1961-03-15

RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.

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

["I am\nvery happy indeed to justify the Acting Prime Minister's hope for a slight area of agreement this afternoon in public affairs. We welcome this announcement as further evidence of Canada's growing friendship with other countries, of an extension of her co-operation and growing influence. The gentlemen whose names have been mentioned as being appointed to these posts have a record of valuable service and are held in the highest regard and esteem by us all."]
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief report to the house on the meeting of the Canada-United States joint committee on trade and economic affairs which took place in Washington yesterday and the day before.
The United States was represented by Hon. Dean Rusk, Secretary of State; Hon. George W. Ball, under secretary of state for economic affairs; Hon. Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury; Hon. Henry R. Fowler, under secretary of the treasury; Hon. Luther H. Hodges, Secretary of Commerce; Hon. Stewart H. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, and Hon. Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture. The United States delegation also included Hon. George C. McGovern, coordinator of the food for peace program.
The Canadian government was represented by my colleagues the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Agriculture, and myself. The Canadian delegation also included the under secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. N. A. Robertson, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Mr. A. D. P. Heeney, and officials of the various departments.
This was the first meeting of the committee since the new United States administration took office. The Canadian ministers were anxious that the United States members 90205-6-190
should view individual problems in the context of the entire framework of economic relations between our two countries. Accordingly we took the occasion to review at some length the Canadian economic situation and to show which features of our situation were common to both countries and which features were different. Both countries, for example, have shared the same experience of a slowing down of growth and of high levels of unemployment. We reviewed together the measures both countries had taken to stimulate greater economic activity, and we were agreed that an expansion of growth would result.
Both countries have had special problems related to the balance of payments. In this respect, however, our problems in Canada have been somewhat different from those of the United States. It was valuable to have an opportunity at this meeting to explain these differences to our United States colleagues and to analyse features of our balance of payments along the lines I followed in this house when introducing the supplementary budget last December.
The United States balance of payments was examined in the context of the world financial situation. As hon. members are aware, there have been serious problems of international imbalance associated with short term capital movements. Now that the major currencies are convertible and capital moves more freely it is clear that the industrial countries of western Europe and North America will have to continue and improve their methods of consultation about the economic policies of individual countries as they may affect others. We believe that the organization for economic co-operation and development will provide a very useful forum for such consultation.
It was clear from our discussions this week that the members of the committee are in broad agreement that the 1960's will produce new and rather different problems from those both countries have faced in the past. The great expansion of the economies of the western European countries is presenting a competitive challenge to both the United States and Canada. We found that the United States side attached great importance, as we do ourselves, to ensuring that the development of regional trading groups and any arrangements between them do not restrict the traditional access of North American exports

Canada-U.S. Trade Committee to the markets of western Europe. The committee agreed, especially, that in the current tariff negotiations at Geneva the six countries of the common market should assure that access. Canadian ministers were particularly gratified to learn that the new administration would continue to co-operate closely with Canada in pressing the Six for a satisfactory settlement in GATT with respect to trade in agricultural products.
The relations of Canada and the United States with the Six and the Seven will be of the greatest importance in the years to come. The establishment of the new O.E.C.D. will provide a framework in which Canada, the United States and their European partners will be able to examine and discuss each other's policies with respect not only to trade and economic matters but also to the vital task of assisting the less developed countries. I was able to report to my United States colleagues that Canada was the first country to complete parliamentary approval of the O.E.C.D. convention, having done so by unanimous vote of both houses, and Canada is now in a position to ratify.
In the meetings this year special attention was also given to the problems facing the underdeveloped countries. I am confident that the long-standing co-operation between the two countries in this field will be continued and indeed strengthened. I was struck by the conviction within the committee that the developed countries, particularly those with surpluses to invest abroad, must find satisfactory and equitable means to respond to the needs of the developing countries, and above all defeat the threat of poverty and starvation in so many parts of the world.
Ideas and actions, some of which are developing and others of which are planned in connection with the use of food to help raise levels of consumption and standards of nutrition were discussed, including the latest developments in the United States food for peace program. The United States indicated support for multilateral arrangements such as the Canadian proposal for a world food bank, which they had joined in sponsoring before the United Nations general assembly last October .This proposal is at present being given detailed study by FAO and it is expected that recommendations for appropriate action by governments will be forthcoming later this year. Other points relating to agreement on the continuation of close consultations to ensure that present and potential commercial markets for food products are not disrupted are recorded in the communique and I need not repeat these at length. I may say, however, that Canadian ministers were very pleased to receive from the new administration such a clear undertaking in this regard.


The committee also discussed a number of matters less general in scope but of direct importance to trade and economic relations between our two countries. Measures taken by Canada since our last meeting were reviewed. In this regard I had the opportunity to give a full explanation of the proposals put before parliament in the supplementary budget, notably its tariff and tax provisions. As a result of our useful discussions on this subject, I believe our United States colleagues have a full understanding of these proposals.
Canadian ministers raised a number of points bearing on our exports to the United States, such as import restrictions on agricultural products and on lead and zinc, certain customs problems, and the difficulties raised for Canada by the United States export subsidy on cotton manufactures. As a result of these exchanges of view I believe the United States members of the committee should have no doubt about the difficulties faced by Canadian exporters as a result of United States policies in these fields.
This meeting of the joint committee provided a welcome opportunity for Canadian ministers and the new United States secretaries to meet each other and gain a clear understanding of points of view in both countries. This meeting, like previous meetings of the committee, was characterized by the utmost frankness and friendliness.
Following the meeting my colleagues and I had the honour of being invited to call on the President with whom we had a most interesting talk. This meeting afforded an opportunity for further discussion of trade and economic questions and of the visit of the President and Mrs. Kennedy to Ottawa, which is awaited by Canadians with pleasant anticipation.
Mr. Speaker, may I table for the information of the house a copy of the communique which was issued at the conclusion of the committee meetings. If it is the wish of hon. members perhaps it could be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the communique be printed as an appendix to Hansard today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document above referred to, see appendix A].


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will have listened with interest to the minister's statement. Although we have not had the advantage of seeing the communique which presumably was issued yesterday and which has now been tabled, nevertheless from the minister's statement

and from press reports-especially, I may add, the latter-we are able to get a picture of the meetings that have just taken place in Washington.
The minister in introducing his statement said it had been decided that the individual national problems between the two countries would be considered within the framework of international economic policy. It is perfectly clear from the minister's statement that more attention was given to the framework than to the picture, because the communique deals almost entirely with international economic policies and the views of the two governments in respect of them.
In so far as the minister's statement dealing with these matters is concerned, it is satisfactory to note that the two governments are in general agreement on the usefulness of O.E.C.D., which is apparently to be pretty carefully restricted to consultative matters on the desirability of further progress being made in the discussions now going on through GATT and the desirability of co-ordinating policies in respect of international agricultural disposal matters. It is all to the good that the two governments should try to reach agreement on these matters, and that agreement, though in very general terms, seems to find expression in the communique so far as we can judge from the minister's statement.
The minister made little reference to individual problems between the two countries. However, we learned from the press that they had come up and the minister indeed did mention that fact, and that there was an exchange of views in regard to them. I would have hoped that there would be no hesitation on the part of the Canadian representatives to take up with the United States governmental representatives such questions as national oil policy, the United States policy on base metals and the policy of that country in giving additional contracts at this time to their uranium producers when only a year ago they told us there was a surplus of uranium and that was why they had to refuse to take up their options on our uranium.
I would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the government would make the position of Canada perfectly clear in these matters. We learned from the press-the minister did not confirm the fact this afternoon, though he did mention it-that the United States ministers challenged the assertion that the new class or kind provisions did nothing to contravene Canada's obligations under GATT, thereby confirming the view that we on this side take about these provisions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.
90205-6-190i
Canada-U.S. Trade Committee


Lester Bowles Pearson: These ministerial meetings, which have been going on now for six years, are valuable; they are useful and additional machinery between the two countries. In the exchange of views that takes place at these meetings not only are individual problems discussed but ministers on both sides of the border are given a chance to get acquainted generally with each other's points of view. I am sure that at this time this is particularly valuable because of a new administration in Washington. We are told in the press that as a result of this meeting Canadian ministers will now be able to take up the telephone and get in touch with their opposite numbers in Washington. Judging by the communique and the minister's statement, I would say that has been the main achievement of the meeting.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the minister said in his statement there was broad agreement between Canada and the United States that the 1960's would produce new problems. I think that is a conclusion that we all were aware of in advance. The minister has outlined a number of problems, but there is no indication in his statement that there has been any conclusion as to the solution for those problems. However, the minister did say that in dealing with the inner six, Canada and the United States would continue to co-operate in pressing on the inner six the need for a satisfactory settlement with regard to agricultural products being imported into that area. We can only hope that this pressure will be successful. Instead of a forward step in obtaining extra markets or increased markets for our products, what it really means is just holding the line.
The minister went on to talk at some length about the problems and the possibilities of expanded sales of Canadian food products and the whole question of economic assistance. There seemed to be no agreement following these discussions. There seems to be no agreement that Canada will have a peace corps. We ourselves are going to do nothing to increase economic assistance by way of a greater provision of food products. There was an assurance from the United States, which we are glad to receive, that that country will not interfere with our normal commercial markets for food products. That leaves beyond decision the whole field of non-commercial markets into which the United States has moved in a very big way.
The minister said that after speaking to the Americans he has come to the conclusion that they have a full understanding of Canada's tariff proposals. I am not sure

Canada-XJ.S. Trade Committee whether this is good or bad, Mr. Speaker. It might result in some very severe retaliation. I am sure the Americans will thank the minister for his information and instruction.
There has been no settlement of many outstanding problems such as the whole question of the disposal by the United States of its agricultural surpluses in non-commercial markets, the problem of exports of oil from Canada and so on. No doubt there was a very welcome exchange of ideas. The minister talked of a friendly and frank approach. The minister and his colleagues have had so many laudable things to say about the new United States administration that we had really hoped they would have been able to achieve more concrete results.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. M. Benidiclcson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether in his two-day visit to Washington he had an opportunity to observe the apparent accord and concert between the President of the United States, his new administration, and the chairman of the federal reserve bank, Mr. Martin, aimed at a reduction of interest rates and acceleration in the pick-up of the economy. If so, does he intend to seek similar harmony in this country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the relations between the government and the central bank did not enter into our discussions yesterday. I happen to be well acquainted with Mr. Martin, the chairman of the federal reserve bank of the United States, and I think I have some familiarity with the policies that have been followed in the United States in the monetary field.
I think there is no occasion in this situation for casting aspersions or throwing brickbats about in the Canadian field. The fact is that the situation in this regard is precisely as I indicated to the house in a recent discussion of the matter. When the hon. member talks about the program of the new administration in the United States, I should add that there was some little discussion on that matter; attention was drawn by the Canadian ministers to the close resemblance of the program submitted to congress by the President of the United States to that already submitted to this parliament by the government in the speech from the throne read on November 17 last.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That must have made them laugh.


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to ask a supplementary question. The minister has referred to some similarities. Did he also notice the gap between the basic interest rates prevailing in the United States and the basic interest rates in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon.
member is asking for information which is equally available to all members of the house.



Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition seem to be very hard to please this afternoon, and I am hoping they will not receive my announcement in such a manner. I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. H. F. Feaver as Canada's first ambassador to Tunisia. Direct diplomatic relations have, of course, existed between Tunisia and Canada since September 9, 1957, when His Excellency Mongi Slim, presented his credentials as first ambassador of Tunisia to Canada. The appointment of Mr. Feaver will complete the diplomatic connection with a country whose role in international affairs is one of great and growing importance and with which we have enjoyed particularly effective co-operation at the United Nations. As a matter of fact, Tunisia has made an enviable reputation as a member of the security council during the current year.
Hon. members will recall that Mr. Feaver's appointment as ambassador to Switzerland was announced last month. His present appointment to Tunisia will mean that he will concurrently represent Canada in that country as well. Although his normal residence will be in Berne, he will pay frequent visits to Tunisia.
Mr. Feaver, a native of Nova Scotia, has had a long and distinguished career with the Department of External Affairs both at home and abroad since 1930. He has served in Washington, Tokyo, London and The Hague. He was Canadian minister to Denmark from 1954 to 1956 and Canadian ambassador there from 1956 until his return to Ottawa in August, 1958, where he has since been chief of protocol.
At the same time I should like to announce that for some time it has been the government's hope that it would be possible to establish some Canadian diplomatic representation in Iraq. Discussions to this end have recently been taking place with the Iraqi government. I am pleased to inform the house that it is the government's intention to accredit to Baghdad Mr. Paul Andre Beaulieu, Q.C., the Canadian ambassador to Lebanon. Under this

dual accreditation arrangement, Mr. Beaulieu will continue to maintain his residence in Beirut but will, of course, be in a position to pay regular and frequent visits to Baghdad as well.
Mr. Beaulieu was born in Outremont, Quebec, was educated in Montreal and practised law there prior to the war. He joined the Department of External Affairs in 1940 and has since seen service in Washington, Paris, London and Boston, where he was consul from 1949 to 1951. He was originally appointed charge d'affaires of the Canadian legation in Lebanon in April, 1958, and became ambassador there in October, 1958, when the status of the mission was raised to embassy.
Mr. Beaulieu's appointment will demonstrate Canada's recognition of the increasingly important role which Iraq is playing in international affairs and the growing need for closer relations between our two countries. This appointment also is one of several, of which the Sudan, I hope, will be another, intended to strengthen Canada's representation in Asia and Africa.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of these two appointments will be warmly received by the house. It was announced a week ago, although I believe not in the house, that Mr. Feaver had been appointed as ambassador to Switzerland. Now we are told he is to be given the additional assignment of serving as our representative in Tunisia. It is appropriate that Canada should be among those countries to have representation in Tunisia because of the efforts made by Canada toward the admission of Tunisia into the United Nations and the acquiring by her of the status of a self-governing nation.
Mr. Feaver is a distinguished public servant who has represented Canada abroad with distinction on several occasions. He has performed notable and valuable services to his country in the Department of External Affairs here in Ottawa.
The appointment of Mr. Paul Beaulieu as our ambassador to Iraq has fulfilled an intention which the minister from time to time indicated to the house the government had in mind. The minister will recall that on several occasions I asked him if there was any likelihood of an appointment being made by Canada to Iraq by way of establishing a Canadian mission there. The minister replied that consideration was being given to this matter. It is significant that the government of Iraq announced the day before yesterday that it had decided to establish a diplomatic mission in Canada. One wonders why the announcements were not simultaneous. I do not say this by way of criticism, but it is rather
Canada-U.S. Postal Convention unusual that the announcement should have been made in the way it was.
The minister's announcement of the appointment of Mr. Beaulieu provides Canadian representation in a very important area in the Middle East. Mr. Beaulieu, who has distinguished himself as our ambassador to the Lebanon and who has had distinguished consular service in Canada will, I am sure, live up to the high traditions of our diplomatic service.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I am
very happy indeed to justify the Acting Prime Minister's hope for a slight area of agreement this afternoon in public affairs. We welcome this announcement as further evidence of Canada's growing friendship with other countries, of an extension of her co-operation and growing influence. The gentlemen whose names have been mentioned as being appointed to these posts have a record of valuable service and are held in the highest regard and esteem by us all.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I wish to advise the house that the terms of a new postal convention between Canada and the United States will come into effect on July 1 of this year. This convention replaces one which has been in existence since 1922. The new agreement between our two administrations reviews the exchange of mails between our countries in the light of present conditions and brings up to date informal understandings arrived at over the years.
Of major interest, particularly to Canadian newspaper and periodical publishers, is the inclusion in the new convention of an article stipulating that second class mail in each country addressed for delivery in the other shall be chargeable at a rate not less than the lowest international postage rate in effect for such printed matter. This means, in effect, that postage rates on United States newspapers and periodicals entering Canada will be substantially increased. The higher rate also applies to Canadian publications mailed to the United States, but in view of the relatively small volume of this type of mail it should have comparatively little adverse effect on Canadian publishers.
I might just mention in this connection that about 150 copies of United States publications come to Canada for every copy of a Canadian publication going to the United States. As an illustration, the rate on a typical monthly magazine mailed in the United States for Canada will increase from about 6 cents per pound to a minimum of a little over 8 cents per pound.

Canada-U.S. Postal Convention
The United States has also announced its intention to make rate changes on certain other types of mail addressed to Canada effective July 1. Generally these changes are designed to apply the same rates on such mail as exist for domestic United States mail. No such changes are to be made in Canada, since in the categories concerned the domestic postage rate already applies to mail addressed to the United States.
Under the new convention the service on unpaid or insufficiently prepaid letters and postcards originating in the United States will be improved, as henceforth all such mail will be forwarded promptly rated double deficiency instead of being delayed at origin for the missing postage. Such a practice has been followed in Canada for some time. Also, the maximum weight of parcels exchanged between the two countries will be increased from 15 to 25 pounds and the maximum indemnity for the loss of a registered article increased from $25 to $100. The new scale of weights for parcel post to the United States will, of course, require a revision of parcel post rates on such mail, and this is currently under way.
The convention also deals with a variety of technical postal questions affecting the service between both countries. I should like to express my appreciation here for the cooperative way in which United States postal officials worked with us on the drafting of this convention from the time the project was first suggested by the Canadian Post Office Department over a year ago.


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: I noticed that the Postmaster General read the statement rather rapidly. I did not hear any reference to the royal commission which was presided over by Mr. O'Leary. Perhaps before the Postmaster General made any change in postal rates between the United States and Canada, he should have waited for the report of the royal commission, or perhaps he should have attended before that commission as a witness.
The postal rates between the United States and Canada seem to be about the same both ways, even after these changes. If the purpose of these changes was to limit the number of United States periodicals or magazines entering Canada, I do not believe they will have any effect at all. The only result will be to impose a kind of indirect tax on the periodicals and magazines. Another result of this change will be to increase the cost of living in Canada as well as in the United States.
In conclusion I should like to say I believe the Postmaster General should have awaited the report of the royal commission before making these changes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that the minister's statement was simply a statement of information. If he wishes to criticize or debate the subject matter of that statement there will be an appropriate time later to do that.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: We welcome this announcement the result of which is, in effect, an amelioration of the competition of Canadian publishers with United States publishers, although it is difficult to know just how significant this will be. One of the points about this announcement, and it is not a vitally important one but it is peculiar, is that the whole idea was released in the United States on March 6. Despite the fact that we have had parliamentary questions centring on this area since that time, we have had to wait until today for this announcement. There was a full news report covering this change in the United States yesterday, so the people of the United States seem to have had this information when Canadians did not. I was wondering whether, in any liaison the minister might have with United States officials in the future, he could see that we get the same break the United States does in terms of information.
The other point that is not at all clear from the statement, and the minister might clarify this right now, is whether United States publications mailed in Canada are going to be affected by this agreement. It is apparent that publications mailed into Canada are going to be affected, but we are given no information about whether or not the ones mailed in Canada will be affected.
The next point is that the minister has not given us any indication as to whether Canada is going to get a share of the greater revenues that will accrue to the United States postal authorities for handling these periodicals that come into Canada. If the disparity is, as the minister says, 150 to 1, then it is obvious the Canadian post office is going to continue to subsidize United States publications, that is unless some form of rebate is a part of this agreement. It would have been welcome to know whether or not the minister made any gains in that particular field.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the two questions that have been part of the comment of the hon. member for Port Arthur be reserved for the orders of the day.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Port Arthur raised questions addressed to the Postmaster General which I asked him to refer to this time.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it might be simpler if the hon. member would repeat his questions so that we might all be aware of them.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My first question is, does this new convention provide for any rebate of money from the United States revenues taken in on periodicals shipped into Canada, to balance with the providing of the service by Canada, in view of the disparity of 150 to 1 mentioned by the minister? My other question is whether the agreement also covers the question of United States publications mailed in Canada itself rather than mailed into Canada.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no; there is no rebate from the United States to us in respect of such publications. As a matter of fact the universal postal agreement specifically does not permit an understanding of that sort in respect of publications. The reference is to what is called a terminal charge.
In answer to the second question, we almost certainly have to revise our rates here in Canada for United States publications brought into Canada and mailed in this country, but we plan to delay coming to any firm decision in this area until such time as we have the benefit of the views of the royal commission on publications.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur raised one other point with which I should deal, with your permission. The hon. member said that he understood that this information had been released in the United States about March 6 and was given to this house only today.
The release today on our part was in complete accord with an agreement between the United States Postmaster General and myself that the information would be simultaneously released in Washington and Ottawa on March 15, and if the news was made public earlier in Washington that is something for which we are not responsible. We have been very careful to keep our agreements of that kind.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The statement by the Postmaster General relates to other changes and other types of mail addressed to Canada. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if there are any other postal rate changes in addition to those to which he referred including periodicals and the limitation on the weight of parcel post?


Mr. Hamillon (Noire Dame de Grace):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The United States plans to change its rates on July 1 with respect to a number of other classes of mail such as small
Question of Privilege
parcels which fall into a special class of their own. If I remember correctly the mailing of books will also be affected, and the mailing of certain types of advertisements coming in to Canada. There is a schedule of changes that they have published.


Azellus Denis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I see that these categories concern domestic postage rates which already apply to mail addressed to the United States. Do I understand it is the rate we now have in Canada or is it the change of rate put into effect on March 1, 1961? As I understand it the Postmaster General by order in council increased the domestic rates effective March 1, 1961.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the change in parcel post rates applies only to parcels mailed in Canada for delivery in Canada. The rate on parcels mailed in Canada for delivery in the United States was not changed on March 1, 1961, but we anticipate changes in that rate due to the changed conditions of our agreement with the United States.



PRIVILEGE


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all members of the house. At 2.30 this afternoon there was tabled in this house the annual report of the Bank of Canada. A large excerpt from that report appeared in the press which reached the streets in Ottawa, I am informed, at 1.30 this afternoon.
I have no criticism whatever of the fact that the press secured this report. Naturally they are entitled to seek and use any information they can get from government sources, and I do not wish to interfere with their arrangements to that end. I am not criticizing the press-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but I do suggest it is a matter of privilege when an official document of this kind is tabled after it has been made public. Hon. members of this House of Commons are entitled to some courtesy and the same advance notice of a publication of this kind that is given to the press.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, no question of
privilege whatever is involved in this situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Parliament means nothing?

Question of Privilege


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Leader of the Opposition has apparently completely overlooked the change in our practice in reference to tabling documents. I refer to the change that was introduced with the amendment of the rules over five years ago. Since that time the procedure in relation to tabling does not occur in the house. It is very rarely now that documents are tabled in the house. Documents are tabled with the Clerk of the house, usually in hours when the house is not in session. The report in question was tabled today because it happened to be the time for tabling. The document was tabled with the Clerk before the house met this afternoon. It was available to any hon. member of the house today.
It was not even my intention to refer to it in the house. Normally we do not refer, and have not for the last six years, to the tabling of documents in the house; they simply go to the Clerk of the house and they are then made available to hon. members in the distribution office. This report is available to hon. members in the distribution office. If the Leader of the Opposition will bestir himself he can obtain a copy of this report from the distribution office, and could have done so at any time today.


Some hon. Members:: No he could not.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, on this point of privilege I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is telling us that this document was made available today. I think he used the word "today". I have an idea that the document was made available to the press yesterday. Perhaps the minister would inquire about this.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to inquire at all; I will deal with that point right now. I did not say the document was not available to hon. members today; I said it was available today. It was filed with the Clerk-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: At 2.30.


