions the house makes on them. This house has twice itself decided that there is no appeal allowed on this point.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the Minister of Justice, it is a strange point and I am amazed that he should raise it. The house on a decision like this would tie its hands indefinitely even against an appeal. Surely each parliament is the master of its own rules. If the 
suggestion of the minister were followed you might as well tear up the rule book and throw it away.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is tearing it up.


Hazen Robert Argue: If an appeal on a point of order at one time with a certain result prevents the same kind of appeal ever again being made, our position would be untenable. I think the Minister of Finance knows that such a suggestion is absolutely intolerable.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows, of course, that the house is master of its own procedure, and it is the duty of the Chair to carry out the orders and practices which the house has approved. The precedent is clear. As stated by the Minister of Justice, there was an attempt made at one stage to see in the refusal of an appeal a point of order in itself and to appeal that point of order, but the house by its decision denied that that was so, and that stands until the house orders to the contrary. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member's appeal on the basis that there is no appeal.


Erhart Regier: If I may speak to this point of order-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is now no point of order.


Erhart Regier: Surely it is preposterous for a parliament to determine rules for a parliament in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Assiniboia and have given my decision.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Bourgei:
For a copy of all contracts and agreements entered into by the federal government and the province of Quebec with respect to the trans-Canada highway, together with copies of all riders and schedules pertaining thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Mcllraiih):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Canadian government, on the one hand, and the United States government on the other, since August 29, 1959, on the subject of the purchase of uranium by the United States of America from Canada.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be any objection to allowing this motion to stand. I have to make further inquiries in connection with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be very happy to agree to that, sir.
Motion stands.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE MANUAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Roberge:
For a copy of the new insurance coverage manual issued in October 1955 by the unemployment insurance commission.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have communicated with the commissioners of the unemployment insurance commission in respect of this motion. To date I have not received a reply from them. Under the circumstances I would ask if the hon. member would agree to allow this motion to stand.
Motion stands.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Roberge:
For a copy of the insurance coverage manual issued in January 1950 by the unemployment insurance commission.
Michael Starr: I would ask the hon. member to allow this motion to stand for the same reason.
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would request the house to give unanimous approval to the calling, immediately, of the estimates of the Department of Labour, so that we can discuss without any delay the serious unemployment situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there will be a supply motion on Monday, when every opportunity will be given to hon. gentlemen to speak on this subject if it is within the rules of the house so to do. If that motion is passed, and if the house so wills, among the estimates to be called will be those of the Department of Labour.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not regard this problem as so urgent that no delay can be permitted in having this house discuss a matter which the Prime Minister said he would solve when he addressed himself to the Canadian people?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I would say to the hon. gentleman is this. Everyone in this house will recall that for the last three and one half years the hon. gentleman has been making prophecies in this connection which have not turned out to be correct.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious unemployment crisis, as shown by statistics now made available to the house, can the minister say what result his winter works program has had in dealing with this question, and whether the government has any further plans to present to parliament during this session to deal with this national emergency?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer categorically yes or no a question of this sort, but with the consent of the house I should like to make a statement at this time in respect to this serious situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can we reply to it on motions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the request of the Minister of Labour ought to be acceded to, but in view of the seriousness of this problem today we should be given an opportunity to comment on it.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the remarks which have already been made, I would think the minister's statement would open up a debate. If the house wants to enter into a debate it can do so by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Labour
would have to get the consent of the house to revert to motions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would be delighted to give the minister consent at this time in order to have a debate on this matter, which the minister would introduce by his statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: Much as we would like to have a debate, is there not an alternative procedure, namely that we revert to motions

Inquiries of the Ministry by unanimous consent, the minister makes ployment situation, which is of concern not his statement and each of the opposition only to this government but to all the people parties has a chance to reply to the statement? of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Robichaud:: Are you afraid of it?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I am not sure that I understand. Is the minister asking for leave to revert to motions? If he is, I will deal with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, surely this is an extraordinary situation. A minister of the crown-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know hon. gentlemen do not like this.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I asked the minister whether he wished me to ask the house for leave to revert to motions; having had no response, we are on orders of the day and the hon. member for Essex East is entitled to rise and ask a question or speak on a question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Minister of Labour kindly give to the house now the statement which he announced a few moments ago he was going to give today?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to give a detailed reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia, but certainly there was no intention on my part to start a debate on this subject since you had previously ruled that at this time such a debate was not in order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Obviously the minister's reply should follow the rules; in other words, it should be a concise reply to a question and he should not take advantage of a question on the orders of the day to make a provocative statement which is very likely not founded on fact.


Mr. Speaker:: In conformity with the rules the minister has an opportunity to reply, if he can reply, to a question in as broad terms as that one.


Michael Starr: It is difficult to give a full reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia, but as far as the municipal winter works program is concerned, the suggestion that there may be 200,000 people employed on site and off site under that program is about fulfilled, and this government in those measures that it has fulfilled and those programs that it has approved and put into effect will continue to do everything within its power to help this serious unem-


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. On a former occasion the minister said that a responsibility lies with management and labour to deal with the unemployment crisis. Can he tell the house how he expects management and labour to deal with the government's responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question leads directly to debate; it is a debating question, and I do not propose to accept it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have a supplementary question. It is quite in order and supplementary to what has been said previously. Has the minister received any complaints from municipalities or trade unions in southeastern British Columbia concerning the winter works program regulations as being too inflexible, and urging the necessity for great flexibility in the regulations in order to give due consideration to climatic and other local circumstances? If so, is consideration being given to modification of the regulations to meet these particular climatic and local circumstances, and thereby employ many more people?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of this question, and I wish to advise him that a letter has been forwarded to me signed by Mr. W. S. King, recording secretary, and Mr. D. R. Calder, president, brotherhood of locomotive firemen and engineers, from Revelstoke. In their letter they complain about two projects in that municipality which had been turned down. I might mention that five other projects were accepted.
The two which were turned down, Mr. Speaker, were first of all a project to slash, pile and burn brush for a distance of 15 miles along a right of way for a transmission line. This would have employed three men. It was turned down at the instigation of the province, which felt that the project was not appropriate. The other project was slashing brush at the Revelstoke airport which was, of course, completely outside the scope of the winter works project.
On the five projects which were approved, work was provided for 60 men for approximately two months.



CAPE BRETON.-REQUEST FOR MEETING OF LABOUR MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime

Minister whether he has received a request from the premier of Nova Scotia for a meeting of representatives of the government of Nova Scotia, of management, of labour and of the federal government on the matter of closing of the three collieries in Cape Breton.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question categorically. The Leader of the Opposition will understand that I have to make an examination of the records.



RAND REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1 wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request from various bodies on the island of Cape Breton requesting the government to make public a special commentary prepared by Mr. Vissac on the report of Mr. Justice Rand? If so, will the Prime Minister tell the house whether he expects to take any action on this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been correspondence-a couple of telegrams were received today-in connection with the Vissac statement. After the matter has been looked into an answer will be given.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from George Burt, Canadian director of the united automobile workers, saying he has information that the General Motors Company may be preparing to move their motor plant operations out of Windsor after 36 years in that city? Has the Prime Minister interceded with General Motors to see whether or not this very regrettable action may be in the offing?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a telegram from Mr. George Burt in which he urges me:
To help us get from General Motors immediate and unequivocal statement as to accuracy of press reports which say G.M. will move its motor plant operations out of Windsor.
Of course the hon. gentleman knows the government of Canada has no authority over General Motors or over the action of any corporation or individual. We are unable to
Inquiries of the Ministry secure information by a simple request. In view of this telegram I have had General Motors communicated with, and any statement with respect to this matter will have to come from that corporation, whose decision it will be. However, I think I might add that I believe any fears of early action in that regard are not well founded.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Prime Minister-


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia should have the first supplementary question. I note the hon. member for Essex East.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether this very urgent problem has been placed before the royal commission, and whether this particular problem is within the scope of the inquiry being made by the commission?


