1961-02-01

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a question of privilege regarding some remarks of mine and another hon. member which appear in Hansard for yesterday on page 1607. During the debate, as recorded on that page, an unidentified hon. member said:
What about divorce?
Then in the heat of the moment I replied, and my remarks appear on page 1608, as follows:
My hon. friend may be desirous of obtaining one or he may need one, but that is his problem not mine.
I should like to express my regret, Mr. Speaker, and apologize to the hon. member, whoever he was, for having made that statement.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
5.45 P.M.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make on government policy which, for business reasons, I do not want to make until 5.45 this afternoon. I request the permission of the house to revert to motions at that time, in order that I may make the announcement at 5.45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: I think the house has heard the minister's request that he be given leave to revert to motions this afternoon at 5.45 p.m. so that he may make an announcement which can be conveniently made at that time and not now. Has the minister unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal) presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
['Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give unanimous consent.']
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give unanimous consent to going ahead today.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of unanimous consent, the motion cannot be accepted at this time.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give unanimous consent.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport) presented the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give unanimous consent.



MARINE AND FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg)
presented the first report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary) presented the first report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
1614	HOUSE OF
Industrial Relations Committee


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) presented the first report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. H. Small (Danforih) presented the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not refuse to accede to the request of the hon. gentleman for unanimous consent, but I would point out the inadequacy of this report-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no subject matter before the house for debate at the moment. If unanimous consent is given the motion will be put and then may be dealt with; otherwise I must reject the motion. Does the house give unanimous consent that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) present this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this report does not give a true indication of what transpired at the committee meeting. This was an organization meeting for the purpose of electing the chairman and arranging for the routine business of the committee. I may say, incidentally, that I was very happy to support the nomination of the hon. gentleman as chairman of this committee. On that one subject there was unanimity. I, of course, had a special opportunity to be able to attest to the great experience of the hon. gentleman as chairman of parliamentary committees.
However, it was proposed at the committee meeting this morning that since the committee had not been assigned any particular functions by this house, and since the committee should be put to work, we should ask the house for authority to examine into the state of the unemployment insurance fund, which is now in a perilous state.
This motion was not supported and was overwhelmingly defeated by all members supporting the government. The report of the
[Mr. Valade.)

hon. gentleman should have stated that there had been a request made by some members of the committee-


Some hon. Members:: One.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen say "why?" It is because in the judgment of those of us who belong to this party the state of the fund is such that parliament should examine into its condition at the earliest possible moment.
(Translation):


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), I should like to say a few words about what took place this morning during the meeting of the committee in question.
It was understood that this morning's sitting was only for organization purposes and it was agreed that the question raised by the hon. member for Essex East would not be considered on that occasion. It is simply a recurrence of what happened last year. The hon. member for Essex East wants to make the headlines and it is only a big flare-up he staged in the house.
(Text):


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I do not intend to get involved in the debate as to what happened in the committee meeting this morning, because I was not there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Murdo William Martin: That is my complaint. The hon. member for Peterborough and myself are members of that committee but we did not receive notice of this morning's meeting. That is the reason I was not there this morning. As far as the hon. member's speech is concerned, I think we could deal with that at a more appropriate time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Pickersgill:: No, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Before any other member enters into the discussion may I point out that although this motion is debatable, the subject before the house is only the report itself. Hon. members are not supposed to go behind or beyond the report; it is irregular to refer to what transpired in the committee. An hon. member may express opposition to the report, of course, and say it is not complete, but this is not the time to debate what went on in the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was rising merely to take exception to something said by the hon. member tor St. Hyacinthe-Bagot which was inaccurate. The hon. member said there was a repetition of what took place last year. I just want to remind the house of what did happen last year. This has nothing to do with the proceedings of the committee reported in the motion now before us, but it has to do with the report. What happened last year was this. An attempt to investigate unemployment was defeated in the committee and the investigation took place in another place. I hope we are not going to have a repetition of that this year.



DIVORCE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-64 to establish the office of parliamentary proctor and to regulate taxation of costs.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.