Donald Methuen Fleming: in accordance with the procedures of the house, and copies were made available to the press yesterday with the restriction that the report was not to be released until today. This has been the practice for some years with respect to this and similar documents-


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -so that the press, having a lengthy document of this kind, might be able to do it justice when the time comes for its official release. This is no derogation from the privileges of the house. The

report was available to hon. members of the house before it was permitted to be released by the press.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this question of privilege. The Minister of Finance takes the position that there is no violation of the privileges of the house in this matter. I wish to take issue with him. I should like to remind the hon. gentleman of one incident which occurred several years ago in which he had slightly confused the facts, but regarding which he thought there was a question of privilege.
Under our rules this report of the Bank of Canada came automatically within the possession of the house only at the hour of 2.30, when Mr. Speaker took his seat. I learned, through addressing myself to the assistant clerk of the house, that the report was effectively tabled as of 2.30 today.
The Minister of Finance now tells us that the document was made available outside this house some time yesterday. The document was not made available to the Leader of the Opposition or to any other hon. member of this house until today, after the house began its sittings. While there is no question here of censuring the initiative of any particular newspaper or journalist, the fact is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen may disagree. I remember the days when they stood in this house and were concerned about the rights of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but now that they have a great majority they do not seem to be concerned about the rights of parliament. This is an important report; it involves a matter which clearly establishes a difference of position between the government- and notably the Minister of Finance

and the governor of the Bank of Canada, and on that account


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -if for no other-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might refer to standing order 40, which governs the filing of returns. I take it this is a return required to be made under an act of parliament?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing order 40 (1) confirms what the Minister of Finance has indicated. I believe this standing order is now in the

form in which it was established only in 1955, when a new practice was adopted in this respect. This standing order says:
(1)	Any return, report or other paper required to be laid before the house in accordance with any act of parliament or in pursuance of any resolution or standing order of this house may be deposited with the Clerk of the house on any sitting day, and such return, report or other paper shall be deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the house.
(2)	A record of any such return, report or other paper so deposited shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings of the same day.
It is clear, of course, that if there is any failure to observe the rules or orders of the house it is a breach of the privileges of the house which entitles an hon. member to complain. However, from what has been said I do not see any complaint that this rule has not been observed. As the matter has been amply discussed, unless somebody wishes to assert that the rule has not been observed and that therefore a breach of privilege arises, I think we might consider the matter closed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have something to say on this matter. What Your Honour has outlined is the method which does not touch the point in issue at all, which is a question of privilege. This house could not possibly have been seized with this report until it began its sitting at 2.30 and the tabling of the document could not become effective until this house was in session. This house did not come into session until 2.30; consequently no hon. member has had an opportunity of being acquainted with the existence of this report. If anyone had gone to the Clerk-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and asked-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Assuming the facts are as the hon. member indicates, there does not appear to be any breach of the rule. Does the hon. member assert that there is a privilege of the house over and above the rule itself?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of a breach of the rule; it is a question of a breach of the privileges of this house when parliament is sitting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: Hon. members may say "Oh, oh" all they want. They may seek to do all they can to thwart us from expressing our view, as they have continually done in the past and as they are doing this minute.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Question of Privilege


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is receiving unusually good attention, and I do not think he can complain on this score.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On this point, Mr. Speaker, if we had asked for this report, having read excerpts from it in the newspapers, at two o'clock we would have been told by the Clerk of the house that it was not available, even though it was in the hands of the press. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it constitutes a breach of the privileges of the house when we cannot secure an official document of this kind, though we tried to do so, because we were told it was not available, and at the same time we were told it was not available it had appeared in the press.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the Leader of the Opposition had better be a little clearer in his statements. He is trying to leave an impression that this document or excerpt appeared this afternoon before 2.30-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right; this afternoon at 1.30.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not prepared to accept that statement on the strength of what has been said this afternoon, because the last time this kind of exhibition was put on by the opposition we found that what had appeared in the paper, and what was charged to be a breach of the privileges of the house, was not a document or an excerpt from a document at all but a speculative article.
Let me make it perfectly clear that nothing was given to the press which was available for release prior to 2.30 this afternoon, so that the press would not have this information available for release before it was available to members of the house. Hon. members opposite are well aware that this is in accordance with a practice which has been followed for years in this regard, and they are simply throwing up a smoke screen this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: There may be a point of the practice of the house involved, in which case I should be glad to inquire into it and report to the house. If the document was tabled according to the rules it could be received at any time of the day, and if the Clerk follows the practice of holding the document until 2.30, as asserted, and does not release it to members of the house, which I take it is the position taken by the hon. member for Essex East-I see the hon. member for Essex East shakes his head, but if that is the practice of the administrative office of the house although at the same time release is made to the press, there would be a matter for consideration with regard to the internal economy

Question of Privilege
of the house and, as I say, I shall be glad to inquire into that matter and report to the house on it.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I might give the house the information I undertook to obtain when this particular report was under discussion earlier. At this time the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of privilege about its tabling and the disposition with respect to the press.
I have ascertained that the practice in the Clerk's office is not to release documents which are tabled in accordance with the rule which I read, standing order 40, until 2.30 p.m. The logic behind this is that the rule permits such documents to be tabled by depositing them with the Clerk of the house on any sitting day. By perhaps an excess of caution the office of the house which receives these documents in the name of the Clerk does not consider that they have been received on a sitting day until the house actually sits. Therefore the authority to the distribution office of the house to distribute them is not given until that time. That is the explanation of part of the point which the Leader of the Opposition was making.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, following the reference earlier this afternoon to this matter, the Leader of the Opposition sent over to me a copy of the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, March 15, 1961. At page 51 there is an article headed "Annual Report". The article, which bears the caption "By Bruce Phillips, Southam News Services" is undoubtedly a review or report upon the report of the governor of the bank which became available, as you have indicated, at 2.30 this afternoon. That was the time at which the tabling became effective, as you have now said and was the time appointed for its release by members of the press gallery or the press to whom it was made available yesterday. Therefore there can be no doubt that the news report on the report of the governor of the bank did appear in this edition of the Ottawa Citizen dated Wednesday, March 15.
I then caused inquiry to be made at the offices of the Ottawa Citizen to determine at what time this edition of the Ottawa Citizen was published. I am told that it was not published until 2.30 p.m. today. I am told further that the Citizen does not reach Ottawa newstands before 2.30 p.m.; that the Citizen is not delivered to any subscriber before 2.30 p.m., and that the embargo on the report was 2.30 p.m. I am further told that no copy of this newspaper could have come into the

hands of any persons expect those in the trade, that is to say representatives of the two Ottawa newspapers, before 2.30 p.m. today.
Mr. Speaker, I can only infer therefore that the copy in question could not have come into the hands of the Leader of the Opposition before 2.30 p.m., but if he tells us that a copy did come into his hands before 2.30 p.m. I think he owes it to the house to tell us how such a copy came into his hands before 2.30 p.m. today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, certain points are not in dispute. The Bank of Canada report was given to the press yesterday though it was not to be made public, the minister says, until 2.30 p.m. this afternoon. The minister did not give to any member of parliament or the party leaders the same courtesy that he gave to the press. That is all the more astonishing because this afternoon we are about to discuss financial resolutions. This report would have been most helpful to the opposition if we had received it in time. The minister could have made this report available to members of parliament and the leaders of parties on the same basis that he made it available to the press. That would have been a courtesy, at least, to members of parliament,, which was not extended to them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not secure this newspaper until I came into the House of Commons, but I was informed that this newspaper had been on the street before 2.30. If that information was wrong I will, of course, withdraw it, and I shall make inquiries, as the minister has made inquiries. I was given that information in good faith and if it is wrong I shall be glad to withdraw. The fact remains that the press had a copy of the Bank of Canada report the day before the minister had the courtesy to make that report available to members of this house in advance of a debate on the financial resolutions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I realize this is not an occasion for a debate, but I have two observations to make on the statement which has just been made by the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, the hon. gentleman regards it as a discourtesy to the house that copies of this report should have been made available to the press yesterday with a release date of 2.30 p.m. today, that being the time at which it became available to members of the House of Commons. We are being asked, apparently, to believe that this is something unusual. This is not unusual. It has been the practice followed with regard to these matters for years. It is the practice followed with respect to the budget; it is the

practice with respect to the estimates. There is no secret about this. It is a fact that the contents of the budget speech are made known to the press, and that has been the practice for many years. It was the practice when the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is true, and it is useless for the Leader of the Opposition to deny that, because we have simply followed with respect to these various matters -the budget, the estimates and other matters -a practice which was well established before we came into office.
My second observation is that apparently the Leader of the Opposition is not aware of the nature of the business we shall be dealing with for the rest of the afternoon. We are not to be debating financial resolutions. We will have before us the second reading of the bill to amend the Income Tax Act, and what relevance the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada has to the second reading of particular amendments to the Income Tax Act is a conundrum which apparently only the Leader of the Opposition can explain.


Mr. Speaker:: I have perhaps allowed the discussion on this question of privilege to go farther than usual before determining whether it is a question of privilege, because I know the house is jealous of its right to receive information from the ministry before any outside body does, or at least on equal terms with any outside agency. It has been asserted that the practice which was followed in this particular case was in accordance with previous practice.
I do not myself recall any precedent for a question of privilege being sustained on the basis that the press had been given documents required to be tabled in the house for release at the time of tabling. However, there may be a question involved, and if hon. members wish to consider the matter for future occasions as a consequence of this complaint they are free to do so. As it stands at the moment, the complaint seems to be based on suggestions of discourtesy.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I tried to obtain a hearing earlier to discuss one of the points raised by the Minister of Finance in connection with the question of privilege regarding the tabling of this document and giving it to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not found any prima facie question of privilege and, as I indicated earlier, there has been ample opportunity to
Starred Questions
express views on both sides. I do not wish to reopen the matter now, even though the hon. member did not have an opportunity to speak at the time.


Frank Howard: May I rise on a question of privilege, then, to point out that the Minister of Finance gave to the house information which he said he had obtained from the Ottawa Citizen to the effect that the particular issue of that newspaper concerned was not on the streets until 2.30. I say the minister has misinformed the house in this regard because I myself was at the corner of Bank and Regent streets at fifteen minutes after two, and purchased a copy of the Citizen then.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question of privilege there. The minister gave the information he had obtained, as he indicated when he gave it.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Mr. C. A. Caihers (York North) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, presented to the house on Monday, March 13, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Argue: 1.	Is it planned to build a new post office at Parent, Chapleau county, Quebec?
2.	If so, has the land been bought on which the new post office will stand?
3.	If so, (a) from whom (b) at what price?
4.	Has a contract been awarded for the construction of the post office?
5.	If so, (a) to whom (b) what is the amount of the contract?


Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: The answer to part 1 is yes. The answer to parts 2 and 4 is no. Consequently, parts 3 and 5 are not applicable. I might add that the delay regarding this project is due to the difficulty in obtaining a suitable site, and that site investigations are continuing.


ELECTRIC POWER TAX, NIAGARA-MASSENA
Mr. Mitchell: 1.	Does Canada impose a tax on electric power brought into Canada from Niagara Falls, New York, and then "exported" to Massena, New York?
2.	How much power is thus transmitted from Niagara to Massena via Canadian territory?
3.	What power lines are used in this transmission?
4.	How long has this arrangement been in operation, and by what international or provincial-state arrangement?

Starred Questions
5.	What is the annual revenue to the federal treasury from this export tax on the Niagara-Massena transmission?
6.	Is any consideration being given to the removal of this tax in this particular instance? If so, for what reason?
7.	What is the background of the tax law, what department administers it, and what department collects the tax?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The
answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Yes, if such a transaction were to occur.
2.	None.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not known to the national energy board.
7.	Section 4(a) of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907 authorized the governor in council, by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette, "to impose export duties, not exceeding ten dollars per annum per horsepower, upon power exported from Canada . . ." Order in council P.C. 397 of March 16, 1925 implemented this provision by imposing a tax of three one-hundredths of a cent (,030{?) per kilowatt hour, to be collected by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on power exported after April 1, 1925. The rate remains unchanged, but since October 1, 1959, the Department of National Revenue collects such duties.


MAIL CONTRACT, ST. ODILON, QUE.
Mr. Racine: 1.	Has the Post Office Department invited tenders for the mail contract with respect to rural route No. 1 at St. Odilon, county of Dorchester?
2.	If so: (a) on what date were tenders called? (b) what are the names of the tenderers, and what is the amount of each tender? (c) has the contract been awarded?
3.	If not, when will tenders be called?


William McLean Hamilton: The answer to this question involves a tabulation of names and amounts. May I ask that it be printed in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the tabulation of figures be inserted in the record here as the minister's answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:1
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) January 5, 1961.
(b)	Adelard Giguere, St. Odilon, $797.77; Imelda Giguere, St. Odilon, $798.00; Edmond Gilbert, St. Odilon, $835.00; Georges Nolet, St. Odilon, $849.00; Adonia Couture, St. Odilon, $888.00; Arthur Cloutier, St. Odilon, $965,00.
(c)	No.
3.	Not applicable.


TAX-SHARING PAYMENTS TO QUEBEC
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Have any payments been made to the government of Quebec under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act?
2.	If so, have the payments made under the tax-sharing arrangements act been accepted by the government of Quebec?
3.	Who was the premier of Quebec when the first payment was accepted?


Donald Methuen Fleming: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Hon. Maurice Duplessis.