John George Diefenbaker: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman read the powers of the royal commission and make his own interpretation. However, I would say that the government has not brought this matter to the attention of the royal commission. No doubt the information will be available to that commission, as it is to the hon. gentleman, it having received publicity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister a question arising out of his statement that he has been in touch with the General Motors Corporation regarding this matter? Does the Prime Minister not think that the emergency action taken by the President of the United States in such matters in calling together labour and management would be one device by which this kind of problem now affecting Windsor could be adequately investigated and solved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is certainly not supplementary, and it has all the characteristics of presenting a point of view rather than asking for information.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I regret not having been able to send him notice. My question arises out of a newspaper report in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that reform
2072	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry institutions minister Wardrope of the Ontario provincial government has announced that the Ontario government is leasing certain buildings at Elliot Lake for use as institutional buildings. I should like to ask whether or not a similar course might be considered by the government in relation to its move to establish minimum and medium security prisons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we have in mind and have had for some time the acquisition of suitable property in Ontario for expanding the variety of our institutions in the province. An anounce-ment was made recently that a property had been acquired at Gravenhurst. So far as I recall, we have no immediate plans for the acquisition of further properties, but our needs will be kept under constant review and so also will the situation at Elliot Lake.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister noticed the question asked the Prime Minister on Monday last with respect to whether consultations were held recently between the government and the Bank of Canada concerning the recent sale by the bank of unusually large amounts of bonds and securities, thereby reducing the available money supply in Canada, and the reply of the Prime Minister that an answer would be forthcoming at the earliest possible time? Would the minister enlighten the country as to why there is a contraction of the money supply at a time of growing unemployment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have already been on my feet three times today attempting to answer this question so that the hon. member might not be put to the trouble of asking it again. I was made aware of the question which he asked on Monday in my absence and to which the Prime Minister indicated an answer would be made.
It is normal in this country for the money supply to contract in the month of January. In that month the Bank of Canada normally reduces its holdings of government securities in order to offset the effect on chartered bank cash reserves of the heavy post-Christmas seasonal flow-back of currency from the general public into the chartered banks.
The hon. member has added to his question an indication that what has been happening has unusually reduced the available money supply in Canada. I should like to point out


to him, Mr. Speaker, that the total money supply, which includes currency in the hands of the public as well as total chartered bank deposits, on December 28, 1960 was 5.2 per cent greater than it had been 52 weeks earlier. As of February 1, 1961 the 52-week increase, that is the increase over the same date 52 weeks earlier, was 5.5 per cent.
Perhaps I might add some figures in this respect. The total money supply in Canada on February 1, 1961 was $13,763 million, and this was an increase of $718 million over the corresponding date in 1960.


Erhart Regier: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister admit that the sales of bonds and securities by the Bank of Canada exceed normal sales for the same month in other years?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will not admit what is not a fact, namely that there has been any abnormal decrease in the money supply. The actual decrease that occurred in January was confined to the weeks in which January 11 and January 18 fell, and there was an increase from January 18 to January 25 and another increase between January 25 and February 1 in the total money supply.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In his answer the minister has given figures relating the present money supply to the money supply 12 months earlier. He will be aware that the money supply 18 months and two years ago was approximately at the same figure as it is today. Would he explain why there has not been an increase in the money supply comparable to the increase in the gross national product, which would be about 4 per cent in that period, and the increase in population of perhaps 3 per cent?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member must be well aware that parliament has confided to the Bank of Canada full authority over questions pertaining to money supply. The government has no authority in the field of monetary policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has responsibility.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member has overlooked certain facts. The money supply in recent months has reached an all-time record, and when he speaks of the money supply of 18 months ago or two years ago may I point out that at that time it did not reach the figure that it has reached latterly.


William Moore Benidickson: Very close. About the same.


Mr, Fleming (Eglinion):: I point out that the money supply on December 28, 1960 reached a figure of $13,811 million, which was $687 million more than the figure 12 months earlier. I have also given the figures for the various weeks in January. To make comparisons of increases week by week will demonstrate to anyone who takes the trouble to look up the figures that the increase in money supply between January 25 and February 1, compared with the same period a year ago, was quite substantial. I pointed out that the increase at February 1 over the same date a year ago was $718 million.


William Moore Benidickson: I referred to two years ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not have the figures before me for two years ago, but I will say from memory without a moment's hesitation that the figure at this present time is considerably larger than the figure of two years ago.


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps the minister
would reply to my question tomorrow after he has looked up the information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member wants more statistical information I point out that it is available to every member of the house in the published accounts, but if he wishes statistical information of this kind selected and put on the record of the house that information will be promptly given if he will put his question on the order paper.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he is now asserting that the government has no responsibility for monetary policy?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am asserting what is a fact which apparently has not yet dawned on the consciousness of the Leader of the Opposition, that parliament is supreme and parliament has given this authority to the Bank of Canada and not to the government.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What a terribly weak statement by the Minister of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: An abdication of responsibility.


Paul Joseph James Martin: An abdication of government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you are going to tolerate statements being made, untrue statements, by the hon. member for Essex East. He puts them on the record from his seat and he ignores you, Mr. Speaker;
Inquiries of the Ministry he turns his back on you regularly. If this sort of thing is going to continue I respectfully suggest that this hon. member should be called upon to obey the rules of the house which are binding on him as well as the 264 lesser members of the house; either that, or his untrue remark should be expunged from the records of the house.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say through you that it is not up to the Minister of Finance to tell me how I should comport myself in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Somebody should tell you.


Mr. Ricard:: Nobody can.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance, since he has given us this gratuitous lecture, if he does not now regard his last statement to the Leader of the Opposition as a complete abdication of the responsibilities of government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the remarks which the hon. member for Essex East made from his seat are reported, I think it would be appropriate that they be struck off the record, because they were not made in accordance with the practice of the house. I did not myself hear his remark.
If such practices are followed, then of course I have to give an opportunity to hon. members to deal with remarks made from a member's seat. It seems to me that no hon. member would want me to follow that course. The alternative is either that hon. members refrain from interrupting by remarks of that kind or, if interruptions are made, they are not noted. In a case where a comment was made I think perhaps no change should be made in the report without the leave of the house, because the record would not be complete. However, may I say to all hon. members that the course I suggested first appears to me to be the appropriate one for this sort of case, although I do not propose to follow it at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to speak to the point of order. I believe that it would be a very serious practice if interruptions by hon. members were not placed in the Hansard record. We would get ourselves into all kinds of difficulty if orders went out that no interruptions by an hon. member during the course of the remarks of another hon. member were to be on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would wait until the matter is relevant,
2074	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry at which time he could make these remarks. I have indicated that I have, in effect, changed my mind from the first indication I gave, because the remark in question has been replied to and the Hansard record would not be complete without it.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production arising from the reaction of disappointment at the lakehead to yesterday's announcement respecting the pilot project order for the Bobcat. If the development of the Bobcat has been completed, why is it necessary to develop further pilot models over a two-year period rather than initiate production in the magnitude of several hundred, as indicated by General Pearkes last year?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: This would be a very appropriate question to ask the Minister of National Defence, because this is an order from national defence.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister, in his visit to the lakehead this week end, would discuss with the municipal authorities their views on the Bobcat and their general disappointment at what has developed in this regard.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not object to hearing from the people. This is one of the reasons I am going to the lakehead, to get as close as possible to the people and learn what views they have.
May I say this, that the order that has been given is for some 20 of the Bobcats. I am not able to say definitely what the extra cost would be, but I think the differences in cost between Montreal and Fort William are of such a nature that all reasonable people would agree with the course that is being followed by the department.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add, if I may, to the answer I gave the hon. member for Port Arthur. I would like to give the reasons it was considered impracticable for Canadian Car Company Limited to carry out the next phase of the Bobcat program at their Fort William plant.
(1)	The company has spent approximately $21 million in establishing an up-to-date and modern facility in the Montreal area.
LMr. Speaker.]

(2)	All engineering and design personnel are located at the Montreal plant.
(3)	The testing facilities of the army, which will be required to be used during the preproduction pilot stage of the program, are located on the Montreal road outside of Ottawa en route to Montreal.
(4)	Personnel of the Canadian army development establishment and other members of the quartermaster general's branch, who will be required to exercise very close supervision of the program, are located at army headquarters in Ottawa.
(5)	The senior officers of the company who are directly concerned with this program are located in Montreal and could not be transferred to Fort William.
Following the 20 preproduction pilot models being produced, when it is possible to proceed with the production of the balance of 480 vehicles this will be determined on the basis of competitive tender. This could mean that if Canadian Car Company Limited were the successful tenderer, production of the Bobcat could take place at Fort William, provided the company so elected. However-and I want to be frank in this connection-it is extremely doubtful whether the company would be in a competitive position if the manufacture took place at Fort William.
We have given a great deal of attention to this matter and have endeavoured in every way possible to do our part to assure the maintenance of the program, but the circumstances of distance and of non-competibil-ity, and the other circumstances to which I have made reference, determine the course in question in so far as the preproduction program is concerned.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the house whether the Canadian soldiers who were injured in clashes with the Congolese and returned to Canada before December would be eligible for the special allowances to Canadian soldiers participating in the Congo action?


Howard Charles Green: This is a matter which concerns the Department of National Defence and not the Department of External Affairs. I will pass on the question to my colleague.



O.E.C.D.-REQUEST FOR EARLY CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider bringing to the house for examination at the earliest possible date the agreement setting up the organization for economic co-operation and development. I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because strong opposition seems to be developing toward that agreement in congress, where it is now being submitted for approval, and unanimous Canadian action might help in this respect.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the present plans are to introduce this measure at an early date.



INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I asked the question yesterday of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I was referred to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister inform the house whether the Japanese-Canadian trade negotiations are still in progress, and could he report to the house whether any agreement or understanding has been reached?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are still in progress.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister care to comment on the press report, attributed to a member of the Japanese delegation, that unless a satisfactory agreement is reached Japan might be forced to purchase her wheat elsewhere, in the United States and Australia?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to a press report that appeared several weeks ago, all I can say is that I was informed that the report was completely inaccurate and no such statement was authorized.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he is ready to answer the question I asked him yesterday, and to which he said he would reply today.
90205-6-131
Inquiries of the Ministry


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be an item in the supplementary estimates to cover the point raised by the hon. member.



PROCEDURE RESPECTING CORRECTION OF OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr. Speaker:: There have been an unusual number of corrections of a minor nature today. The house must appreciate that there is an opportunity for every member to go to the editor's office, read the original transcript of his remarks, and make his corrections at that time. It is really a duty to do that, to save the time of the house which is otherwise consumed in making corrections which are not of great significance. Furthermore, the disadvantage of making the correction in the house is that the text has already gone out to the country in its erroneous form, whereas if hon. members would take the trouble of looking over the transcript of their remarks the report would go out in the first printed issue in the corrected form. Hon. members would not then have to rely on a correction which may never come to the attention of the person who reads the first printed text. This applies particularly if those corrections are verbal and do not involve any matter of principle or grave misunderstanding.


Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I actually corrected the text. This was added after correction. This was a subtitle and could not be corrected by the member himself. That is the reason I called it to the attention of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not complaining particularly about the hon. member, or any hon. member. I am just pointing out that the house cannot afford to spend a considerable amount of time on having corrections made to Hansard. I hope hon. members will note this.
There are occasions when members may rise on a matter of personal privilege if an error in Hansard is creating some serious inconvenience or injury. I think that should be the criterion, and the only criterion.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who will not be able to return to the house until perhaps after orders of the day, I have been requested to ask the Prime Minister this question.

Inquiries of the Ministry
With respect to the question the hon. member raised on Monday, has the Prime Minister seen fit to table such correspondence as he has received from premiers who have consented to the tabling, even if some consents have not been received?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not received the consents of the premiers to the tabling. As soon as they are received the documents in question will be tabled.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Prime Minister that, as reported at page 1972 of Hansard for February 13, he replied previously to the hon. member in this way:
I think that one or two have not yet replied.
That is referring to one or two of the premiers:
If I do not have any replies from them I take it that it will be in order to table the others.
It was on that point that I wished an answer.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciated that, Mr. Speaker.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES NATIONAL GALLERY    DISPLAY OF PORTRAIT OF MARQUIS OF LORNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as a socialist with some appreciation of history, on behalf of some well-known Ottawa people I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that the Marquis of Lome was the founder of the national art gallery in 1880, can the minister inform the house why the painting of the Marquis of Lome, now in storage in a building on Echo Drive, is not displayed in the Lome building?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member for Kootenay West that a portrait of the Marquis of Lome by the distinguished pre-Raphaelite painter, Sir John Everett Millais, is at present hanging in the national gallery and has been hanging there since the building opened. At the present time it is not part of the curatorial plan to have two portraits of the marquis hanging at one and the same time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there is an excellent portrait in storage which was painted years ago, why does the government go to the extra expense of having another portrait painted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member bring forward a notice of motion to deal with this serious matter.



CANADA COUNCIL


John George Diefenbaker: That the report of the Canada Council for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960, laid before the house on July 13, 1960, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts in order to provide for a review thereof pursuant to section 23 of the Canada Council Act.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remark how satisfactory it has been to have the annual report of the Canada Council before the public accounts committee. I wish to compliment the members of that committee, of which I am not ordinarily a member, for the way they have approached this matter, and the chairman for his work.
I did want to pay a tribute to the man who headed the Canada Council and who has since died. He was a man I did not know personally. The Hon. Brooke Claxton made a great impression on those of us who had not known him before and certainly the feeling I have to a much greater extent than I had before is that the Canada Council is an expression of one of his dreams and ambitions. He is now gone, but I hope we can all continue to see in the Canada Council the kind of Canadianism and Canadian idea he was out to express.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not desire to hold up this motion, but this gives me an opportunity to pay my tribute to the work of the council and especially to the contribution made to that work by the late chairman and my former colleague in the house, Mr. Brooke Claxton. In doing this may I add my expression of good will to the present chairman.
I was interested to read in the press not long ago that the present chairman had indicated that more funds would be required if the council is to be able to carry out the kind of job it hopes to perform. No doubt this is one of the matters which will be considered by those concerned, and at this time I have nothing to say about that request. However, I do feel, as I am sure all hon. members feel, that the council has already abundantly justified its existence. We hope it will be able to continue that existence in a way which will make a special contribution to the development of Canada in fields other than material.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this motion passes I should just like to express my appreciation of the work which has been done by the Canada Council since its formation during, shall I say, what was almost an experimental period, because many problems had to be met.
I rise principally to urge that every consideration should be given to groups in the smaller communities such as little theatres and others connected with various forms of the arts and to suggest that there might possibly be some total survey made of the needs of these smaller communities across Canada. I personally am a great believer in doing even more in percentage terms for the smaller communities than is done in the cities where the opportunities are so much greater. I firmly believe that if the council can make a grant for someone to study constitutional law which I do not look upon as a cultural activity-indeed, I was rather surprised that such a grant should have been made-then, surely, the council could do something for the smaller communities which I represent.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. gentlemen who have participated in this short but, I think, effective debate. It indicates the unanimity of hon. members in this house with regard to the necessity of encouraging those concerned with Canada's cultural and artistic standards.
Mention was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) of the request made recently by the chairman of the Canada Council, Dr. Bissell, who, I know, will be a worthy successor to the Hon. Brooke Claxton. Dr. Bissell and those associated with him made a presentation to the government in connection with the needs of the council and stated in relation to the scholarship and fellowship program, and to the organization representing the country's developing arts, that certain minimal additional sums would be required to meet the present needs in both these fields. With regard to the scholarships and fellowships, the request was for an additional $250,000. In addition to that, for organizations such as were referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and other artistic organizations across Canada, a further $250,000 would be required.
The income from the endowment fund for the current fiscal year is estimated to be approximately $2,900,000, and those associated with the board estimate that a further $500,000 would be required. The need of assistance for the cultural things of life are indicated by the fact that the board's representations were to the effect that in 1957-58 90205-6-131J
Public Accounts
Canada's theatres asked for $89,000 and were granted $60,000; in 1960-61 they asked for $290,000 and were given $119,000. In connection with orchestras in various parts of Canada, in 1957-58 ten Canadian orchestras asked for $172,000 and were granted $130,000; in 1960-61 nine orchestras asked for $245,000 and were granted $205,000. In so far as the smaller communities are concerned, there are some seven or eight orchestras in such communities which need help, help which cannot now be given because grants to orchestras at the present level already account for over one fifth of the funds available for all artistic organizations.
Finally, in the field of ballet, in 1957-58 the grant asked for was $136,000 and the amount granted was just $6,000 less, while in 196061 the amount asked for was $225,000 and the amount granted was $160,000.
Believing, as all of us do, that there is a major need for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences in Canada -a need to stimulate the national culture- I have no doubt these are matters which will receive, and can receive, the attention of the committee to which this report will go if the present motion is passed.
May I conclude by saying that I join with the hon. member from Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and the Leader of the Opposition in their references to the late Brooke Claxton. He made an outstanding contribution, first in the days of war, then in the parliament of this country and, later, upon ceasing to be a member of parliament and of the cabinet of Mr. St. Laurent, by giving leadership to the arts, something that is most laudable and commendable. I appreciate the attitude taken by members in all parts of the house and trust that when the report of the Canada Council comes before the committee the commendation to the late chairman and the manner in which the council was conducted last year will be representative of what will happen again this year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That the Public Accounts, volumes I and II and the report ol the auditor general for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960, and the financial statements of the Canada council and the report of the Auditor General thereon for the fiscal year ended March 31. 1960, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