Starred Questions


William Arnold Peters: The first purpose of this bill is to establish the office of a proctor to examine into parliamentary divorce proceedings. This is particularly essential because this house has passed a bill which eliminates all effective appeal procedures. If this bill were passed people would be able to appeal to the proctor, and I believe the other place is very interested in that.
Second, this bill would allow the Minister of Justice to refer appeals to the proctor rather than to his own department because, as he himself has said, constitutionally these appeals are probably not within his jurisdiction. Third, this bill would establish a joint committee of the two houses which would have the right to set up rates to be charged by the various people concerned with divorce petitions such as lawyers, parliamentary agents, detectives and others, with a view to lowering the cost of parliamentary divorce proceedings.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Miichell (for Mr. Har-die): 1.	Is cement imported from Japan being used in works undertaken for the federal government in the Yukon Territory?
2.	Is cement imported from Japan being used in works in the Yukon Territory undertaken under the federal winter works program?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sudbury?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minisier of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, could this question stand?


Mr. Chevrier:: We would like an answer to this question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the hon. member in whose name shall the question stand? It has been requested, but I would think-


CAMPBELLTON-CROSS POINT BRIDGE, N.B.   TENDERS FOR FEDERAL SHARE
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have tenders been called for the federal share of the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge?
2.	If so: (a) what was the name of each tenderer and the amount submitted? (b) to whom was the tender awarded?
3.	Is it expected that the work will be completed for the amount tendered?
4.	If not: (a) have any estimates been made of the extras to be paid to the contractor? (b) what amount has been paid to the contractor to date? (c) what amount remains to be paid when the work is completed?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that this question be made an order for return. The answer is long and complicated and contains a great many figures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


PERCENTAGE OF LABOUR FORCE UNEMPLOYED
Mr. Chevrier: In what years between 1945 and 1957 was the percentage of the Canadian labour force which was unemployed higher than in 1960?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The
answer to this question is as follows. The percentage of the Canadian labour force which was unemployed, based on annual averages, in the years 1946 to 1960, inclusive, follow:
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
3.4
2.2
2.3 2.8
3.6
2.4 2.9
3.0
4.6
4.4
3.4
4.6
7.1 6.0 7.0
The annual averages for 1945 are not available.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Sudbury moved for the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie).


Mr. Mitchell:: The hon. member for Mackenzie River is not here, and I do not know when he will be returning.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I asked that the question stand out of courtesy to the hon. member for Mackenzie River. I can give a reply if that is required.
The answer to question No. 1 is no.
The answer to question No. 2 is no.


UNEMPLOYED AS PERCENTAGE OF LABOUR FORCE,
Mr. Knowles: What was the number of unemployed for each year, 1936 to 1940 Inclusive, measured as an average percentage of the civilian labour force?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The
answer is as follows:
Canadian labour force surveys were commenced in November, 1945, and for earlier years the only labour force data available are estimates for the single month of June.

These estimates and the methods used in constructing them have been published in the dominion bureau of statistics reference paper No. 23 (revised), entitled "Canadian Labour Force Estimates 1931-1945". The civilian labour force for that period has been divided into persons with jobs and persons without jobs and seeking work. June estimates of persons without jobs and seeking work expressed as a percentage of June labour force estimates are shown following, for the years 1936 to 1940 inclusive.
The concept here covers only persons without jobs and seeking work, while the present definition includes persons on temporary lay-off of up to 30 days as well. It should be noted also that June is a month of high employment, so that the proportions of the civilian labour force without jobs and seeking work would undoubtedly be much higher in the winter months of these years.
Persons without jobs and seeking work as a percentage of the Canadian civilian
Year	labour force
1936	- June	
12.81937	-June	
9.11938	- June	
11.41939	- June	
11.41940	- June	
9.2
If the present definition of unemployment were used for this period the figures would be increased. It has been estimated that on a comparable basis the proportion of unemployed would then be as follows:
1936	-	June	
13.51937	-	June	
9.61938	-	June	
12.01939	-	June	
12.01940	-	June	
9.7


Paul Joseph James Martin: The figures are all for the month of June. That is a very inaccurate statement.