POLAR SHELF HELICOPTER SERVICE EQUIPMENT
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	What equipment is required of a contractor to perform the helicopter services on both the continental polar shelf and the topographical survey?
2.	As of this date, what equipment has Autair Helicopter Services Limited in its possession for these Jobs?
3.	What is the time allowed between major overhauls on Westland Sikorsky S-55 helicopters?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: The answer to this question is as follows:
1.	For 1961 operations we require the contractor to supply: 4 Sikorsky S-55 helicopters equipped with float landing gear; 1 Sikorsky S-55 helicopter equipped with wheel landing gear; 1 Bell 47 G2A helicopter equipped with skid and float landing gear.
In addition, the following are required on all aircraft: (a) H.F. radio transceiver (b) V.H.F. radio transceiver (c) radio compass
(d)	gyro compass (e) cabin heater (f) engine heater and (g) engine and nose bubble covers and tie down equipment. Major and minor spare parts must also be readily available.
2.	Autair Helicopter Services Ltd. report that on March 8, 1961, it had in its possession one Bell 47 G2A and four Sikorsky S-55 helicopters, and arrangements have been made for the fifth Sikorsky S-55. The necessary items of equipment required by the department are also reported to be available.
3.	The Westland-built S-55 is not to be used on these projects in 1961.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. McMillan: What was the amount in the unemployment insurance fund at the end of February 1961, with securities (a) at par value (b) at the then market value?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to this question is as follows:
Balance at credit of fund based on securities at cost price, $240,627,927.00.

(a)	Securities at par value, $253,029,500.00.
(b)	Securities at market value, $210,556,168.75.


FRASERWOOD, MAN., POSTMASTER
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Fraserwood, Manitoba?
2.	On what date was he appointed, and under what authority?
3.	Since the present postmaster was appointed, have any protests been received about his performance of his duties, and, if so, how many persons have protested, and what is the ground of protest?
4.	What action has been taken as a result of any such protests?


William McLean Hamilton: There is a good deal of information to be given in answer to this question, and I would ask that it be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That would be quite
agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the printing of this answer as if it had been read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:1
1.	John Melenick.
2.	(a) 13th September, 1960. (b) By Postmaster General under authority of section 5(l)(b) of the Post Office Act, chapter 57, 15 George VI.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) 2. (c) location of post office and attitude of postmaster.
4.	The representations have been studied, but no further action is contemplated.


INCOME TAX RETURNS, JACK DIAMOND, VANCOUVER
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1957, has a Mr. Jack Diamond of Vancouver, British Columbia, either in his capacity as an individual or as an associate with Pacific Meat Company Limited, Vancouver, British Columbia, completed and mailed or delivered any return of income as required by the Income Tax Act, and, if so, for which years?
2.	Have any of the said returns been processed by the Department of National Revenue, and, if so, was it discovered that there was any wilful evasion or attempt at evasion to pay the proper tax payable by him, and, if so, what are the details of any such evasion or attempted evasion so discovered?
3.	If the answer to question No. 2 is yes, was any action taken to (a) impose penalties and, if so, what were they, and (b) prosecute and, if so, what is the result of the prosecution?
4.	Has the said Mr. Jack Diamond discussed the matter of his income tax returns with any cabinet minister, and, if so, what was the gist of those discussions, and the results thereof?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I have not had an opportunity to discuss this question with my officials
Starred Questions
since I returned this morning, and I ask that it be allowed to stand for a week.
Motion stands.



MAGAZINE &quot;THE POSTMARK&quot;


Mr. Denis: What has been the cost to the federal government of the publishing of the magazine The Postmark, for each of the following fiscal years: 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60?


William McLean Hamilton: The answer to this question is as follows: 1957-58, $35,238; 1958-59, $33,271; 1959-60, $33,982.

On the orders of the day:


Azellus Denis: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. It has to do with his answer to the starred question as to the cost to the government of publishing the magazine "The Postmark". Do the figures include the French version of the same magazine, which is called "Le Cachet Postal"?


William McLean Hamilton: I shall be glad to find out, Mr. Speaker.



CONFERENCE ON GRAIN MOVEMENT THROUGH PACIFIC PORTS

Mr. Howard: 1.	Who organized the recent Vancouver conference to expedite movement of grain through the Pacific coast ports?
2.	What is the name, address, and organization or city represented by each person who attended the said conference?
3.	Were any invitations issued to people, organizations, or communities to have representatives at the said conference, and, if so, to whom were such invitations issued?
4.	What recommendations, if any, arose out of the said conference, and what action has been taken or is contemplated with respect thereto?


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliameniary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: The
answer to this question is:
1.	The conference was decided upon at a meeting held between the minister and the Canadian wheat board on February 9. Invitations were extended by the minister and the wheat board, and arrangements for the conference were made by the Canadian wheat board.
2.	Invitations were issued to the following organizations:
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Montreal; Canadian National Railways, Montreal; Vancouver chamber of shipping, Vancouver; Vancouver merchants exchange, Vancouver; Vancouver grain exchange, Vancouver; the shipping federation of British Columbia, Vancouver; national harbours board, Ottawa;

Starred Questions
port manager, Vancouver; board of grain commissioners of Canada, Winnipeg; United Grain Growers Limited, Winnipeg; Pacific Elevators Ltd., Vancouver; Alberta wheat pool, Calgary; Saskatchewan wheat pool, Regina; the port warden, Vancouver; the international longshoreman's union, Vancouver; the grain handlers union, Vancouver; the Canadian wheat board Winnipeg; the Department of Agriculture, Ottawa.
If the hon. member wishes the names of individuals, we will have to secure them.
3.	Only the organizations listed in (2) above were invited and represented.
Representation was not sought from communities or private individuals.
4.	The work of the conference is being continued by two committees, one committee dealing with immediate problems and one committee dealing with long range problems. It is expected that the conference will reconvene in a short time to consider primarily the report of the first named committee.



POSTMASTER, LOUISEVILLE, QUE.

Mr. Denis: 1.	Since September 1, 1960, has a competition been held by the civil service commission for the appointment of a postmaster at Louiseville, county of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) on what date? (b) who were the candidates at the said competition? (c) what are the names of the candidates entitled to veterans preference?
3.	Is the result of such competition known? If so: (a) what are the marks given to each candidate? (b) who has been appointed to the said position?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes. With respect to parts 2 and 3, the competition was held on December 12, 1960. There were five candidates of whom three qualified in the following order: Mr. Marc Paul, Mr. J. Camille Bellemarre, and Mr. Roger Hogue. The results of this competition have been announced.
It is the policy of the commission not to divulge the names of unsuccessful candidates in any given competition. Similarly, the commission considers it in the public interest to regard the marks obtained by any candidate as confidential.
Of the five candidates in this competition, two were entitled to the veterans preference. Neither qualified. The top-ranking candidate, Mr. Marc Paul, has now been offered and has accepted the position.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity of Acting Secretary of State?
 .
In reply to a starred question, he informed the house that the new postmaster at Louiseville is one Mr. Paul. Could the minister tell us if this Mr. Paul is a veteran, and if he was granted veterans' preference?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that this applicant was much better qualified than the others and was selected on the basis of those qualifications.
(Text):



ADDRESS ON NUCLEAR WAR SURVIVAL BY MAJOR W. J. P. STYLES

Mr. Argue: 1.	Is Major W. J. P. Styles nuclear staff officer at headquarters, Saskatchewan area?
2.	Did he recently address the Knox Metropolitan United Church men's club in Regina on "Survival in a nuclear war"?
3.	If so, did he (a) discount the chemical and genetic effects on the human organism of strontium 90, carbon 14, iodine 131, and other products of nuclear explosions as unproven? (b) dismiss the possibility of intercontinental contamination of the atmosphere as a novelist's dream? (c) deny the correlation between strontium 90 intake and leukemia and bone cancer?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, some information in relation to this question has to be obtained from Saskatchewan. I would ask that the question stand.
Question stands.



NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT


Mr. McWilliams: 1.	Has the national research council undertaken a model study of a proposed crossing of the Northumberland strait?
2.	If so, when will it be completed?
3.	If completed, what is the result of the model study?


Yvon-Roma Tassé: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the information requested in certain parts of this question. The same applies to questions Nos. 199 and 200. I wonder if the hon. member in whose name they appear would allow these questions to stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Shall questions Nos. 198, 199 and 200 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Questions stand.



PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION OP CHEMICAL AND PAPER COMPANIES

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the proposed consolidation of Dominion Tar and Chemical Company, Howard Smith Paper Mills, and St. Lawrence Corporation Limited, been

drawn to the attention of the director of investigation and research (Combines Investigation Act)?
2.	If so, when, and to what effect?
3.	Has any communication of any kind, commenting on the consolidation, gone forward from the director or the minister to any of these corporations?


Hon. W. J. Browne (Acting Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this matter came to the attention of the director when it first appeared in press reports and, in accordance with the usual practice, was immediately examined in some detail to determine whether the situation warranted inquiry. The general practice, however, is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry is being pursued unless and until a report is published.



MAIL CONTRACT, KITIMAT-TERRACE, B.C.

Mr. Howard: 1.	What person or company holds the contract for mail delivery between Kitimat, British Columbia, and Terrace, B.C.?
2.	What schedule of rates apply?
3.	What is the departure time from Kitimat, and the sort of mail carried each scheduled run?
4.	When did the current mail contract become effective?
5.	Was the contract let on the basis of tenders called, and, if so, who were the competing bidders, and the amount so bid by each?
6.	What has been the total amount of money to date paid to the holder of this contract?
7.	Have there been, since July 1,	1960, any
complaints about this particular service, and, if so, from whom were such complaints received, and the nature of each?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather involved answer, and I would ask that it be printed in Hansard, without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that the answer be printed without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The text of the answer above referred to is as follows:]
1.	Kitimat Express Limited.
2.	$6,630 per annum; effective 30 March 1960, at which time number of trips increased by 50 per cent.
3.	(a) 8 a.m. daily except Sunday, (b) All classes of mail.
4.	1 November 1959.
5.	Yes, Kitimat Express Limited, Box 1090, Kitimat $4,680.00; B.S.A. Transfer Limited, Box 1074, main Post Office, Kitimat (in figures), $6,657.60, (in writing), $6,507.60; Harold R. Annett, Kitimat, $6,750.00; Farwest Transportation Limited, (E. Fabbi) Box 1091, Kitimat, $7,467.00; Tyakoff Luboumir, Box 993, Nechako, P.O., Kitimat, $10,300.00; Otto Van Barneveld, Box 520, Terrace, $13,500.00; Terrace Transfer Limited, Box 938, Kitimat, $13,518.00.
Motions for Papers
6.	Under temporary arrangement, 28 April 1958 to 31 October 1959, $7,855.09. Under contract, 1 November 1959 to date, $8,074.02. Total, $15,929.11.
7.	No, not at headquarters; inquiry being made.



EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, HAMILTON  PARTICIPA- TION IN PROGRAM &quot;CLOSE-UP&quot;

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	On what date was the national employment office in Hamilton approached to participate in the "Close-Up" program entitled "A Matter of Pride"?
2.	What official made the decision that the employment service should participate?
3.	Was anyone in Ottawa, either in the unemployment insurance commission or the Department of Labour, advised of this decision, and, if so, who?
4.	Did anyone in the employment service have any preview of the program, and, if so, who?
5.	Was anyone in Ottawa advised by the employment service in Hamilton that the program would appear on Tuesday, March 7, and, if so, who was advised?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the five parts of this question is as follows:
1.	February 2, 1961.
2.	Commissioner C. A. L. Murchison.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	The Hamilton local office through the Toronto regional office advised Mr. F. G. Flint, director of public relations at the head office of the unemployment insurance commission, Ottawa.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Benidickson:
For copies of orders issued by the Minister of National Revenue since December 1, 1958, under the provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act for the purposes of fixing duties.
Motion agreed to.
RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING SECTION 96a OF INDIAN ACT
Motion No. 78-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all instructions issued by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Indian affairs branch to Indian superintendents or others regarding the steps to be taken with respect to resolutions by Indian band councils asking that section 96A (2) be brought into force; and for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, or other documents exchanged between the above-mentioned parties since July 1, 1960.
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, correspondence and instructions exchanged and issued within the department to departmental officials are privileged. I am not sure

Division
what the hon. member means by the words "or others". If there is any other information which the hon. member wishes I will see if we can procure it for him if he will be explicit.