Public Accounts
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, this motion relates to the referral of volumes I and II of the public accounts and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960 to the standing committee on public accounts. The second volume referred to is the report respecting crown companies. The Auditor General has filed a separate report this year. I say "separate" because in past years the report has been a part of the large, thick volume of the details of the accounts. I commend the Auditor General for preparing a separate volume because it is certainly more convenient for those who want to deal only with the Auditor General's remarks to consult the separate small report instead of the large volume which is exceedingly bulky.
In paragraph No. 112 of the Auditor General's report he points out that the Auditor General is eligible to be appointed the auditor or joint auditor of a crown corporation and that the accounts and financial statements of 22 of the 26 corporations were examined by his audit office in the year under review. He lists those on page 54 of his report.
In paragraph No. 113 he goes on to say that the accounts of the crown corporations and other public instrumentalities set out were not examined by the Auditor General in the year under review. These are the Bank of Canada, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, the Canadian National Railways West Indies Steamships Limited, the Canadian wheat board, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the industrial development bank and Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Hon. members will recognize that some of those crown companies are examined on an annual basis by committees other than the public accounts committee. Others are not examined annually but are examined only periodically. A request has been made that the report of the Bank of Canada when tabled, as it likely will be next month, be referred to the banking and commerce committee. No encouragement has been given by the government in response to that request. As I understand it the public accounts committee has not to date examined any of those crown companies which are not audited by the Auditor General. As far as I can see, in reading the authority of the public accounts committee and this motion, there is no valid reason why the public accounts committee would not be able to review all of the accounts of the crown companies referred to in part II.
I may say with respect to parliamentary review of the Bank of Canada, this has not been provided historically on an annual basis.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).l
There has been a periodic review. I suggest that a review would be particularly timely this session. In 1956 the annual report-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a very simple motion. It is the annual motion we have to refer the public accounts and report of the Auditor General to the public accounts committee. The hon. member is now talking about something that lies completely outside the scope of this motion. There is nothing here that involves the practice with respect to audit of the Bank of Canada or of the annual report of the governor. That is dealt with under other legislation entirely.


William Moore Benidickson: You will have recognized, Mr. Speaker, that I have not addressed myself to that line of argument at all. I intend to be brief and to avoid any reference to the contents of the report of the Bank of Canada for either last year or any other year. I am saying-and this is traditional at this stage in our proceedings-that this committee during the course of this session should take on the responsibility for the examination of the accounts of this crown company. I intended to go on to briefly indicate what parliamentary review we have had in recent years through a parliamentary committee.
In 1956 the annual report of the Bank of Canada was referred to the banking and commerce committee. As far as I can ascertain it was referred at the initiative of the government. I do not think that any hon. member of the opposition at that time requested that this be done.
It is true that on February 14, 1957-the next year-prior to the tabling of the 1956 report the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) did ask the minister of finance of that day if he would be able to tell the house if the banking and commerce committee would have an opportunity to review the report when presented and have the governor as a witness as was done the preceding year. The minister said that he would take into consideration what appeared to be a request. It was not a direct request.
There was a request made by me in 1959. The Minister of Finance at that time said it has not been the practice to have that report referred to the banking and commerce committee every year but that it had been done occasionally. That is in accordance with the record I have outlined.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) recently asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) if in view of the seriousness of interest in our monetary situation a parliamentary committee could not review the report of the Bank of Canada this year but we have had no encouragement in that

respect. That is why I rise to suggest to the chairman of the public accounts committee that as it has been the practice each year to examine the accounts of some crown companies, this year it would be most appropriate if we were to examine the accounts of the Bank of Canada.
The importance of this examination particularly arises from the fact that-and this is not something new; I readily admit this has been typical of the annual reports of the Bank of Canada-for 1959 it contains what is the normal report for a crown corporation entitled "Profit and Loss" but many people are astonished to find in connection with these important and large operations of a crown company the profit and loss account for this crown corporation-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. gentleman is discussing something entirely outside the scope of the present motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that that is so. I thought perhaps the hon. member was relating his discussion of the Bank of Canada's report to the omission of that report from this motion and indicating that it ought to be included, but I may be mistaken about that.


William Moore Benidickson: You are perfectly correct, Mr. Speaker. In one or two brief sentences I was going to emphasize a further reason why the public accounts committee should perhaps examine the Bank of Canada report because they are accustomed to reviewing profit and loss statements. In the case of the Bank of Canada the profit and loss statement contains only this very minor amount of information. It says, "Profit for the year," so and so millions; "Paid to the Receiver General of Canada for credit to the consolidated revenue fund," the same so and so millions; and gives no statement whatsoever with respect to operating expenses and so on. It is for that reason that I make the suggestion.
An additional reason is that, rightly or wrongly, the Bank of Canada has been under attack and criticism recently by a majority of bank presidents in their annual statements. In part they have criticized the operations of the bank. Recently a number of economists across the country raised questions as to the activities of the bank and I suggest that it would be most timely, if the banking and commerce committee will not assume its responsibilities, to have the public accounts committee take the Bank of Canada as one of the crown companies to be examined this year.
Public Accounts


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I intend to complain about the inadequacy of the motion now before us, in the light of the needs of our nation. I should like heartily to endorse the request put forward by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). In addition to that endorsation, I intend to move an amendment to that effect to the motion now before us.
The motion is inadequate in that it does not ask the public accounts committee to investigate the annual report of the Bank of Canada. I realize that under normal conditions the banking and commerce committee might be asked to undertake this study. However, the government has refused consistently to refer the annual report of the Bank of Canada to the banking and commerce committee for consideration, and I see no logical reason, as has been said already, why the public accounts committee ought not to be asked to undertake this responsibility in addition to the responsibilities called for in the motion. I happen to be a member of both committees and I notice that in the main the membership of the committees is almost the same. Identical members of the house happen to be on both the banking and commerce committee and the standing committee on public accounts.
Earlier this afternoon mention was made of our gravest national problem, namely unemployment. The operations of the Bank of Canada are urgently in need of review because the actions of the Bank of Canada have such an important bearing on the level of employment in our nation. Our whole economic welfare is dependent upon the actions of the Bank of Canada.
As recently as this afternoon the minister attempted to divorce himself and his responsibility from the actions taken by the Bank of Canada. If the minister's contention is to be given any weight at all-I personally feel the minister is completely wrong in his denial of responsibility for the actions of the Bank of Canada; however, if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is going certainly afield when he attempts to debate the question of responsibility of the minister for the Bank of Canada on a motion to refer to the public accounts committee certain specific items which are named in the motion.


Erhart Regier: As you indicate, I may have gone a bit beyond the rules. However, I indicated I do intend to move an amendment at the conclusion of my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The fact that the hon. member intends to move an amendment does not give him any greater scope in debate than he has on the motion. I hope he will keep to

Public Accounts
the main purpose of this motion which is to determine whether certain specific matters shall be referred to the public accounts committee, namely volumes I and II of the Auditor General's report and the financial statement of the Canada Council and the report of the Auditor General thereon.


Erhart Regier: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will have to move my amendment now in order to make the rest of my remarks in order. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher):
That the motion now before the house be amended and that after the comma following 1960 there be inserted the words "and the latest annual report of the Bank of Canada".
The motion as amended would then read:
That the public accounts, volumes I and II and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960, and the financial statements of the Canada Council and the report of the Auditor General thereon for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960, and the latest annual report of the Bank of Canada, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
My reason for moving this amendment, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member gives any reasons perhaps he should give me any authority which would permit an amendment to be made which changes the character of the motion. This amendment introduces new matter into the motion. It is not an amendment; it is really another motion, which clearly would require notice. It is to refer the report of the Bank of Canada to a committee.


Erhart Regier: It is my humble submission that our public accounts are affected by the activities of the Bank of Canada, and the motion now before us lists an assignment to be undertaken by a standing committee of this house. My amendment merely adds to the specific work load, if you wish to call it that, of a committee that has already been established. I do not think that new matter is being introduced at all, because the activities of the Bank of Canada are tied in directly with the consolidated revenue fund of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the minister has anything to say on the point?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: My recollection is-I have not had a chance to verify it by reference to specific authority-that a motion of this kind to refer matters to a committee is amendable only within the terms of the original motion which, of course, is in line with the principle that relates to amendments generally. Citation 203 of Beauchesne's

Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, states the principle in paragraph 3, as follows:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
That citation does not refer specifically to this particular kind of motion; it deals with all motions. I will hear the hon. member again. I want to be satisfied that the course I have indicated is correct.