FEDERAL PRINTING DONE OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Is any printing done for the government outside Canada?
2.	If so, what, in each case, is the nature of the printing and the reason for having it done outside the country?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: The
answer to this question is as follows in so far as the Department of Public Printing and Stationery is concerned:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Reprints of articles in technical periodicals published outside Canada. Not available in Canada.
(b) Printing for local offices of the departments of external affairs, trade and commerce, citizenship and immigration, located outside Canada. For local use and distribution.
Starred Questions


MRS. JEANNE SAUVE
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	For how many years has Mrs. Jeanne Sauve, of Montreal, been employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French network) ?
2.	What is her annual salary, including her casual fees?
3.	Do the regulations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation permit a permanent employee of the said corporation to take part in official political meetings?
4.	If not, in what capacity has Mrs. Jeanne Sauve participated recently in the national Liberal party convention, held a short time ago at Ottawa?
(Translation):


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	Mrs. Jeanne Sauve is not on the staff of the corporation. She is a reporter and commentator whose services have been required now and then on the basis of one program at a time.
2.	She is not paid on a yearly basis but rather for each engagement. It is believed that it would be contrary to the public interest and that of the corporation to reveal the amounts paid to individuals, since it might hinder the corporation when entering into negotiations for the services of commentators and others. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish hon. members would contain their satisfaction or the reverse or whatever it is that is troubling them until the question has been answered.
(Translation):


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 3. No.
4. It is quite possible that Mrs. Sauve took part in the recent Liberal rally, but the corporation is not aware of the fact and does not know in what capacity Mrs. Sauve might have been there.
(Text):


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  DREDGING CONTRACTS
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Have all contracts dealing with the dredging of the St. Lawrence seaway, from the beginning up to 1957, been awarded to the lowest tenderer?
2.	If not, in what year have contracts been awarded to persons other than the lowest tenderer, and how many such contracts were awarded?
3.	What are the names of those contractors and for what amounts were such contracts so awarded?
4.	In each case, what was the difference in price, as compared to the lowest tenderer?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advise that the answer to part 1 is yes. In view of the answer to part 1, parts 2, 3 and 4 are not applicable.


C.B.C. SHORTWAVE BROADCASTING TO WESTERN EUROPE
Mr. Regier: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently arrived at a decision to reduce or abolish

Starred Questions
its short wave radio broadcasting in foreign languages to western Europe?
2.	If so, what are the reasons for this decision?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised the other day in the debate on the motion to set up a committee by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and I propose to deal with it in more detail, I hope, in a few minutes. However, in answer to the specific question I would say that the answer is yes, the international programs have been curtailed in western Europe in certain countries and so far as shortwave broadcasting is concerned, we are taking advantage of the modern facilities for rebroadcasting our own programs over the facilities which exist there. I am informed that we should be able to give better service than we have given heretofore.
The reason for this curtailment is the fact that we are expanding our facilities in Africa and also to cover the north country. As a result, it has been necessary to improve the service and possibly reduce the expenditure.


ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM, MINAKI, ONT.
Mr. Benidickson: Under the roads to resources program has a request been received for federal government participation in the construction of a road to serve the base metal properties situate near Werner lake, northwest of Minaki, Ontario, either (a) from the province of Manitoba involving a road outlet in a westerly direction; or (b) from the province of Ontario involving a road outlet in Ontario in a southeasterly direction?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The answer to the question is as follows:
The base metal properties near Werner lake lie in Ontario close to the Manitoba boundary. A road from the existing Manitoba road network to the Ontario boundary, leading toward Werner lake, is included in the roads to resources program for Manitoba. It is described in the agreement as the Oiseau lake road. It is my understanding that a low standard road constructed by the mining company now exists between the Werner lake mining area and the eastern terminus of the Oiseau lake road at the Ontario-Mani-toba boundary.
The province of Ontario at one time during the planning of its roads to resources program proposed two roads in the Werner lake mining area, but later dropped these proposals.