Frank Howard: The rest of it would not make much sense without the other documents referred to in the motion. I think it should be either accepted or rejected in its entirety.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the minister accepts the motion subject to the expressed limitations?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Speaker. All the information that is available was given in the house on March 8, as appears at page 2786 of Hansard, with the exception of what I have described as departmental correspondence and instructions which are deemed to be privileged.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to proceed?


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FRASERWOOD, MAN., POSTMASTER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of any protests, petitions, or communications received by the Postmaster General or any official of the Post Office Department

regarding the conduct of the postmaster at Fraser-wood, Manitoba, since the appointment of the present postmaster.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 80-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the tariff rates filed with the air transport board by Spartan Air Services Limited, Kenting Helicopters Limited, Okanagan Helicopters Limited, and Autair Helicopters Limited, which were seeking a contract from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for the continental polar shelf project for 1961.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 82-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all records of Mr. Glen Exelby that are on file with the unemployment insurance commission or the national employment service or on file with any branch thereof; and for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, or other documents exchanged between Mr. Exelby and the unemployment insurance commission or the national employment service or any branch thereof since September 9, 1960; and for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, other documents, or records of telephone conversations between the Minister of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission or the national employment service or any branch, officer, or employee thereof since January 1, 1961, relating to the said Mr. Exelby.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I have discussed this motion with the unemployment insurance commission and they have said to me that since Mr. Exelby has already made public his dealings with the national employment service, the commission deems it advisable under the present circumstances to make available the documents requested by the hon. member for Skeena which are in the possession of the commission. However, I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this position of the commission is not to be looked upon as a precedent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he can confirm or deny a report that the nation of South Africa has withdrawn from the commonwealth as the result of a decision taken in London. If so, has he any comment to make on that withdrawal?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the position is that South Africa has withdrawn its application to remain in the commonwealth after becoming a republic. This, of course, does not
Inquiries of the Ministry mean South Africa has withdrawn from the commonwealth, but she has withdrawn her application to be allowed to remain in after becoming a republic. The date set for South Africa to become a republic is in May, but at the moment I am not sure of the exact date. It would appear, therefore, that the situation will continue as it is at present until South Africa actually becomes a republic.
I am not in a position to make any further comments on this development which took place this morning. It is expected that the Prime Minister will be back in the house on Friday morning, and I am quite sure he will be making a detailed report to the house at that time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: In the light of the government's stated position on apartheid, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister would care to explain to the house why Canada abstained from voting at the United Nations on a motion designed to end racial discrimination in South West Africa and place this area under United Nations trusteeship.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the facts in connection with this vote at the United Nations yesterday or the day before are as follows. The original draft resolution on South West Africa was introduced only on the morning of March 13. During the debate the resolution was extensively amended and in this altered form it was rushed to a vote that same afternoon. In the debate the Canadian delegation said that we would regret it if an immediate vote was taken on this important and complex resolution, since it had not been possible in the short time available to receive instructions. The delegation explained that if a vote were taken Canada would abstain solely-and this is the key to my answer-because there was inadequate time to receive instructions, and this would not indicate our position on the substance of the resolution. A similar stand was taken by several countries, including Ghana. All these countries urged that time be given to get instructions from their respective governments.
The resolution will now move from the committee stage to the plenary session of the United Nations and there, after due consideration in the department, instructions have been given for our delegation to vote for the resolution.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



&quot;CLASS OR KIND MADE IN CANADA&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister assure the house that the United States authorities are satisfied that the proposed changes in the customs tariff are in no way an infraction of our international obligations?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not think I am in a position to read the minds of officials of another nation, or to speak for them. There was a full, frank and free discussion of this matter yesterday. I am sure there is no area of misunderstanding with respect to it.
While I am on my feet I should like to refer to a question which the hon. member asked of the Acting Prime Minister in respect of this matter, at which time the hon. member referred to an alleged statement I had made that this legislation would not be used against the United States. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was as far afield as the opposition has been generally in the debate on this matter. What I said, as reported in the Toronto Star, was that this legislation is not designed to discriminate against the United States, and to "discriminate" is quite different from being used. The C.B.C. quotation, to which the hon. gentleman referred in his question and which I received today, a short time ago, quotes me as saying that the proposals are not designed to discriminate against the United States. That is an actual quotation of my words as reported by the C.B.C. and the Toronto Star.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The report I had before me at the time was entitled "Tariff Changes not Aimed at United States, Nowlan said". What difference does the minister make, in the application of the class or kind of goods made in Canada legislation, as between the United States and other countries?


George Clyde Nowlan: None whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. The first thing to do would be for the House of Commons to pass the legislation. When we get that belated action we will apply the act in accordance with the law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Can the minister say whether the law is actually being enforced at the present time, as was announced by the Minister of Finance, if I am not mistaken, on budget night?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member means by his question. The law as it exists today is being applied by the Department of National Revenue and of course will continue to be applied in accordance with the law of the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the minister, the Minister of Finance announced in his budget speech that these changes in the tariff would go into effect immediately.



PROPOSED U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON TOURIST IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Since the Minister of Finance made no reference to this subject matter in his report to the house earlier today, could he say whether any representations were made during the recent ministerial visit to Washington in respect of the proposed reduction by the United States of duty free tourist purchases to $100? If so, has he any comment to make?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Views were certainly expressed on this subject by the Canadian ministers. We pointed out that already the balance of tourist purchases and expenditures as between Canada and the United States is very heavily in favour of the United States. Indeed, the Canadian deficit on this one item in our accounts between Canada and the United States amounted last year to $100 million. This is not an unusual figure; it has been running at figures like that for some time.
The view was strongly put forward by the Canadian ministers that in these circumstances there was no occasion whatever for the United States administration to take steps to curb purchases by American tourists in Canada. The United States has the problem of a deficit on the tourist trade overall which runs into a very substantial figure. Indeed, last year it amounted to about $1 billion. But that is the over-all position. We, representing Canada at these meetings, pointed out that the situation is the reverse in relation to tourist purchases as between Canada and the United States.


John Richard Garland: A supplementary question. Would the minister care to comment on the response which was accorded to those representations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those representations received a very courteous hearing.



CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to

the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary might deal with it. Could the minister use his influence with Canadian General Electric to get them to set a price on bulbs for Christmas tree lighting so that exporters supplied by that company will not be prevented from promoting exports and making sales?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member might bring up such a matter on the estimates. After all, Christmas is either past or coming-I am not clear which-and if we deal with all questions that occur to hon. members we will not be out of here by Christmas.



HOCKEY-SUGGESTED ISSUE OF SILVER DOLLARS TO COMMEMORATE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Trail diamond jubilee society desires a special strike of 25,000 silver dollars to commemorate the Trail diamond jubilee and the winning of the world hockey championship by the Trail Smoke Eaters, would the minister inform the house whether arrangements can be made for the Royal Mint to strike these silver dollars with a suitable and acceptable design?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members congratulate the Trail Smoke Eaters on their really magnificent victory. It is a matter of satisfaction to all Canadians. I have today received a telegram from the Trail diamond jubiliee society on the same subject and containing a similar proposal. However, it takes a minimum of six months to produce a newly designed silver dollar of proper quality. The overhead cost is also quite large, and unless a quantity of coins many times 25,000 is produced it would be a costly operation. It has long been the practice to produce commemorative coins only for events of a unique nature and national significance. Obviously this event is one of national significance, but I do not think any hon. member will say it is a unique event for a Canadian team to win a world championship. It has happened before and I am sure all hon. members are confident that it will happen many times in the future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not say it was a unique event in Canadian history for a city's team to win the world hockey championship during the year the city was celebrating its sixtieth anniversary?
Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE ASSISTANCE



REPORTED SUGGESTION AS TO MEANS TEST FOR OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare based on a statement he is purported to have made to a Toronto delegation seeking increased old age pensions. The minister is reported as having said that a means test might have to be applied for any increase over the existing basic amount. Are we to understand that this is a new declaration of government policy?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker, and any time there is a change in government policy it will be announced to the house in the usual way.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the banking and commerce committee has not considered a report of the Bank of Canada since 1956-in other words, not during the regime of the present Minister of Finance-would the minister use his good offices to give the nod to the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Cathers) and government supporters sitting on the committee to perhaps assure that this might be done in this 1961 session with respect to the 1960 report of the Bank of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I expect to make a statement in the house on this subject next week, after hon. members have had an opportunity to peruse the report.



INQUIRY AS TO PROVISION OF INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I will have inquiries made about that report. I am not in a position to say at the moment.']
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Inasmuch as the treasury will shortly run out of authority to spend money, is it his intention to introduce an interim supply bill before the Easter recess and, if so, when will that take place?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Subject to arrangements being made by the leader of the house, it would be my intention to move for
3014	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry a vote of interim supply next week for the months of April and May in the new fiscal year.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Finance a question. Has the minister any comment to make on the speech delivered in New York last week on the monetary and fiscal policy of Canada by the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I became aware, after the speech had been made, that the governor of the Bank of Canada had made a speech there. Since that time I have received a copy of that speech, and I presume the Leader of the Opposition has also received a copy.
I take no responsibility whatever for the contents of that speech or for any views expressed in it. The governor of the bank did not consult me before he made it. He did not undertake to speak for the government, and anything contained in that speech is his responsibility. I disclaim any responsibility for anything contained in it. I wish to make that very clear. I am not consulted by the governor of the bank about the speaking engagements he accepts. That has not been the practice.


George James McIlraith: supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if that speech fairly expresses government policy on the subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Government policy is declared by the responsible ministers of the government, who are responsible to parliament for their declarations in this respect. Government policy is not declared by the governor of the Bank of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A further supplementary question. In respect to those matters in that speech which are not in accord with government policy, what action does the Minister of Finance or the government propose to take?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We shall continue to regard ourselves as servants responsible to parliament. We shall not seek to override the enactments of parliament. It will remain for parliament to decide in those circumstances what is the proper course to be taken.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON SMALL BUSINESS LOANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I have a
question for the Minister of Finance. On March 9 the hon. member for Port Arthur asked the minister whether he could give us any information regarding the first month's operations respecting small business loans, to which the minister replied that the report was not available. Can the minister indicate to the house whether the information is available now and, if so, what it is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, a starred question has appeared in Votes and Proceedings on this subject today. May I say that the lending operations under this act started only about one week before the end of January. Frankly, I think information relating to that short period, even if it becomes available, will be of very little use. I was going to suggest when the question was reached, unless the information to February 28 is available, that perhaps it might be better to wait until we have information to February 28. But again, that is a question of another hon. member, and I presume it will not be reached until next Wednesday.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschafelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister inquire from the C.B.C. about the possibility of televising from coast to coast an event of national interest which is to take place in the Forum at Montreal on Thursday night, between the Montreal Canadiens and the Toronto Maple Leafs?


George Clyde Nowlan: Without making any inquiries at all I am sure I can say that a lot of Canadians would like to have the opportunity to watch that event on television.


COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he could tell us whether the Canadian representatives now in London, particularly the Secretary of State, the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Dorion) have presented to the

commonwealth conference the proposal mentioned in today's issue of Le Devoir that the union jack be adopted as the flag of the commonwealth and that "God Save the Queen" should be the royal hymn of the commonwealth.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to comment on that proposal.


PUBLICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is expected that the report of the royal commission on United States publications presided over by Mr. Grattan O'Leary will be received soon?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will have inquiries made about that report. I am not in a position to say at the moment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, and ask whether in view of the statement made by the C.B.C. corroborating the declarations made by Mr. Exelby the hon. gentleman does not think the government should take the initiative in sending this whole matter to a committee of the house for study.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, my main reaction to this question is amazement that the Liberal party would be following this big hoax with so much excitement and anticipation.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Acting Prime Minister read the statement made by the C.B.C., and has he seen the words in it to the effect that the situation referred to therein was true and that the unemployed salesman, Mr. Exelby, who was the central figure in the program, was "honourable and straightforward" in his dealings with the corporation?