Erhart Regier: I should like to submit for your consideration that the public accounts of Canada involve the whole of the consolidated revenue fund of the government of Canada. The minister, on behalf of Canada, is the only owner of the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada is by its own legislation appointed as the fiscal agent of the government of Canada. I feel that to discuss the Bank of Canada when we are discussing the over-all and detailed financial operations of the government for the preceding year is very much in order, and that no new and different subject matter is added to the motion by the terms of the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought the point was so very plain that it would not indeed have been raised. This is a motion in the time honoured form. It has become practically an annual motion; the form of it was changed only after the Canada Council was brought into being and was enlarged simply to include, as the present motion does, the accounts and the financial statements of the Canada Council and the report of the Auditor General thereon.
What is attempted in the present amendment is to introduce something quite different and quite outside the scope of the motion. The motion contemplates a reference to the public accounts committee of certain specified documents. First, there are the two volumes of the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960 and, second, the report of the Auditor General thereon. Third, there are the financial statements of the Canada Council and, fourth, the report of the Auditor General thereon.
That does not open the door for any hon. member to tack on the motion everything that occurs to him might well be considered by this committee. That would be opening the door to importing into such a motion matter that is entirely foreign to the motion. The public accounts committee can have referred to it many matters but a motion of this kind does not open the way for hon. members to

add to the motion everything that it may appear to them desirable to have considered by the public accounts committee.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no little misapprehension indicated already in this matter. The Bank of Canada does not make an annual report. It is the governor of the Bank of Canada who makes a report and, so far as audit is concerned, the auditor general has no function whatsoever with respect to the Bank of Canada. Parliament's own legislation has provided for the appointment of auditors to the Bank of Canada. The power is given to the governor in council to appoint auditors for the Bank of Canada annually. The provisions of the legislation are quite specific on that point. The public accounts do not include the report of the Bank of Canada at all. It is a quite separate report and it comes to the minister annually about the middle of March. So, Mr. Speaker, the amendment purports to deal with something that is very different in nature from the documents that are specifically referred in the motion itself and are proposed to be referred to the committee.
I began, Mr. Speaker, by referring to the fact that this is a traditional motion. I do not recall any previous occasion when the motion was even debated. It has always been in this standard form. Normally it is the desire of all hon. members to have the public accounts and the report of the Auditor General thereon referred to the committee, and it seems to me that the discussion that has taken place this afternoon has just been a way of planting in the minds of hon. members the idea that such a motion can be amended by dragging into it anything that an hon. member thinks appropriate to refer to the committee, and in my respectful submission that is certainly not within the procedure of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: In the chapter in Beau-chesne dealing with motions and amendments there are two citations, Nos. 202 and 203, which deal generally with the matter. I cannot see that the hon. member can bring his proposed amendment within the scope of the rule because it calls for quite a different reference from those now in the motion. It is true that such a motion can be made as an independent motion on notice but without notice it seems to me it offends the rule because it does deal with a completely different reference to the committee. I regret, therefore, to inform the hon. member that I cannot accept the proposed amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

[Stage Direction]
Resolved,-That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Customs Tariff and to provide:
1.	That the said act be amended by adding thereto immediately after section 2 thereof the following section:
"2A. (1) For the purposes of this act, goods shall be deemed to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada if
(a)	in the case of goods other than goods custom-made to specifications, goods of approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada; and
(b)	in the case of goods custom-made to specifications, adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time.
(2)	Notwithstanding subsection (1), goods other than goods custom-made to specifications shall be deemed not to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless at least ten per cent of the normal Canadian consumption of goods of the same or approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada.
(3)	The decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the following matters:
(a)	the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described in subsection (2), and
(b)	whether goods are custom-made to specifications, and whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time."
2.	That subsections (9) and (10) of section 6 of the said act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(9) For the purposes of this act, notwithstanding section 2A, goods may be deemed to be of a class or kind not made or produced in Canada where similar goods made or produced in Canada are not offered for sale to the ordinary agencies of wholesale or retail distribution or are not offered to all purchasers on equal terms under like conditions, having regard to the custom and usage of trade."
3.	That subsection (4) of section 6A of the said act be repealed.
4.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the 21st day of December, 1960, and to have applied to all goods mentioned therein imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, it is more than a week since we last discussed this resolution. I know that in the interval the Minister of Finance has made a very brief trip to western Canada. I rather thought that with the introduction of this resolution again he might come forward with some amendment to his proposals because I am sure while he was out there he heard a considerable amount of indignation expressed with respect to the arbitrary powers being taken by the ministry under the proposed legislation, the elimination of appeals to the tariff board and to higher courts, which practice has been in effect for years, and so on.
I certainly know that the interval has been a fortunate one as far as the public are concerned because since we last discussed the matter it has become very apparent that

Customs Tariff
there is widespread apprehension in the country as was expressed by members of the opposition when the resolution was introduced. As I recall, hitherto in our discussion of this subject the debate has centred on two matters, neither of which I propose to deal with at this stage although I will certainly raise my voice with respect to them at later stages of the debate.
I refer first of all to the question of arbitrary power and the elimination of appeals to the tariff board and, second, the adverse effect that these proposals will have, particularly with regard to machinery, on other producers, on manufacturers, on end users and the effect it will have on efficiency if something less than the best machine proves prohibitively expensive for the people whom we are trying to encourage to get into production so efficiently that they will be able to meet the exceedingly keen competition of the world and enlarge our exports. As I say, I am not going to deal with those two matters at this time.
I want to remind hon. members that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue put very much foremost in their arguments the point that there is nothing really new in this legislation except that it will result in a return to the law with respect to the administration of the "class or kind" provisions that was operative prior to 1950, a decade ago. It is very flattering to have the new administration suggest that they have no new principles to offer with respect to this form of customs administration and that they admire and are returning to the practices of the Mackenzie King government and the Liberal principles with respect to customs that were operative prior to what they call the erosion which they say has taken place in the last ten years.
So far as that rather bland form of approach to this debate is concerned, I want to say that it has no foundation in fact whatsoever. I think I can demonstrate that both ministers are exceedingly naive if they think they can spoof the House of Commons, even members of their own party from areas where exports are vital, into thinking that this is simply an innocent return to a long time practice, a practice that was particularly typical and had the endorsation of the Liberal party which is known to be a party that is anxious to expand trade.
The other assertion with which I should like to deal and which I think is equally naive is that our partners in GATT will accept the minister's proposals in this legislation as nothing new or of much consequence to them, but merely a return to the situation which was in effect in Canada with respect to customs administration when the GATT agreement was originally signed in 1947.

I should like to direct the attention of the committee to the interpretation that the two ministers have given that the decisions of the tariff board in the decade create an erosion. I think it was the Minister of National Revenue who had this to say in the course of the debate-this is the type of approach that I do not believe they expect the opposition to accept, nor is it going to salve the conscience of their own supporters who would be horrified if they really studied this proposition and realized some of the implications that will flow from it in the matter of stifling trade and that will affect their constituencies in western Canada, the maritimes and other areas. I said there was a straightforward claim that this was a return to Liberal tariff doctrine. I should like to quote from the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue as recorded on page 1688 of Hansard for February 2, 1961:
We are not going back to the days of R. B. Bennett; we are simply going back to the practices which were pursued, and I think properly so, by the government of Mr. Mackenzie King, and those associated with him up until at least 1950.
I want to establish, and I think I can very clearly the rather substantial difference with respect to some facts that I will give as to the legal decisions that have been given in the last 10 years in tariff board decisions, and the very inaccurate, rather casual interpretations that were given by both ministers in the course of the debate so far. I hope members of the government party who are not sympathetic to high tariffs will note these remarks with care.
I should like to refer particularly to the shovel case which both ministers emphasized, and I think properly so, because the case with respect to the dipper size of the shovels was perhaps the one that received the greatest amount of attention in litigation during the past 10 years. There were two appeals one of which went to the exchequer court and to the supreme court. These ministers are trying to convince their followers and the country that the final result was a judgment that was contrary to the practices and to the decisions of the tariff board as they existed some 10 years earlier.
In order to indicate the rather casual way in which this matter has been presented to the committee I should like to refer to page 1698 of Hansard for February 2, 1961. In so far as the shovel case is concerned, the Minister of Finance did not think this was worth going into in very much detail. He shrugged his shoulders and said that all members of the committee would understand how petty it is to suggest, as the tariff board did, that a