COLUMBIA RIVER POWER DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Webster: 1.	(a) What is the net amount of electrical power capacity, in kilowatts, to be made available for Canadian use in the Columbia river power treaty? (b) how much of this capacity will be

firm, that is, able to produce 8760 kilowatt hours? (c) what is the estimated annual load factor, compared with the planned installed capacity?
2.	(a) What will be the initial costs to Canada for the dams and plants? (b) what annual costs? (c) what are the estimated costs in terms of firm and secondary capacity? (d) what will be the cost to Canada of these kilowatt hours at 100 per cent load factor?
3.	What is Canada's (B.C.'s) ability to absorb this power?
4.	How much timber, agricultural, recreational or other potential income producing land will be flooded both in the Upper Columbia and the Kootenay?
5.	What are the anticipated revenues accruing to Canada from the United States?
6.	What annual rental fee for these installations will be paid to the British Columbia government? (As is the case in the province of Quebec).
7.	What is the accumulated cost to Canada to date, for the studies made around this prospective development?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that the answer to this question would be rather lengthy, I wonder whether the hon. member would be agreeable to having it made an order for return?


Mr. Webster:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



TAX RENTAL ARRANGEMENTS


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	What was the total amount of payments to the provincial governments plus deductions allowed from federal taxes under the tax rental arrangements in force in the fiscal year 1956-1957?
2.	What was the total amount of payments to the provincial governments plus reductions allowed of federal taxes under the tax-sharing legislation in the fiscal year 1957-1958?
3.	Was any part of the amount referred to in part 2 of this question provided by virtue of legislation enacted after June 21, 1957?
4.	What was the amount of payments to the provincial governments plus reductions allowed of federal taxes attributable to the additional 3 per cent of personal income tax allowed in the fiscal years 1958-1959 and 1959-1960?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: The answer is as follows:
1.	The total amount of payments to the provincial governments plus estimated deductions allowed from federal taxes under the tax rental arrangements in force in the fiscal year 1956-57 was $523.3 million.
2.	The total amount of payments to the provincial governments plus estimated reductions allowed of federal taxes under the taxsharing legislation in the fiscal year 1957-58 was $628.9 million.
3.	No.
4.	The amount of payments to the provincial governments plus estimated reductions allowed of federal taxes attributable to the additional 3 per cent of personal income tax

allowed was $55.9 million in the fiscal year
1958- 59, and $67.2 million in the fiscal year
1959-	60.



FINANCING OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Are unemployment insurance payments being financed at the present time through the sale of securities?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the losses incurred through such sales during the last six months?
3.	If securities are not being sold to finance unemployment insurance payments, are such payments being financed through advances by the government?
4.	If so, what is the total amount of these advances for the months of November, December, 1960 and January, 1961?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is as follows:
1.	In part.
2.	$2,032,744.80.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



RESOURCES FOR TOMORROW CONFERENCE

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the federal government, in planning for the resources for tomorrow conference advanced the view or argument that (a) the conference give consideration to such problems as cost-benefit analyses which would determine the priorities that resource development projects should be given: and/or (b) the conference should consider the question of foreign ownership of capital in the resource industries, in relation to the over-all source of capital for resource development and the best means to channel Canadian funds into such development?
2.	If so, what has been the result in terms of (a) background papers; (b) assignment of time at conference to these topics; (c) co-operation of the other participants?
3.	Have any departments of the government other than northern affairs been approached to advise the conference arrangers on the matters of cost-benefit analysis or foreign ownership of capital?
4.	H so, which departments and their branches?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The answer is as follows:
1.	(a) (b) In planning the resources for tomorrow conference, the conference secretariat is providing for consideration of such problems as cost-benefit analyses and capital requirements for resource development.
2.	One background paper is being prepared on benefit-cost analysis and another paper will deal with capital requirements. The provinces have all agreed that discussion of these matters will take place at the conference.
The answer to question 3 is that other departments have been consulted in the matter of cost-benefit analysis and capital requirements.
Starred Questions
The answer to question 4 is that the departments of agriculture, finance, fisheries, forestry, mines and technical surveys, national health and welfare, and trade and commerce have been consulted.