Howard Charles Green: If hon. members opposite wish to ask questions about this situation I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why they do not raise them in the committee which is dealing with the C.B.C. at the present time instead of coming into the house and asking questions which should not be asked on orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he now considers this program to have been a big hoax?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, does the Acting Prime Minister by that statement wish to imply that the situation of unemployment in this country was not adequately represented by the program over the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that this series of questions and answers is tending to become a debate, and that further questions might better be kept for a time when this matter could be properly debated.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has any comment to make on the C.B.C. statement issued to the press today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recall that this matter was the subject of a question earlier in the proceedings, and I think it was dealt with. I do not know whether the minister wishes to accept the question.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested to hear the hon. member for Laurier set out certain parts of this C.B.C. statement, but I regret that he did not set out the last part, which states that the program should have given the precise chronology of the periods of Mr. Exelby's employment and this it failed to do. That was exactly my point, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And so did the minister.



WINTER WORKS PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF STATISTICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to give us the information regarding local statistics of the government's winter works program as he promised last Thursday he would do as reported at page 2815 of Hansard'!


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, that information was sought when we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour and I thought at that time that it was required when we next discussed those estimates. However, if the hon. member wishes this information tabled now or tomorrow I shall be glad to undertake to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As early as possible.
3016	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
According to the reply given yesterday by the minister concerning the lay-off of the 160 maintenance employees at the C.N.R. head office, only 40 of them, therefore, are sure of keeping their job whereas Canadian National will do everything possible to find work for the others. This is my question. What will happen to those for whom no job will be found? Will they find themselves out of work after working for the C.N.R. all those years?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in the circumstances, the C.N.R. authorities are showing a fine sense of responsibility. They have submitted several proposals already and I am convinced that they will be able to be of some use to these people. I am confident that the great majority of the C.N.R. employees in that building will be taken on again and that the Quebec government which will occupy the two present buildings will also be in a position to assist a substantial number of employees.


Mr. Johnson:: Write to Mr. Lesage.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to question the attitude of C.N.R. authorities, but as the present minister is aware, his predecessor stated on several occasions that laid-off employees would be taken on again and they were not in all cases. That is why I put this question and I am not satisfied with the reply.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member asking a further question or is he seeking to comment on what has been said?
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Why did the C.N.R. fail to notify its employees of this situation months ago instead of waiting until last week and giving them only a 60-day notice?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this question comes strictly under the jurisdiction of the railway authorities. I cannot explain why this procedure was followed. But, to revert to the first question of the hon. member, I should like to tell him that the procedure


which will be followed and what will happen to those who will not be taken on again will be exactly the repetition of what happened in other similar cases, in accordance with the various collective agreements or the various agreements entered into between the employer and the employee through negotiations.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister consider a 60-day notice satisfactory in the circumstances?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is pursuing a matter which is an administrative decision of the railway rather than of the ministry, and all he could ask would be to get further information.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to pursue it because I have asked three questions and I agree that is enough under the orders of the day; but I would bring to your attention the fact that while it is a matter of administrative responsibility of the Canadian National Railways, none the less there is no way in which the house can get information other than through the responsible minister, who is the Minister of Transport. If this position is to be taken, then on any matters concerning the Canadian National Railways or, for that matter, crown corporations, we will not be able to obtain information which we must have from time to time.


Léon Balcer: On this point, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well, because he was previously in this portfolio, that every time questions are asked in the house that are directly relevant to the management of the C.N.R. I have to bring to the house information supplied by the management. So far this session I have always brought to the house detailed information supplied in answer to questions asked. This afternoon the hon. member is asking my opinion as a private citizen; whether I feel that 60 days are the right number of days, or whether 50 days or 70 days would have been better. Well, I am not sure; maybe 120 days or 300 days would have been better, but it is strictly a question of opinion. It is a question for the administration of the C.N.R. and the information should not come directly from me. I shall be very pleased to forward any questions that are relevant to the management of the C.N.R. and bring the information to the house.


Lionel Chevrier: It is the same kind of question that we were asked from day to day when we were on the other side of the house.


Léon Balcer: And you did not answer it, either.


Lionel Chevrier: You certainly got more information than we are getting now.


Mr. Speaker:: The question before the house was one of privilege raised by the hon. member for Laurier. I think it has been satisfactorily discussed and disposed of. If the hon. member has a supplementary question to ask of the Minister of Transport would he defer it until the hon. member for Skeena has asked his question?
(Translation):
(Later:]


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the building the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was referring to in his question was sold by the C.N.R. to the government of the province of Quebec, could the Minister of Transport ask the C.N.R. management to suggest to the province of Quebec, at the time they sign their contract, to hire the employees that were laid off because of the sale of that building?
Could that suggestion be forwarded to the minister of public works of the province of Quebec?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that I followed the question, but if I did it related to a contract between the C.N.R. and the province of Quebec, which would be beyond the responsibility of the minister. If I am in error perhaps the minister will be able to deal with the question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement made earlier this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and certain countries in Africa, and in view of the highly strategic role of Ethiopia in many countries in Africa, would the minister tell the house whether the Canadian government is considering the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations with Ethiopia?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, Canada and Ethiopia are on very friendly terms, but
Inquiries of the Ministry as yet there have been no negotiations leading to the establishment of diplomatic relations.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which, I think, has a significant bearing on the rights and privileges of all hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the work we have to perform in this house is serious work. Our task here is to see that certain legislation be adopted which is beneficial to the country in general. However, for a few days now, and in particular this afternoon-it is now a quarter to five-members of the opposition have been doing their best to make a great to-do about certain incidents relating to a television program. They are again trying to make political capital out of a normal situation- (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member misunderstands the use of privilege when he rises to make a general complaint of that kind and then deals specifically with some conduct which has already taken place. Everything which has happened here today has been done presumably in accordance with the procedure and rules of the house and by the members in the exercise of their rights as members of the house. If any member is abusing the privileges which he has as a member the time to take exception is when the occasion arises. While I appreciate the minister's concern, I think a general complaint of that kind is probably not a matter which should be raised as a question of privilege.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether her department intends to persist in a line of conduct which will have the effect of exiling a Canadian citizen of Chinese origin-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -while at the same time quashing the deportation order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member ask a specific question instead of asking a question about a line of conduct, which

Inquiries of the Ministry rather presents an argument? If there is a specific question to be asked, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would put it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister intend to persist in the deportation order which will have the effect of exiling a Canadian citizen of Chinese origin?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I also ask the hon. lady whether it is correct that her department or she has quashed the deportation order, with which she no doubt is quite familiar, with respect to an inhabitant of Thessalon?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. lady give the facts to the house?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised, because I presume the hon. member received his information from a newspaper report which described certain happenings in another legislature. If he had read the article to its conclusion he would have noticed that one of the speakers in that place made the statement that he had discussed the whole matter fully with the hon. member for Algoma, they had examined the information available and they had agreed that there was no basis for any action.


Mr. Nixon:: Which Algoma?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a Canadian Press story originating in Montreal to the effect that an investigation has uncovered evidence of inflated subcontract prices and nearly $75,000 in kick-backs to promoters during the construction of an apartment block in the northeastern part of the city, a project which was authorized by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to consider whether he is not dealing with a matter of law enforcement, and not something that is an administrative responsibility of the Minister of Public Works.


John Richard Garland: If I may say so with respect, I think the fact that the project was authorized by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation surely brings it within the purview of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I cannot agree with the hon. member. Many crimes can be committed in the building of houses which were approved for construction by the corporation, and that would not make it a responsibility of the department. I think the hon. member's question is out of order.



INCOME TAX ACT

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-73, to amend the Income Tax Act.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that almost three months have elapsed since the minister introduced his so-called bady budget on December 20, is he not going to give the house a statement, which he did not do at the resolution stage, as to the results of the measures proposed by him on December 20 which under our procedures became effective from the time of their announcement on baby budget night?


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


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make. The house will recall that on December 21, the day following the introduction of the so-called baby budget, I raised a question that was fairly common throughout the land, namely, why did the minister present a budget at all? I think the conclusion was reached that some board of strategy in the government party had decided that it would be good public relations and perhaps the minister was counselled by Mr. Grosart and others to introduce in midstream during the fiscal year what might appear to be radical economic changes. I suggested then that I thought that after reaching the decision to present a budget they found after a little examination that it was not a very appropriate time to go to the money market and carry on other necessary operations that would make possible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I might draw the hon. member's attention to the specific matter before the house and ask him whether he does not believe what he is now saying was more appropriate on the budget debate? We have now reached the stage of second reading of a bill arising out of the budget debate. It seems that there is not very much scope for general financial

discussions on the bill we have before us. I would hope that hon. members would treat the bill in that manner.


William Moore Benidickson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was about to draw to the attention of the house the fact that we have before us for second reading a bill which is founded on the 12 resolutions introduced on budget night. I believe that ten of those resolutions relate to the field of investment. Subsidiary to that, I suggest we would have to examine such items as the interest rate and, inasmuch as the resolutions referred specifically to foreign investments, we would have before us the very important question of the premium upon our dollar and its relationship to other currencies of the world.
We would have to consider also our imbalance of payments. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said this afternoon, it is most unfortunate that the Bank of Canada report was tabled today instead of yesterday. I do not believe the significance of this coincidence is properly understood by too many members of the house. I have indicated that ten of the 12 resolutions which were presented on budget night relate to such factors and have been imbedded in sections of the bill before us. These sections relate largely to financial and banking problems which inevitably would be referred to in the annual report presented by the governor of the Bank of Canada. His comments respecting 1960 are not available to me as I speak on this occasion. 1 have tried to be attentive to the debate that has been continuing since 2.30.


Mr. Aiken:: That is right; it was a debate.


William Moore Benidickson: I referred to the proceedings of the house which, as I say, have continued, and very properly as the Speaker said, since 2.30.
I repeat that ten out of 12 of the budget resolutions imbedded in this bill relate to investments. These resolutions related substantially to the field of foreign investment and will have some repercussions on the premium rate on our dollar, interest rates, balance of payments and so on. This report of the Bank of Canada which, as I say, was presented after 2.30 today, is a larger document than ever before. For the benefit of those who read Hansard, I want to say that unless each of us went hourly every day from 2.30 until the adjournment of the house to the office in which documents of this kind are deposited, we would have no knowledge whatever of the documents tabled until the printed notice is published the following day-
90205-6-191
Income Tax Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; we have before us a particular bill that proposes certain quite definite amendments to the Income Tax Act. Surely, on a motion for second reading of this bill the hon. member should confine his remarks to the principle of the bill, and what relevance the remarks of the hon. member have to the principle of the bill must stagger the imagination of anyone. He is complaining now about the rules of the house relating to the tabling of documents, and surely that has no bearing whatever upon the principle of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) was perhaps exceeding the limits of the debate by referring to a matter which was before the house earlier. I did not object to his complaining he had not the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada, but actually what we are debating as the house has been reminded by the minister, is the principle of a bill which has a number of specific income tax provisions. I do believe the limit of the debate is the consideration of the effect of these specific provisions, if there is any general principle running through them, and if not then the principle of these many changes in the act.


William Moore Benidickson: My point was that ten of the principles that are incorporated in the sections of the bill we are now considering may relate in a very direct way to the recommendations in the Bank of Canada report that became available to us only at 2.30 today. I say it is unfortunate, inasmuch as there is a direct relationship between these ten items contained in this bill, that we did not have this report at an earlier stage. This is the point I make, and I think it is a valid point.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I did say during the budget debate that I felt the contents of this income tax bill were likely to prove very meagre because a decision was made to present a baby budget before it was decided what might be available to put in it. Almost three months have elapsed since the introduction of the resolutions, and my view in that respect has not changed in the interval. I feel that instead of deriving much advantage from this bill a fair amount of damage has been done to this country in its present economic situation, and particularly in its relationships with foreign countries which traditionally have made substantial investments in Canada.
In the first place, I find that there is not too much here that is very trenchant or very vital. On the other hand, as a result of the talk in connection with this baby budget I

Income Tax Act
feel that there has been created abroad quite a blurred image in respect of intentions. I do not need to advance that as my own opinion. I did indicate that I spent a month in New York towards the end of 1960 and I was astonished to find the extent of the anxiety of ex-Canadians who were working in New York as to the possible effects upon Canada, not upon their new country, of what was announced in the speech from the throne and in the baby budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question? What date was it he left New York?