shovel of 2.5 cubic yard capacity is not made in Canada and the maximum size of shovel made in Canada is two cubic yards, the tariff board was being unduly restrictive in that interpretation.
The minister did refer to one appeal, appeal No. 306, but inadvertently or otherwise it is a great surprise to me to find that no reference whatever was made by either minister when they were reviewing this so-called erosion to the original and basic appeal with respect to shovels, which was appeal No. 272. The tariff board, in appeal No. 272, came to this conclusion:
The obvious purpose of tariff item 427a-
This 427a is an item in the tariff which was inserted by the Liberal administration for the purpose of establishing that if goods of a class or kind, of iron and steel and they are mostly machinery items, were not in fact being made in Canada, the importer of those articles would not be obliged to pay the 22J per cent most favoured nation rate but, on the contrary, would be allowed to have machinery that was the most efficient and suitable without the burden of a high tariff and would pay a low tariff of 7.5 per cent if imported from the United States or free if imported from the United Kingdom.
The tariff board report states this:
From the standpoint of the user, domestic machinery is not "available" unless such domestic machinery is precisely suitable for the purposes he has in mind. On the other hand, it would deprive the domestic manufacturer of the protection to which he is reasonably entitled were he required to supply a more or less precise duplicate of a particular foreign machine in order to take the latter machine out of tariff item 427a.
The correct interpretation of these two items would appear to require, therefore, the exploration of a middle ground between two impractical extremes, in which connection it is of assistance to ponder again the wording of section 6 (10) of the Customs Tariff Act, as set out earlier herein.
This is the section which is now before us for elimination.
When subsection 10 is read with the wording of tariff item 427a in mind, it is clear that the word "quantities" as used therein would appear to contemplate a counting of pieces of machinery. That being so, it must follow that the subsection contemplates further the counting of pieces of machinery of sufficient similarity, the one to the other, to make the exercise in arithmetic at least a matter of common sense. Similarity sufficient in degree to make sense of the counting must presuppose a reasonable degree of narrowness in the grouping or classification. Therefore, reading subsection (10) along with tariff item 427a, it would seem obvious that the classifications contemplated under the latter must be sufficiently narrow to give to subsection (10) reasonable meaning and effect. Contrariwise, the very broad classification of the tariff item contended for by the appellant would reduce this parallel section of the same act to an absurdity-apart altogether from which, his proposition as advanced does not commend itself as a sensible and practical basis for classification of "all machinery . . . not otherwise provided." 90205-6-132
Customs Tariff
What was the result of that decision? Did that decision upset what the administration had invoked? Was there erosion of the decision of the customs department and the deputy minister? Did it run counter to made in Canada orders that had been standing with respect to these items for quite a number of years? Is this typical of the erosion that hon. members say has taken place?
On the contrary, the tariff board confirmed the ruling of the administration. The department had itself, as it does all the time, made inquiries as to what types of shovels were in fact being made in Canada and what shovels of other dimensions were not being made in Canada. In a regular way the department issued to the trade their periodic declarations as to what machinery would bear the made in Canada rate, which is high, and what imports would bear the not made in Canada rate, which is relatively low.
This is very clear. Not within the last ten years, but prior to that there was this declaration by the department itself that shovels of a size in excess of two cubic yards were not in fact being made in Canada, and on that occasion the tariff board simply confirmed what the administration said was the fact.
There was no erosion there. But what happened? I think this decision on appeal No. 272 was rendered in about March of 1953. Very shortly afterward the administration was persuaded to issue a new order with respect to what shovels were made in Canada and what shovels were not made in Canada. They decided that they could add to the top one size beyond what was known to be actually made in Canada at that time, and at the bottom of the list they could add another size smaller than that known to be made in Canada.
So that was followed by another appeal, and it is this second appeal numbered 306 only to which we have had reference to date by the ministry. As I say, there was a recent decision from the tariff board; the actual situation with respect to manufacture had not changed. But there was another appeal when this administrative order went out contrary to the decision in appeal No. 272. Of course, the tariff board simply took exactly the same position with respect to appeal No. 306 as it took with respect to appeal No. 272. But I am sure the interesting thing to hon. members is, what was the possibility of having this two and a half cubic yards shovel produced in Canada? Was this a ridiculous, silly narrowing of the size in the judgment of the tariff board?
The Minister of National Revenue sneered at the decision that a two and a half cubic yards shovel was said not to be made in

Customs Tariff
Canada. In so many words he said, "We had people unemployed", and how ridiculous it was for the tariff board to say that a two and a half cubic yards shovel was not made in Canada and set a limit at two cubic yards.


Mr. Brunsden:: Would the hon. member permit a question? In the hon. member's opinion is there any relationship between the size of the shovel and usage in various capacities in Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: This small difference between two and two and a half cubic yards to which the Minister of National Revenue referred and that he made light of, according to the man who developed the new plant which was opened-as reported by the Montreal Star of Saturday, May 24, 1958-had taken $1 million of capital investment and five years' research, designing components and prototype testing, to produce. Yet the minister has the effrontery to come in here and tell us that this was an erosion of some previous practice. The plain fact is that for some reason or other which he no doubt knows himself the deputy minister made a ruling, after an appeal, which was not in conformity with the previous ruling of the department and the tariff board and the courts upheld the previous ruling. The minister has given us one or two other examples of this so-called erosion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 1 gave references to seven decisions altogether.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we will be satisfied to let this resolution pass we will want the minister to give us a lot more detail and concrete illustrations concerning what this erosion really amounted to and we will want him to put on the record the rulings of the department in these cases before the appeals were taken, because in such appeals as I have examined the appellant was not the department and the appellant was not the person who wanted to have the ruling of the administration confirmed. The appellant was someone who wanted to upset the customs ruling as was the case, of course, on the first occasion on which this shovel case was taken. That was certainly also the case in one of the

Customs Tariff
other situations I have examined since the minister made his statement. The appellant was seeking to upset the decision of the customs branch, and it was not someone else seeking to have it upset. In other words, the tariff board agreed with the administration and did not disagree with it. There obviously could not be this erosion unless the tariff board disagreed with the customs branch. At least, if I understand the word, that is all it could possibly mean.
I wanted not to add any new arguments but simply to reinforce what had already been said by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and to say that we will expect the minister to produce chapter and verse for this erosion and to tell us the decisions made by the customs branch before these appeals were taken that were upset on appeal and to show why they were upset instead of merely referring to the numbers of cases.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, my time was limited when I spoke previously and I did not have an opportunity to deal with the second point to which I wanted to refer and that is these assertions of the Minister of Finance that these Tariff Board decisions in the last decade were in effect what he called a windfall in so far as our partners in GATT were concerned and that there is now a wider opportunity for importing into this country to their advantage than was the situation as it obtained in 1947 and 1948. We entered into these agreements in 1947 and in 1948 made certain amendments to our Customs Act in order to comply with these important agreements into which we had entered.
The Minister of Finance I know was out in Winnipeg the other day and did his best to convince what was a rather hostile audience out there, as I hear it, that he was one of the closest adherents to GATT and that this and the 1958 legislation and so on were-


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was no hostile audience out there in my experience.


William Moore Benidickson: That is not the way I heard it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member did not hear it correctly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Maybe the minister is not a very good judge of hostility in audiences.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister is an excellent judge of the hostility of the misleading remarks to which he is now listening.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister may have been busy reading his speech and not recognized the hostility.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is speaking for the Winnipeg Free Press again.


William Moore Benidickson: I read the Winnipeg
Tribune. Does the minister want me to read what the Tribune has to say about this legislation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has just been parroting what the Winnipeg Free Press has been saying in its misleading editorials.


William Moore Benidickson: I will not refer to the Tribune at this moment. I know about the great fight the minister has been having out in Winnipeg with the Winnipeg Free Press. I did find, however, that the interviewer certainly reported the minister accurately because the things I read in the news columns of the Winnipeg Free Press were identical with what the minister said here and which I say are quite unacceptable to me and I think they should be unacceptable to many hon. members of the minister's own party after further consideration.
I will not deal with the question of GATT at this time but I wish to come back to it, read from the GATT agreement and ask hon. members of the committee if they can take at face value some of the statements respecting GATT made by the minister on budget night and during the course of this debate.
I did not have an opportunity when I spoke earlier to pinpoint fully the fact that there is nothing new in this decision based on dimensions and fairly precise measurements and standards of criteria prior to the last decade with respect to the administration of made in Canada and not made in Canada.
I have here a memorandum with respect to made in Canada dated February 22, 1937. It refers to special steels. With respect to ingots, it says that the made in Canada ruling refers only to those of a dimension of up to 24 inches by 26 inches cross section. With reference to billets it says the ruling and distinction with respect to what is and what is not made in Canada is limited to up to billets 12 inches square. In 1948, at about the time of GATT, we had a similar departmental ruling to the effect that an article such as the metal frame for a bag would be considered made in Canada provided it was not over 10 inches. That is very precise. We had another one in 1948, which said that power lawn mowers had been transferred from the category of a class or kind not made in Canada to that of a class or kind made in Canada provided they had a cut of from 18 inches to 30 inches inclusive.
At about the time of GATT in 1947 we had one saying that foundry jolt squeeze moulding machines, 10-inch and 12-inch sizes, had been transferred from the category of a class or kind not made in Canada to that