C.B.C. INFORMATION PROGRAMS  PRESS GALLERY PARTICIPATION

Mr. Brassard (Lapointe): What are the names of the press gallery members who have taken part, from January 1, to December 31, 1960, in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation information programs on the radio and television French network, such as Conference de Presse, Tribune libre, Nouvelles, Commentaires, and I.e Tour des Capitales?
(Translation):


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard), I am informed by the C.B.C. that the following members of the press gallery have taken part in programs on the French radio and television network during 1960: Miss Francoise Cote, Messrs. Clement Brown, Jean Grand-Landau, Langevin Cote, Marcel Gingras, Jean-Marc Poliquin, Amedee Gaudreault, Lorenzo Pare, Tim Creery, Philip Dean, Francois Mor-isset, Claude Paulette, Norman DePoe, Jean Charpentier and Gerard Morin.
(Text):



ESKASONI INDIAN RESERVE


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What arrangements are provided for high school students at the Eskasoni Indian reserve?
2.	Are these facilities adequate?
3.	Have any complaints been registered by the chief or band council of this reserve in regard to the school facilities provided for high school students?
4.	Have any complaints been registered by anyone in this regard?
5.	What financial arrangements are in effect for the tuition of these students?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question I is, the department provides transportation for students who live on the reserve to attend the provincially operated East Bay high school at McCormack. Students who cannot be accommodated at East Bay high school are given financial assistance to enable them to board close to other schools which they can attend.
The answer to question 2 is yes.
The answer to questions 3 and 4 is, no complaints from any source about the high school facilities for Indian pupils at Eskasoni have been received in the department.
The answer to question 5 is that this department assumes full responsibility for tuition, text books and supplies for all students

Orders for Returns
of the Eskasoni reserve who are attending high school. Where students have to be boarded away from home, assistance is provided in accordance with the need, with parents contributing to the extent of their financial ability.



KITWANGA INDIAN BAND


Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the Kitwanga Indian band communicated any allegations to the government or to any agency or branch thereof to the effect that persons other than Indians are or have been (a) unlawfully in occupation or possession of; (b) claiming adversely the right to occupation or possession of; or (c) trespassing upon a reserve since January 1, 1958?
2.	If so, has any information been exhibited in the Exchequer Court of Canada on behalf of the said band, what is the nature of the information, and the results thereof?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the first question is yes. In a letter to the superintendent of the Babine Indian agency dated June 4, 1959, the council of the Kitwanga band expressed concern about alleged trespass by the British Columbia department of highways on their reserves. A copy of this letter was included in correspondence provided in response to notice of motion No. 15 by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) of November 24, 1960.
The answer to the second question is no.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from any body requesting an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act to require all ships using great lakes or connecting rivers to be equipped with containers for sewage, oil, and other refuse, and to require ships to deposit such refuse in municipal disposal sewer systems?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received, and what reply was made?



CAMPBELLTON-CROSS POINT BRIDGE, N.B.   TENDERS FOR FEDERAL SHARE

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have tenders been called for the federal share of the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge?
2.	If so; (a) what was the name of each tenderer and the amount submitted? (b) to whom was the tender awarded?
3.	Is it expected that the work will be completed for the amount tendered?
4.	If not: (a) have any estimates been made of the extras to be paid to the contractor? (b) what amount has been paid to the contractor to date? (c) what amount remains to be paid when the work is completed?



FEDERAL PROPERTY, NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government of Canada or its agencies held or now hold ownership of real property within the cities of Port Arthur, Fort William and the municipalities of Neebing and Paipoonge?
2.	If so, has any of this property been sold or transferred to other ownership in 1959 or 1960?
3.	If so, to whom, to what purpose, at what cost or consideration?



COLUMBIA RIVER POWER DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Webster: 1.	(a) What is the net amount of electrical power capacity, in kilowatts, to be made available for Canadian use in the Columbia river power treaty?
(b)	how much of this capacity will be firm, that is, able to produce 8760 kilowatt hours? (c) what is the estimated annual load factor, compared with the planned installed capacity?
2.	(a) What will be the initial costs to Canada for the dams and plants? (b) what annual costs?
(c) what are the estimated costs in terms of firm and secondary capacity? (d) what will be the cost to Canada of these kilowatt hours at 100 per cent load factor?
3.	What is Canada's (B.C.'s) ability to absorb this power?
4.	How much timber, agricultural, recreational or other potential income producing land will be flooded both in the Upper Columbia and the Kootenay?
5.	What are the anticipated revenues accruing to Canada from the United States?
6.	What annual rental fee for these installations will be paid to the British Columbia government? (As is the case in the province of Quebec).
7.	What is the accumulated cost to Canada to date, for the studies made around this prospective development?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Finance and the national council of the public service of Canada, on the subject of the check off of union dues for federal prevailing rate employees, since January 1, 1960.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member is aware that in his absence on Monday, January 30 this motion was moved by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) on behalf of the hon. member for Essex East. In commenting upon it I said, as reported at page 1522 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, there are no correspondence, telegrams or documents within the terms of this motion, and even if there were there would no doubt be a question raised as to privilege. In view of the fact that there are none, no doubt the hon. member would be prepared to withdraw the motion on behalf of the hon. member for Essex East.