William Moore Benidickson: I was back for the baby budget. I was away of course, all through November, but I was back subsequent to the introduction of the baby budget. I think this confusion, rather than the direct effects of this bill, is causing great irratation and is doing Canada no noticeable good in other sections of the world.
There is a danger of creating wrong impressions, even though they may be inadvertently created. The minister must have sensed this danger. Certainly another hon. member of this house has already spoken on this point. I refer to the much admired hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith). He also has spent a great deal of time at the United Nations and in the country to the south. In the debate on the baby budget the hon. member confirmed the alarm that I have expressed, with regard to our contacts in the United States. They do not properly understand the intentions of this government with respect to investment and they are considerably alarmed about this matter.
I think the minister must have recognized this situation, because shortly after the presentation of the budget on December 20 he made a trip to New York city in order to try to allay some of the apprehensions that obviously existed in that financial centre. I report the impressions I received while I was down there. The minister went down to New York on January 18 and made a speech to the Canadian club. He had a very good audience. I had been to the Maple Leaf club a month before.
I want to produce evidence of the confusion between Canada's financial leaders. I refer to the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada. I wish to quote their remarks during speeches made in New York recently. I think these remarks are in juxtaposition to each other.
On January 18 the Minister of Finance in New York said this:
None of us is under any illusion that Canada could have achieved the rapid and broadly based expansion of our productive facilities during the last decade or more without these investments

from other countries. We fully recognize the great benefits which the economy has derived by reason of the new manufacturing and industrial techniques which have been introduced, and of the natural resources which have been developed.
That is what the senior financial official of this government said on January 18. However, a person to whom equal attention is paid in the United States is naturally the governor of the Bank of Canada. He made a speech in the same city on March 7 to the Economic club of New York. I wish to show how much confusion there is in the financial leadership of this country by quoting the words of the governor of the Bank of Canada. I ask hon. members of this house to compare his statement with that of the Minister of Finance. On March 7 Mr. Coyne said this:
The influence of the $9 billion of new foreign capital of one kind and another over the past decade-
The Minister of Finance had referred to the same decade.
-if anything has had rather adverse effects on stability of employment and costs of production.
Earlier this afternoon I asked whether or not the Minister of Finance had any opportunity to observe the reported increasing harmony between the federal reserve bank in the United States and President Kennedy and his new administration. If the minister did not have that opportunity during the last two days I hope he will continue to observe developments in that connection. At the present time there is an urgent need for the utmost harmony and co-operation in our monetary relations and we should have a better balance between the policies of the government as expressed by the Minister of Finance-and indeed some of the other ministers-and the policies espoused by the governor of the Bank of Canada.
I am not alone in expressing some alarm about the results of this baby budget. I suggest these things are not very important broadly to anybody's pocket book, but psychologically I think they are important. I am afraid difficulties have been caused that will affect employment. These difficulties cannot be compared to the actual amount of dollars and cents that may come to the treasury as a result of the tightening up of some of these measures with respect to withholding tax.
The minister need not take my word for some of these things. I know he has great regard for certain commentators who have also referred to his baby budget since February, 1961. I have never found the minister in any way minimizing the importance of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. In

their bulletin of February, 1961, under the headline, "Yankee Don't Go Home", an article begins in this way:
It would be a pity if the growing sense of national consciousness so apparent in Canada today should become identified in the mind of Americans -or anyone else-with anti-Americanism. In truth, it would be much more than a pity: it would be an unmitigated disaster.
I fear the financial community of the United States is losing interest in Canadian investment unless the interest rate gap that prevails between the countries widens greatly as it has since the baby budget was brought down in December. Timidity has been introduced among foreign investors since the baby budget of the minister because uncertainties have not been properly explained in the United States and some other countries.
The Montreal Star, which is a rather neutral paper politically-


Egan Chambers: What?


William Moore Benidickson: The Montreal Star was certainly critical of the former regime-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Everybody was.


William Moore Benidickson: -and I do not know whether they are unfriendly to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence who comes from Montreal. I do not think they are. However, they had this to say:
This week on our opposite editorial page we published three articles by our Washington correspondent on the present state of Canadian-American relations. These are obviously getting worse, and statements now emanating from Ottawa from time to time are not making them any better.
I think some of the speeches made by members of the ministry and by the governor of the Bank of Canada are not particularly helpful in this regard.
Here is another example. On February 1 the son of a former president of the United States, John Roosevelt, came up to Montreal and said:
We appreciate that Canada must fit its policy to its needs but we are right now rather puzzled as to what the new policies actually entail.
I think John Roosevelt is associated with one of the biggest investment houses in New York. How can such an inquirer obtain more information on this matter when three months after the baby budget was introduced the Minister of Finance does not even deign to give this house any up-to-date report on the results of the measures which became effective as of December 20, 1960? Perhaps this is our biggest Canadian corporation in so far as control of assets is concerned. Last month the president of the Sun Life Insurance Company said that Canada's image abroad under this government is fuzzy. He gave this out at the annual meeting-
90205-6-1914
Income Tax Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he will quote the words used by the gentleman to whom he has referred? He has himself introduced the expression "under this government". I should like the hon. member to make it clear whether those words formed any part of the actual words used by the gentleman he is purporting to quote.


William Moore Benidickson: Certainly this gentleman was referring to the current situation, and he is referring to this federal government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But did he use the
words just attributed to him?


William Moore Benidickson: I will quote the observation verbatim.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would be
better.


William Moore Benidickson: Very well.
Mr. Bourke, president of Canada's largest life insurance firm, said Canada must beware lest international investors lose interest in her because of Canadian attitudes towards foreign capital.
Then the report goes on to refer directly to Mr. Bourke-
Canada's image abroad was becoming somewhat fuzzy, he said.
Surely this is not a reference to something which happened years ago. He is saying that Canada's image abroad is presently becoming fuzzy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member agree that he did not use the words "under this government" and that Mr. Bourke in his statement did not attribute responsibility to this government?


William Moore Benidickson: I do not intend to quibble. I could not possibly be the equal of the Minister of Finance when it comes to quibbling. But in the light of common sense, I am sure Canadians will realize that a man who addresses the public of Canada every year and who says that Canada's image abroad is becoming fuzzy is not referring to anything except what is happening in very recent times.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not the
point I was raising at all.


William Moore Benidickson: Now we shall find in this bill reference to some protection that is now being taken by the government in respect to some of the opportunities which have been available in recent years, I think on too generous a scale, to bond investors. I have pointed out in the last three years that the Minister of Finance has at times been almost desperate about borrowing money and that in consequence he has offered gimmicks

Income Tax Act
which have been exceedingly expensive in their net cost to the treasury. But everyone is aware of the eloquence of the Minister of Finance and the kind of language he uses when he is criticized with regard to such a matter. I refer to the Ottawa Citizen of Thursday, March 19, 1959. It states:
William Benidickson, Liberal financial critic in the commons has suggested that the federal government is paying more for some of its borrowings than appears in interest rates.
This was written following a discussion with respect to the offering of a bond at a substantial discount and at a low nominal interest rate; if a person in a high income tax bracket acquired such bonds he would be doing so at a very substantial advantage. But this is the way in which we are treated when we offer, as is our duty, criticism of the Minister of Finance. I continue to quote from the Ottawa Citizen:
Mr. Fleming described Mr. Benidickson's statement on this point as "a shockingly misleading and inaccurate statement".


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, the hon. member is purporting to quote a passage from a newspaper of a particular date. If I recall correctly, what that article purports to do is to report a debate which took place in the House of Commons and I put forward for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, the point that when we are dealing with statements made in the course of debate in the House of Commons the proper course is to quote from Hansard itself and not to quote what newspapers have said in regard to the debate in the house.


William Moore Benidickson: On this point of order I suggest there is no such rule as that which the hon. member advances. I think the rule is that an hon. member is not permitted, if there is objection from his colleagues, to quote words which reflect upon this house. These words I have quoted reflect on no one but myself, and if I advance them and make some comment upon them I do not think any matter of privilege can be raised by any other member of the house. These words were used with respect to myself by the Minister of Finance and are reported in the Ottawa Citizen of March 19, 1959. They were used by a minister who intends to make amendments to the Income Tax Act to cover the very thing about which I at that time gave him a warning which he described as "a shocking, misleading and inaccurate statement" on my part.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the observations now made by the hon. member illustrate very well the reasons why it has been the practice and, if I am not mistaken, the rule of this house that when hon. members purport to

refer to statements made in the house they should quote from the record of this house and not attempt to read newspaper reports of our debates with all the interpretations that may appear in such newspaper reports. We have just had an illustration of the reason behind this practice and rule, because the hon. member has just directed his observations in that respect to something quite different from the point of my observations in the debate which he is now purporting to quote from a secondary source.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Does the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River wish to speak on the point of order?


William Moore Benidickson: I will hear your ruling, sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I can refer at once, of course, to Beauchesne, fourth edition, paragraph 157, where it is made clear that it is out of order to read extracts in a debate if they refer to other debates during the same session. That, however, does not apply in this case because I understand the hon. member is referring to a debate which took place in 1959.


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps Your Honour might hear a word from me while you are perusing other authorities. Just to indicate that the Minister of Finance is following his usual style of being exceedingly technical and and obstructive when criticized, may I recall that some four or five weeks ago the Minister of Finance, reading from papers in his hand, was quoting from Hansard-may I speak hypothetically-that the year he was referring to was perhaps 1957. But what he actually was referring to was a requote which he delivered and which appeared in a subsequent edition of Hansard, and he could not provide the page. The house at that time had the courtesy to accept what the minister had said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the hon. member makes assertions of that kind he should be prepared to give the page reference in the debates of this house, because he will not find anything there to corroborate or substantiate the silly accusations he has now made.


William Moore Benidickson: Well, this debate will afford me plenty of opportunity to go to the library after six o'clock, and I will quote later the hon. gentleman in full.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I think the hon. member should refer to the exact place in Hansard where this was done.


William Moore Benidickson: Is Your Honour making that ruling both with respect to the question I first raised and with respect to the later point raised by the Minister of Finance? I

know that after this second reading stage of the debate has been completed the bill will be further discussed in the committee of the whole and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance that this will be repeated, if desired, complete with Hansard page references.
I wish now to deal with one of the aims of the ten out of the 12 resolutions incorporated in this bill which refer to investment policy, particularly with respect to investments that originate abroad. One of the alleged features that prompted the government to embark on this course was that it would perhaps reduce what was generally regarded as an undesirable and rather substantial premium on the Canadian dollar in its relationship to the United States dollar.
Before we conclude this stage of the debate I should like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to explain to us why after three months the dollar is virtually at the point it was when the budget was introduced on December 20, although some temporary hope was raised that the budget itself had accomplished something along the line to which I referred.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker, when he was in the chair and before you came into it, had to caution the hon. member several times for being out of order in going far beyond the limits of the present bill.
This is a bill to amend the Income Tax Act in certain definite particulars set out in the bill. This is not a resumption of the budget debate. There is nothing in this present bill that speaks of the exchange rate on the dollar. The hon. member in following this course is, in my submission, simply ignoring the previous rulings of the Speaker when he was in the chair earlier with respect to the hon. member's remarks, and the hon. gentleman is trespassing in fields other than those that are the proper subject for debate here. Surely on this motion we are debating the principle of Bill No. C-73, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to that point of order and remind Your Honour that three months have elapsed since the Minister of Finance introduced his baby budget on December 20. In the meantime the minister has made in this country and elsewhere speeches in which he has attempted to explain to his audiences the purposes of the legislation which he introduced on December 20.
The minister invariably has said that one of the features he had in mind was the elimination of the large premium on the Canadian dollar in relation to its United States
Income Tax Act
counterpart. I say that if ten twelfths of the contents of this bill relate to matters that could have a direct effect upon the relationship of the Canadian and United States dollar and upon interest rates in this country and in particular in the country closest to us in our trading relationships, it is utterly fatuous for the Minister of Finance to suggest that Your Honour should narrow our discussion to the extent he outlined.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I was in
the chamber when Mr. Speaker made the suggested ruling previously and made comments relating to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). I have been through this bill and I do not know if I could properly say that the contents of this bill would affect the rate of interest between Canada and the United States, and so on. I do not think that is what I am supposed to do. However, I do not see how that can be considered a principle of this bill; and of course on second reading we must relate our discussion to the principle of the bill. Once again I must suggest to the hon. member that he confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, at this time I challenge the Minister of Finance to say categorically that in the amendents proposed in this bill amending the Income Tax Act there was no intention on his part that its provisions should in any way have an effect upon the relationship of the Canadian and United States dollar.
The minister is apparently not going to answer on that point-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to make my remarks at this stage if that is the wish of the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: If the
minister rises I shall have to advise the house that he will close the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is serious.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is dealing with a point of order.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member had not thought of it until the hon. member for Essex East suggested it.