of a class or kind made in Canada. Is this taking in the whole class? Is this the type of ruling the minister said was made under the Liberal administration under whose name and reputation in trade matters he is now attempting to sell this particular legislation?
I referred earlier to Mr. H. D. Scully. This refers to the shovel case. I did not have at my fingertips the actual reference to the testimony Mr. Scully gave in that case but I have it now. Mr. Scully's statements are recorded from pages 367 to 371 of the appeal with respect to case No. 272. Mr. Scully said:
These rulings have been in effect now for some 17 years. We were at great pains, as I say, to investigate, and had we ruled at the time on the basis of all earth moving or rock movement or equipment of the nature that is under consideration, or had we ruled in accordance with the total amount imported in any one year or produced in any one year in Canada-had we ruled on that basis, the company would not have got the ruling they did-
Because they needed a ruling under present law that 10 per cent of the consumption in Canada was in fact of a class or kind of article made in Canada. He went on to say:
The minister, as I say, was most meticulous and we were trying to do the best we could under the circumstances and we had to narrow the sizes and types of shovels that were made at that time in order to qualify under the law at all.
This was to the advantage of the appellant. This type of thing has not disappeared. Trade and industry are similar today to what they were a decade ago and more. We have emphasized the importance to an industry starting up to operate efficiently, getting the best possible equipment; and particularly if the consumption in Canada is not to the extent of 10 per cent of our requirements, an importer of machinery and articles of that type going into production and manufacturing should not have an undue burden of tariff placed upon his operations.
We had a case in 1960, under the present administration; I refer to appeal No. 450. I think this is indicative of the type of problem that we feel is worthy of attention by members of the government who I am sure are anxious to see industry get going and not have a burden placed upon it at the start that will make it inefficient either to the extent of having to put out a higher price to the Canadian end user or have costs established for them by the original tariff which would make it impossible to compete in outside markets.
This appeal was heard by the new tariff board, the personnel of which I believe were not members of the board at the time the other decision was made that I have referred to. The decision was given on September 12, 1960. The argument here was whether a horizontal vacuum tilting pan filter was of a
Customs Tariff
class or kind of filter within the meaning of item 427a; in other words, not made in Canada. It was agreed that tilting pan filters were not made in Canada. We have a new government in office, and here the department seems to be arguing the other way. I quote from the judgment:
However, counsel for the department adduced evidence relating to a Dorr-Oliver-Long scroll discharge filter of Canadian manufacture and submitted that, while not identical with the pan filter, it was similar to it and therefore was of the same class or kind.
This is under the new administration. The officials now took the other side of the argument in a case of this kind and they are met with an appeal by the importer. What did the brand new board decide in 1960 in connection with this case? I read from the judgment:
The appellant, which operates both scroll type horizontal filters and tilting pan filters, in one particular process, in various locations, gave evidence that the efficiency of the pan filter for their particular operation was much greater and that its considerable additional costs could quite easily be recovered from savings in the first year's operation.
The decision was:
The imported tilting pan filter differs substantially from the scroll discharge filter in design, in method of operation, in cost, in principal use and efficiency in certain uses. On the evidence adduced in this appeal the board finds that they are not of the same class or kind.
I ask the committee whether, in this loosely drawn legislation before us, we would get a decision such as this from the minister? This is not a shelf goods item; this is perhaps a made to order item. What is the minister going to do? Here is a producer who has made up his mind that this one type of filter is so efficient that he could recover from savings in the first year's operation the additional cost in connection with it. It was a more expensive filter than the Canadian made filter. To be efficient this is what he wanted. Under the new law, what is the minister going to do? Is he going to say that, using the word "approximately" and taking advantage of the personal discretion that is given to him alone-his decision is no longer going to be appealable to the tariff board-the official's contention was right? What is his decision going to be in a situation such as I have outlined in this recent case where, very fortunately, I think, for efficiency in production, the new members of the tariff board appointed by this administration interpret the law in the same way as I have indicated it was interpreted for years. There was a very definite distinction arrived at. They said that it was not necessarily one of size.

Customs Tariff
In answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat earlier, may I say it does not always have to be determined by dimension or size. In the particular case to which I have reference the board said that on the evidence adduced the filter differed substantially in principal use, efficiency, method of operation, design, and so on. Here the department intended to tell this importer that he could not have this efficient machine; that he had to take something that was second best. I assume that under the new law there will be no appeal; there will be no necessity to look at decisions and results. Nobody in the country will know the precedents. This is the kind of thing that will be coming forward. Our people will be denied information or appeal and I do not see how this is going to help secondary industry in the country to become efficient.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A frightful travesty of the facts.


Walter George Pitman: I rise to make a few short remarks, and I hope they will be my last remarks on this particular amendment. I rise as the result of the remarks made by the Minister of Finance on February 3, at page 1729 of Hansard, in which he said that my particular speech:
-was just about as inimical to the interests of labour in Canada as I suppose any speech that any of us has heard in this chamber for a very long time.
I must say that I was rather flattered by the fact that the minister took such great note of what I had to say. In the few weeks I have been here I rather suspected there was a kind of social system here whereby those of us in the back reaches of the chamber were not particularly of any interest to those who were on the government front benches. But none the less, I was particularly horrified by what the minister said because I had a great deal of admiration for the Minister of Finance, knowing his high sense of proportion and his love of accuracy and as a man who was a member of the legal profession and was in a position tp evaluate evidence. However, when I came to read his speech I was very concerned because he accused me of talking as though this legislation were the expression of a high tariff policy. I refer hon. members to page 1729 of Hansard. 'What did I say at page 1711 of Hansard? Let me quote again:
1 suggest that the proposed amendment, though not one which may immediately bring about higher tariff policies, is none the less an open door toward future higher tariffs.
What I was suggesting was that there was a trend, a possibility that in the future this
[Mr. Benidickson.l
trend would continue. I expressed my concern not so much with this particular amendment. I am sure the minister has read my speech now and he will realize I was not expressing my concern as much with this amendment as with what had been said both on the part of the minister in his exchanges with the hon. member for Laurier and also on the part of his supporters in introducing a note of confusion that this was indeed a high tariff policy to protect Canadian industry.
Perhaps more than anything else I was appalled by the expressions of the opinion that really the only concern labour had was for high tariffs. I quoted from two documents which had been issued very recently and the minister himself indicated that he could remember a conference two years ago when this was not the case. I can only submit at this time that there has been a great deal of re-thinking of the whole tariff question as to high tariffs and low tariffs and not all of that thinking has been in the direction of high tariffs.
Possibly the minister now has on his desk some communications from labour organizations in which high tariffs are demanded. I would certainly hope so. I would expect there would perhaps be a few who might think differently but I am suggesting that the trend in the case of the majority is away from high tariffs, and I hope the minister will take notice of this fact.
I was particularly disturbed by the intemperate remarks regarding the ability of the present member for Peterborough to express the views of his constituents. I do not think we are here to rehash by-elections, and I will only say that I have expressed the same opinions in the house as I expressed on the hustings and that as far as I know these are the opinions of those who cast their votes on my behalf. I might say that the party represented by the minister lost half of its votes in that particular by-election in spite of having the best possible candidate and therefore I do not think his opinions necessarily reflect the views of the people of the constituency any more than mine do.
As found on page 1730 of Hansard, the minister made another misquotation when he said:
Here we have an hon. member saying that dumping may be a legitimate trade practice.
Of course, I said nothing of the kind. As found on page 1712 what I actually said was:
-what we call dumping may be regarded as a legitimate trade practice of the nation... on the other side of the fence.
That is not the same as saying that I am in favour of dumping or that I do not recognize

there is a definite difference between legitimate trade practices and dumping.
In the very few minutes I have I can only repeat what I said before. My opposition is based on the fact that this amendment could possibly restrict trade, that this may be indeed a great national policy as our newspapers and magazines are suggesting, and that no realistic appraisal of our tariff structure would indicate that higher tariffs are needed. However, if this re-definition of class or kind made in Canada is going to bring about more employment, I am extremely happy to hear it and before the debate is over I hope the minister will stand up and on the basis of his no doubt considerable degree of knowledge of my constituency indicate how reclassification will help employment in the Peterborough area. I know that the people of that area would be very happy to hear this. We have heard a great deal about shovels and .22 rifles. I am afraid these items do not have very much impact as far as employment is concerned in this constituency. Therefore I hope that before long the minister will rise and indicate in some way exactly how this reclassification will help this particular situation.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: May I
ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member for Peterborough agree with the leader of his party in the house that they are for freer trade at the present time?


Walter George Pitman: I do not know that he has said free trade-


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Freer
trade.