In his absence the motion was allowed to stand, but I suggest that as there are no documents within the terms of the motion the hon. member may wish to withdraw it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as there would be no purpose served by having the motion stand, obviously I will withdraw it.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DIRECTIVES, CIRCULARS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Roberge:
For a copy of all circulars, letters of instruction or directions issued by the unemployment insurance commission for the local offices since July 11, 1955 with respect to
(a)	the insurance coverage, and
(b)	the interpretation of the words "contract of service or apprenticeship" contained in section 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) has been approached to delete the words "letters of instruction or directions". This was explained to him. I understand he is agreeable to these words being deleted from the motion. If so, there is no objection to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The mover and seconder are agreeable that the words "letters of instruction or directions" be deleted. Is it agreed that the motion be amended as proposed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ADJUDICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Racine:
For a copy of all adjudications or decisions made by the unemployment insurance umpire since July 11, 1955, with respect to (a) the insurance coverage, and (b) the interpretation of the words "contract of service or apprenticeship" contained in section 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, except those containing opinions from counsel, on legal questions which were submitted to them by the Department of Justice, exchanged between the federal government, or any agency or department thereof and any other person, company or organization, since January 1, 1957, relating to the prosecution of the British Columbia Sugar Refining Company Limited et al, for alleged infractions of the Combines Investigation Act.
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is, I think, identical to a motion relating to the prosecution of Canadian Breweries Limited which was moved by
Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. gentleman on an earlier occasion after having been reworded as a result of discussion. I am accordingly prepared to accept this motion on the same basis as the earlier motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the explanation of the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask if he would make a report to the house on the circumstances surrounding the fire which destroyed the main building of the defence radar research laboratory in Prince Albert, and especially on the adequacy of fire protection equipment available to cope with this fire.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have a report here on the fire so far as it has been possible to secure one up to date. It is as follows.
The main building of the defence research board's Prince Albert radar laboratory was heavily damaged by fire in the early evening of January 31. The Prince Albert fire department was unable to extinguish the blaze, but was able to limit the damage to the transmitter area in the main building. The tower and antenna were not damaged. The major portion of the test equipment, receiving equipment and office furnishings were saved and removed to storage. A temporary office has been set up in the armoury at Prince Albert. No one was injured.
The Prince Albert radar laboratory is operated by the defence research telecommunications establishment, Ottawa. A senior officer of this organization and three other members of the staff are flying to Prince Albert this afternoon in order to carry on an official inquiry into the circumstances of the fire, which will be started immediately. The extent of the loss, of course, cannot be estimated at the present time, nor the length of time that the laboratory will be out of action.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the minister and ask him to inquire into the fact that, in accordance with the report that I have before me, there was no water in the vicinity of the radar station at the time.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: Naturally, all details and all information in connection with this fire will be brought out at the court of inquiry which is being instituted immediately.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the great public interest in the royal commission inquiring into the automobile industry, can the Prime Minister say whether receipt of the report of the royal commission will be much longer delayed?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have not had any communication with the royal commissioner during the last week or so. However, I will get in touch with him and let the house know.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Murphy (Lamblon West):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is partly based on a statement in this morning's Montreal Gazette by a Mrs. Koyer about whose husband the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement yesterday in reply to a question.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comments to make on the statement attributed to this lady. Furthermore, because there is some confusion among the public as the result of a difference in the spelling of this man's name, would the Prime Minister tell the house whether this is the same person about whom he was concerned last fall, and whether anything was done about the case at that time by the right hon. gentleman? Further, is he the person the Canadian-Polish alliance of Canada was concerned about, and has the right hon. gentleman been in touch with that organization concerning this case?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: In so far as the statement reported in the press is concerned, that Mrs. Koyer was surprised when advised by the press that her husband was to be released, I think I should say that I presume her statement was made as an exercise of feminine caution. She had known of his release, I think it was on Friday or Saturday, but naturally nothing was said about the release in case, in the