William Moore Benidickson: To continue, Mr. Speaker, I insist, subject to your ruling and after a considerable amount of study, that since the introduction of the resolutions in December one of the basic purposes of the changes was a hope that there might be a narrowing of the gap between the United States dollar

Income Tax Act
and the Canadian dollar. The point I wish to raise at this time, however, is that this seems to be a very belated determination on the part of the government.
A few months earlier in May hon. members of the government did not seem to be the champions of a par or under par Canadian dollar. We have been unsuccessful in obtaining explanations and replies to questions we have raised concerning the fact that this same government through its agencies as recently as May last permitted $100 million to be utilized-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to deal with the way in which the hon. member is completely ignoring-yes, I say defying-your ruling. He is going completely outside the terms of this bill. The hon. member is making assertions now that I should like to debate on a proper occasion. The hon. gentleman is making assertions with no truth in them and I shall welcome the opportunity to debate them at an appropriate time. The rules of the house do not afford opportunity to any hon. member to debate matters of this nature in relation to this bill. The hon. member must be aware of that fact but he has been running over the line throughout his remarks all afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself to the point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: More obstruction.


Murdo William Martin: The minister says, "More obstruction". I wish to say to the minister that that, of course, is an entirely unparliamentary remark.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A very true one.


Murdo William Martin: The Minister of Finance strenuously persists in obstructing his own legislation and I am going to leave it at that. The hon. gentleman gets to his feet and raises points of order without producing any authority whatever. The mere assertion by the minister that something is out of order, in his judgment makes it out of order. The Minister of Finance in his great glory has to be reminded-
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rea): Order. I wish the hon. member would speak to the point of order.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, the last remarks of the Minister of Finance are so offensive and provocative as to certainly justify some comment from us.


Mr. Cardiff:: Why don't you get on with your point of order?


Murdo William Martin: We now hear from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
(Mr. Benidickson.]


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have listened to hon. members opposite raising points of order on this, that and the other thing throughout the entire session and we are getting pretty well fed up-
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rea): Order. I am sorry but the Chair can hear only one point of order at a time.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Why doesn't the hon. member speak to the point of order?


Murdo William Martin: I appreciate the difficulty the Chair has with hon. members on the government benches who at every point resist any suggestion with which they disagree that is made by the opposition; and if hon. members opposite are irritated by our conduct, we want them to know that we in turn are irritated by their constant attempts to prevent us from expressing what we believe are correct opinions which we have a right to express in this house.


Mr. Lennard:: You have no opinions. Speak to the point of order.


Murdo William Martin: Since we have had that contribution from the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) I propose to address myself to the question which Your Honour has asked-


Frank Exton Lennard: It is about time.


Murdo William Martin: Once again the hon. member for Wentworth makes a contribution. All that hon. gentleman is able to do is sit in his seat day after day-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Speak to the point of order.


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you have asked the hon. member to address himself to the point of order and he refuses to do so.


Frank Exton Lennard: He does not have one.


Murdo William Martin: I propose to address myself to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, but when I hear these interruptions I propose, within the rules of the house, to deal with them. While the hon. gentleman is not one of those who offend in that particular, he might use his politeness and his good deportment as an example to some of his colleagues who apparently do not understand the meaning of these words.
On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is raising a point which he feels has a very definite bearing on the proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act. I would refer Your Honour to clause 9 of the bill which deals with the exemption from the 15 per cent non-resident withholding tax at present granted for interest payable on

bonds of or guaranteed by the government of Canada. I would also refer Your Honour to page 8 of the bill, where we find the explanatory notes which deal with the repeal of the special 5 per cent rate of non-resident withholding tax on dividends paid to a nonresident corporation by its wholly owned subsidiary corporation in Canada, and then to clause 10 of the bill which seeks to impose a tax of 15 per cent on dividends paid by a resident of Canada after December 20, 1960, to a non-resident organization, and so forth. These particular provisions were suggested by the Minister of Finance to meet certain situations, and one of them may very well be the problem raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Surely the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is justified in saying that the Minister of Finance has been driven to impose this particular form of taxation, namely the 15 per cent tax on dividends paid by a resident of Canada, and a tax on non-residents, because of the premium on the Canadian dollar. That may not be a sound argument but the hon. gentleman has the right to make it, and that is what he is doing. With great respect, I say that he has brought himself perfectly within the rules; otherwise, an hon. gentleman would not be allowed to interrogate the Minister of Finance on why he has resorted to these particular forms of taxation on non-residents or on residents with respect to United States holdings. In view of these particular provisions, surely it is restricting the form of debate to say that the statements made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River are out of order.
If there is some doubt in Your Honour's mind-and I do not think there is-and if Your Honour concludes he is satisfied, that would be the end of it so far as I am concerned because I think Your Honour is very fair in his rulings. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he is obviously concerned today; he is obviously irritated. If he wants his measures to pass why does he not let some more vigorous person such as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) do the objecting instead of himself? Every time the hon. gentleman rises in his place he delays the passage of the legislation by a week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. If hon. members were to be allowed to discuss the effects of this bill, of course, they could go into very many realms of any type of financial situation. However, I do have the feeling that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was discussing fiscal policies in general. I think I should suggest to him that his remarks should be directed more to this bill to amend the Income Tax Act. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is an old
Income Tax Act
experienced parliamentarian and I am sure he can keep himself well within the bounds of this bill.


William Moore Benidickson: I thank you for your comments, sir. I do not in any way depart from my original statement.
Your Honour referred to effects. Surely, we are permitted to discuss the legislation. Generally we use the word "principles" at second reading stage but I was going to use the word "purposes". Surely, we are permitted to discuss the purposes of the legislation before us. I would hope that one of the major purposes of the bill, or one of the consequences of the legislation, would be a narrowing of the gap between the Canadian and the United States dollar. I think I have made my point adequately in that respect.
In addition, when one considers that ten twelfths of the legislation before us relates to amendments concerning foreign investments, I say that undoubtedly it is of great interest to us when we compare domestic interest rates and foreign interest rates. I hope that when we come to the individual clauses of the bill we shall have every opportunity to pursue this subject unless the minister, when he speaks, informs us that these are not among his purposes. I am not talking about effects because I do not think the effects have been very consequential.
I want to know whether one of the main purposes of the legislation is to have an influence upon the pattern of the spread between the Canadian and the United States dollar? When the minister replies I want him to tell us also the purpose of the legislation in relation to domestic interest rates. I am sure the minister will not be able to escape this, although I was astonished that he did not take advantage of the opportunity, three months after the introduction of this legislation, to bring this house and the country up to date on the results that have flowed from the introduction of this legislation.
When the minister replies I hope he will resolve the great concern that exists all across Canada as to the apparent lack of harmony between the monetary policies that may be initiated by the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that anyone looking around the house would not suggest that we have an inspiring audience this afternoon. I hope to conclude my few brief remarks by six o'clock. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we apply ourselves steadily from now on to the business of this session, if we have the co-operation of the government and the opposition in the introduction of legislation, we would get through in good time. I suggest that we lose

Income Tax Act
a lot of time because of the repeated delays in dealing with legislation, that is, dealing with the resolution and then dropping it and going on with the bill later, and so on. If we could have the resolution introduced and then the bill so that we could continue the discussion in a logical and sequential manner we would gain a lot of time. I think a lot of time is lost by deferring these resolutions and bills from week to week and going at them in what I call a bits and bobs way. If we did that, Mr. Speaker-I want to sow a seed in the minds of hon. members before I say my little piece on this bill this afternoon-I am of the opinion we could satisfactorily and in a proper way deal with the business of this session so that it would conclude by June 15. I hope I have sown a seed in fertile soil.
Without doubt this is the type of bill on which the major discussion will take place on the various clauses. However, I have a few general observations to make. As I said before, I intend to be brief. I think it is quite safe to say that the principle of this bill is income taxation; it is the application of a section of the Income Tax Act. We in this group, Mr. Speaker, think that the Income Tax Act is the fairest form of taxation and is sound in principle but we have maintained throughout the years that the application of the principle is unfair and that we cannot by any stretch of the imagination say that the application is equitable to all classes of the Canadian people when one considers their varying economic circumstances.
For instance, in the application of the act there is no doubt that certain unfairness is caused by the fact that we do not have a capital gains tax in this country, which makes it possible for persons to make large gains and pay no income tax whatever. I am staying in order as carefully as I can, Mr. Speaker, and I simply want to mention that the fact we have no capital gains tax has caused unnecessary taxation on lower income groups. Then there are concessions to mining, smelting, oil and gas companies and no doubt those concessions make it necessary to continue a higher rate of taxation on the lower income groups.
We do not suggest for a minute that the state does not need the revenue to meet its expenses. However, before proceeding with my few brief remarks on the bill I wish on behalf of this group to urge the minister that when he comes to consider his budget he should give some consideration to the plight of the lower income groups who have had little consideration for some years as far as exemptions are concerned while the cost of living has been going up steadily. I think I have gone very little beyond the confines of what is in order at the present time, Mr. 
Speaker; and as the minister apparently is in a beneficent mood and is smiling I could not help reminding him of these things which we have repeated from time to time in former budget debates and on other occasions.
We are pleased to see in the bill now before us the exemption allowed for tuition fees. That exemption will be of assistance to a certain group of people who in many cases need it badly in order to carry on their education. We are glad to see the tax imposed on investment income from sources outside Canada because we think that is fair. We are glad to see the increase from $25,000 to $35,000 in the amount of income of companies subject to the 18 per cent tax. That should be of some assistance to smaller companies, particularly those that are having a difficult time to carry on. We are glad to see the repeal of the exemption with respect to the 15 per cent non-resident withholding tax. I have always been of the opinion that was somewhat unfair in relation to what resident Canadians, particularly those with small incomes, have to pay in taxation.
As I said before, our few comments will be made on the clauses concerned. However, on behalf of this group I urge the minister to give consideration to those sections of our society that have not received particular consideration in recent years. We know that the cost of living, the cost of operating the human machine, has gone up. We allow substantial depreciation on machinery and plant equipment but up to the present time we have not allowed sufficient for the deterioration and depreciation that occur in the human machine, and that is a matter of serious concern to the lower income groups. In relation to all our other economic difficulties and the plans that have been made to meet them, in my opinion this is a good time to consider a complete overhaul of the Income Tax Act in the light of the circumstances we face today. I have done my very best to remain in order, Mr. Speaker, and at this point I conclude my remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, when the minister replies I would ask him to give us the reasons that were in his mind with respect to the provisions in clause 2, I believe it is, with regard to tuition fees. The minister has given relief in respect of tuition fees for 1961, which means that it will become effective from the middle of the academic term that began last September or October. I have had a considerable number of representations made to me, and I am sure other members have, by students and student organizations with respect to why the relief is not to be made effective from September or October of 1960 so as to



IS. 1961

[Stage Direction]
cover the whole of the academic year. When the minister replies I hope he will deal with that aspect.
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, as it is about one minute before six may I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, we have made so very little progress this afternoon that I would ask the hon. member to speak until six o'clock. If the hon. member's remarks pertain to clauses of the bill, perhaps he would consider deferring them until we are in committee. I should be glad to make my reply now, Mr. Speaker, to expedite as far as possible moving the house into the committee stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Can the hon. member's remarks be made in committee?


Chesley William Carter: My remarks are of a general nature and if I do not have leave to call it six o'clock I will continue. The bill before us now to amend the Income Tax Act arises out of the proposals put forward by the minister in his budget and was announced along with other measures as part of the government's plan to contribute toward a solution of the unemployment problem. It is in that light that I think we must discuss the principle of the bill. We can appreciate
Business of the House
the desire of the government to encourage increased Canadian ownership of our industry and increased participation of Canadian capital in the development of our natural resources. These are objectives which command our support but we must be careful that we do not attain these objectives at the expense of other objectives which are even more important. This bill is a part of the government's program to combat unemployment and surely that must be our No. 1 objective today because it is the paramount problem facing Canadians at the present time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business is for tomorrow and Friday and will he also give some indication of what the business will be on Monday?


Mr. Churchill:: As announced, tomorrow we will deal with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. With respect to Friday, and this may be subject to change, at the moment we are considering going ahead with supplementary estimates. On Monday and Tuesday we will likely have a supply motion but I will be definite about that tomorrow night.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
90205-6-192
[Stage Direction]
Questions