Walter George Pitman: As a long term objective, yes. I think freer trade is what we all must have, not only in Canada but throughout the world.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Talk it out again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to raise a question of privilege but I do intend to draw attention to the attitude toward the opposition expressed by the Minister of Finance from his seat just now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: From his seat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We on the opposition side have sought to deal with the facts and to bring the facts to bear upon the legislation but from the government side we have heard nothing but personal attacks and vituperation since the debate began.
Customs Tariff


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not a statement of fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All the minister has to say is, "Here we go again". I must say it is about time the minister came back to this side of the house where he is evidently at home. He does not seem to realize that the meaning of the word "minister" is "servant", that he is the servant of this house and not its master and that it is about time this sort of thing stopped.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Hamilton South wishes to raise a point of order.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the Minister of Finance does not have to sit here and take lectures from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. We are discussing an item of legislation and it is a well known practice that the hon. member should not take up time in this way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, is entitled to his opinion, and I will abide by any rulings of the Chair. I could have said that this was a question of privilege. I do not intend to pursue this line any further although I must say that on the point of order I was very tempted to quote some precedents from a speech by the Minister of Finance in 1955 when he was over here, to which I may say no exception was taken by anyone on the treasury benches at that time. The members on the treasury benches at that time sought to reply to arguments that were made by the opposition and not to attack members of the opposition for daring to speak in the house. That is one of the differences.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The hon. gentleman should smile when he says that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it will please the hon. member for Carleton I will be very glad to smile. It is something I have never found very hard to do. I have been trying to set a good example to the Minister of Finance for a long time but it does not seem to have taken.
I wish to say something about the statement that was made first by the Minister of National Revenue and repeated by the Minister of Finance on February 2, and which is found at page 1669 of Hansard. It reads as follows:
-we heard the hon. member-
That is myself.
-say that the present legislation apparently had some sinister connection with the legislation of 1958.

Customs Tariff
The reference is to the amendments to sections 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 40A and 40B of the Customs Act.
The legislation of 1958 was very good legislation and as was pointed out at that time it was badly needed for the purpose of making known to some foreign producers who were in the habit of exporting into Canada that they would not be permitted to do so on a basis of dumping in Canada. So salutary has been the effect of the mere enactment of that legislation that it has not been necessary once in the two and a half intervening years to apply that legislation in any particular case. The Minister of National Revenue made that fact known in the house previously. I say there is an example of very great benefit having been achieved by the mere enactment of that legislation.
I say without fear of successful contradiction that that statement is not accurate, that it is in fact not in accord with the facts at all. I have taken the trouble to have the legislation of 1958 examined. The legislation of 1958 repealed all the old legislation and substituted new legislation in its place. The new legislation is the law. The old legislation is not the law, and if the Minister of National Revenue has not been administering the new legislation he has not been carrying out the law. I am not inclined to believe that that is the case. I am told that there is only one respect in which the old law that was on the statute books before 1958 with respect to dumping is on the statute books at the present time, and that is the end of season clause that was enacted in 1955, I think.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman said he had had this examined. Would he mind telling the committee by whom he had it examined? He said "I was told", and would he mind telling the committee by whom he was told?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had it examined by someone I thought had more knowledge of this subject than I. I examined it, myself, but I thought I should have my opinion verified by someone. If I am wrong, then the hon. member for Carleton, being learned in the law and not needing any help as I do, can show me in what respects I am wrong.


Richard Albert Bell: Would it have been Grant Dexter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not regard Grant Dexter as being a gentleman any more learned in the law than I am. The hon. gentleman, if he wants to go on with this quiz game, perhaps could go on with it outside of the house.
The fact of the matter is that it was stated repeatedly in this house by the Minister of National Revenue, and was confirmed the

other day by the Minister of Finance, that the change in the law with respect to dumping has never been enforced. Well, either the old law has been used, though it is no longer the law or the new law must have been used because the old law is no longer there. If that is the kind of information we are given about the administration of the law, then in heaven's name what can we expect if this legislation becomes law? The Minister of National Revenue would be given the freedom under this legislation to impose a lower tariff or a higher tariff at his whim upon any kind of commodity that, by any stretch of the imagination-it will only be by imagination-can be said to be made in Canada.
I think I can demonstrate very easily and very quickly that it would be quite impos-sibie, under this legislation, to take any kind of meaningful appeal at all. I am thinking of shelf goods, and all the things that have to be determined on an appeal. It has to be determined on appeal, first of all, that the article which it is proposed to import is of approximately the same class or kind as the goods produced in Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: What does that mean?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister must determine, at some stage, what the normal consumption is of this particular article which presumably is not exactly but only approximately the same as something else made in Canada. It has to be determined what the range of these things is that are approximately alike, and until the tariff board has decided what these things are, how in heaven's name is the minister or anyone else going to decide what normal Canadian consumption is?
I admit this is a very difficult matter, but how can you determine what the normal consumption is of something until you know what that something is? Once you put in the word "approximately", you have got to have someone say what are these things that are approximately like the thing someone is seeking to import. For that reason it seems to me it would be quite impossible, even if the minister wanted an appeal to be taken on all these other things, to get a stated case on which to appeal.
I should like to ask the minister how these things will be dealt with in the future. When an importer seeks to import an article will the minister determine the normal Canadian consumption first before the appeal is taken so that at least the importer will be told what the normal Canadian consumption is supposed to be, and so that he knows the set of facts upon which he may base his appeal? How can he be told that if the minister does not know what the goods are?

According to the Minister of Finance it would be possible to appeal to the board to find out whether these goods were approximately of a class or kind made in Canada. Would you determine the normal consumption in Canada of an unknown article before the appeal is taken, or would the appeal be taken first in order to determine whether this article is approximately the same? After that appeal is taken would one go back to the Minister of National Revenue and have him determine, after the tariff board has said what are the things that are approximately alike, what the normal quantity is? Is that the way this thing is going to be done?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now you are
labouring this heavily.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is the one now making suggestions that these practical, concrete questions do not deserve to be answered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not at all, I am just pointing out how the hon. gentleman is labouring this subject. The hon. gentleman is obviously in labour trying to keep it going until six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask you, sir, to suggest to the Minister of Finance that he cease imputing motives to others. I have plenty to say about this thing.


William Moore Benidickson: So has the public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So has the public, as my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River points out. I have plenty to say about this. I have had a good deal of difficulty in selecting which of the many points I would start to speak about this afternoon. I chose to speak about this particular subject because it is very complicated and it seemed to me it would be only reasonable to give the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue time to marshal their facts in order to explain how this would be done.
Business of the House
The minister, never having been engaged in business, may not know anything about this sort of thing, but I can assure him- ,


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is the voice of authority on business, now, is it?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may tell the hon. gentleman-


Charles Edward Rea: Order; shall I rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume that we will go on with this business tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it would be preferable, Mr. Speaker, if we were to bring up this particular item of business at a later time. Tomorrow we will take item No. 4 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill No. C-69 dealing with the proposed railway line to Mattagami lake, which was discussed in the resolution stage yesterday. The second item for tomorrow would be No. 6 on today's order paper, the motion in my name to set up a select committee on research and related subjects. When those items are concluded, we will then carry on with the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Agriculture. This order of business would hold, then, for Thursday and Friday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like ask the minister if the government is no longer anxious to get its budget resolutions through, which we were accused of holding up?


Donald Methuen Fleming: And you are still accused of holding it up in a most deliberate way.


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

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

Mr. Creaghan: 1.	Did the Minister of Justice, the commissioner of penitentiaries or the warden for the Dorchester penitentiary receive any written inquiry from the government of the province of New Brunswick, or any person regarding a change in the proposed route of trans-Canada highway through the Mem-ramcook valley in Westmorland county, New Brunswick?
2.	If so: (a) what was the name of the person making each such inquiry? (b) the date each inquiry was made? (c) what was the nature of each inquiry, and the reply thereto?
3.	Has the Minister of Justice any objection to the proposed highway being built over or in close proximity to the existing highway in the area of the Dorchester penitentiary?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of
Justice:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. Reid McManus, Memramcook, N.B.
(b)	November 16, 1960.
(c)	Inquiry as to whether or not Department of Justice is opposed to the passage of the trans-Canada highway through, alongside the penitentiary or anywhere near Dorchester, N.B.
Minister's answer dated December 12, 1960. No objection by the Department of Justice.
3.	No.


FARM CREDIT LOANS
Mr. Roberge: 1.	How many loans have been made by the farm credit corporation (a) under part II; (b)
under part III of the Farm Credit Act in each province?
2.	How many farmers have borrowed over $15,000 under part II of the said act in each province?
3.	How many farmers have borrowed over $15,000 under part III of the said act in each province?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):
(a) Under (b) Under Part II Part III
1.	British Columbia....	207	7Alberta	
1658	8Saskatchewan	
2313	16Manitoba	
316	11Ontario	
1616	9Quebec	
177	10New Brunswick	
55	3Nova Scotia	
27	4Prince Edward Island ..	134	5Newfoundland	
-	-2.	British Columbia....	41Alberta	
100Saskatchewan	
177Manitoba	
29Ontario	
241Quebec	
13New Brunswick	
2Nova Scotia	
4Prince Edward Island ..	-Newfoundland	
-3.	British Columbia....	5Alberta	
6Saskatchewan	
10Manitoba	
3Ontario	
6Quebec	
8New Brunswick	
2Nova Scotia	
3Prince Edward Island ..	2Newfoundland	
-
Thursday, February 16, 1961