meantime, the situation might alter, or circumstances change the date of her husband's departure. Mrs. Koyer was fully aware of the fact that he had been released. Indeed, her representative in Ottawa saw me in this connection, I think it was on Tuesday morning, and notified me that she had been made aware that her husband was going to return to Canada.
In so far as the latter portion of the question is concerned, hon. members will recall that the hon. member for Lambton West brought this case to the attention of the house. Following his intervention in this connection the Canadian-Polish congress communicated with me and asked whether the government would do what it could to ensure that justice was done in this case. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, the Polish government received the representations which were made by this government, and in the course of events a decision was made which brought about the release of Mr. Koyer. The Canadian-Polish congress did a great deal in this connection, and I think the house will be most happy at the fact that the Polish government, after the representations had been made, acted as it did, indicating an attitude in the comity of nations which all of us hope to achieve.


REASSEMBLING OF SUPERVISORY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister comment on the radio report of this afternoon that efforts to reactivate the international supervisory commission in Laos have not succeeded, and would he care to comment also on the statement in the news report that India attributes this failure to the course taken by Canada?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the radio report in question, but it is quite inaccurate on both counts. The fact is that at the moment the Soviet union, which was one of the two co-chairmen of the 1954 Geneva conference, the other being the United Kingdom, is considering a draft letter to the government of India asking that government to name the chairman of the Laos commission and have him go to Laos in an endeavour to get the consent of the king of Laos to the return of the commission to that unhappy kingdom. If that consent is given by the king of Laos, then the commission will be reconvened at once. Canada is ready to name the Canadian commissioner.

Incidentally, Canada played quite a significant part in bringing about agreement on this draft letter. The reason for delay at the moment is that the Soviet government has not yet replied to the suggested letter put forward by the government of the United Kingdom, although the letter has been in the hands of the Soviet government for the matter of a week or ten days.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice based on a report in today's Ottawa Citizen to the effect that master keys to open any government mail boxes are in the hands of thieves. According to this report, police have been told the master keys were made in the Kingston penitentiary machine shop where mail boxes are repaired. My question is, has the minister any report to make to the house in connection with this matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do
not want to raise this formally as a point of order, but I must point out that at the moment none of us is in a position to vouch for the facts stated in the press report on the basis of which the hon. member asks his question. As I say, I do not raise that as a formal point of order, but I think both the question and my answer should be read in the light of the situation that the facts are not yet ascertained.
I can, however, say this at the moment. Last April and May, as a result of routine checks in both Kingston and New Westminster penitentiaries, it came to the attention of the officials of those institutions that there might be some irregularities in connection with the work shop and the printing shop, and certain materials were confiscated. In one case, publication of the prison paper was suspended for a period. This was as a result of routine investigations and checks by our own officials.
With regard to the full extent of the ring, if any, and the extent to which these materials may have been manufactured in penitentiary workshops, I have ordered a further full investigation and as soon as the facts are ascertained I shall advise the house.


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I direct a further question to the Postmaster General on the very same subject? On January 26 the Postmaster General was supposed to look into this matter and report in a couple of days, so he said. I do not think-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has so far been making a statement. If he has a question to ask, would he please ask it?


Azellus Denis: I would ask the Postmaster General whether he is in a position to comment on the progress of the investigation he was supposed to have made on this subject, including what has happened in the city of Ottawa.


Hon. W. M. Hamilion (Postmaster General):: Not at this time. The Minister of Justice and I have had certain discussions on the subject, and as soon as I have anything to report I shall be very glad to make a statement.


Mr, Denis:: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may rise to ask a new question but not a supplementary question, because the minister has in effect taken the question as notice. I will give the hon. member the floor if he wishes to ask a new question.


Azellus Denis: Will the Postmaster General reconsider the advisability of replacing these locks and keys, as I asked him to do on January 26, and this time by hiring honest people?


POSTAL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that it takes up to 26 days for old age pension cheques mailed in Victoria, B.C. to reach recipients resident in Britain, would the minister have inquiries made as to the reasons for the length of time taken with a view to improving this tramp-steamer time required for delivery?


William McLean Hamilton: This is hardly a question of immediate urgency, but I appreciate the hon. member having given me advance notice. Until now the Department of National Health and Welfare has sent these cheques by sea mail and surface mail, and since they may have to wait up to eight days for a ship to depart, and since the ship may then take up to 12 days to cross the ocean, it is obvious that this is not the fastest way in which these cheques could be sent. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, having been informed of this situation, has now decided that these cheques should be sent by air mail, and I congratulate him for his interest in the welfare of old age pensioners.
1824	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does not the minister consider, when old age pensioners have to wait 26 days for cheques to arrive, and then write to hon. members in Ottawa saying it is an urgent matter, that it is an urgent matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is seeking to debate what amounts to a point of order, and I suggest he should not pursue it.


ELECTRONIC TUBES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue as a follow up to a question I asked the minister a few weeks ago concerning the importation of Japanese-made receiving tubes. Is the minister aware that substantial quantities of Japanese receiving tubes are coming into Canada by being transshipped from San Francisco, thereby circumventing the voluntary embargo?
I have not given the minister notice of this question, but I do not expect an answer today. I have a considerable amount of evidence which I would be pleased to make available to the minister.


George Clyde Nowlan: I accept that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and will reply at the first opportunity.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES STATEMENT ON AIR CREW COMPLEMENT FOR NEW PLANES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the hon. member for Laurier inquired regarding the air crew complement on T.C.A.'s newer aircraft types. The number of air crew required on duty in the cockpit of a plane is subject to approval of the Department of Transport. It is determined in relation to such factors as aircraft handling characteristics, cockpit visibility, instrumentation and controls, general cockpit layout, and a number of other factors.
In the case of the DC-8, the department required that the cockpit complement be three persons. Two of these, of course, would be pilots, but it was left to T.C.A. to determine whether the third person should be a pilot or flight engineer. In fact I understand that T.C.A. is carrying a third pilot.
With regard to the newly acquired Vanguard aircraft, a thorough examination of the


requirements for flight crew has been completed. My technical officers have taken into consideration the representations made by the Canadian air line pilots' association, the views of the most experienced supervisory pilots of T.C.A. and reports from air carrier inspectors of the civil aviation branch of my department who have made in-flight investigations including all normal and emergency manoeuvres in the air.
As a result it has been concluded that this particular model of Vanguard aircraft, which has a cockpit especially designed to T.C.A. requirements, does not require three pilots, and that operational safety can be maintained with two on all routes on which T.C.A. intends operating the aircraft initially at least. Our examination of the problem, however, indicated that the qualifications for first officer or co-pilot established some years ago and requiring that a first officer hold a commercial pilot licence only did not visualize the introduction of aircraft of the size and performance of the Vanguard, and it has therefore been decided to require that first officers in Vanguard aircraft be technically trained to the standard of a fully qualified captain and that such first officers shall be required to hold a valid air line transport pilot licence. This increased requirement is designed to ensure that in the event of incapacitation of the captain, the aircraft will be in the charge of a person who is technically competent to act as captain in an emergency and will be in possession of the higher minimum experience requirements necessary to hold an air line transport pilot licence.


STATEMENT CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT OF PILOTS LAID OFF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Laurier also inquired regarding the pilots who had been given notice of lay-off by T.C.A., numbering approximately 100. At that time I assured the hon. member that every effort was being made to help this group.
I have since learned that approximately 14 of them have been employed by the Irish air line, Aer Lingus. I have also been informed that British European Airways has a very substantial requirement for new air crew this year which, indeed, may number over 100 before the year is out, and that they are at present interviewing those of the T.C.A. pilots who have been given notice and would be interested in employment by B.E.A. and whose services could be made available in time to meet B.E.A. requirements.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the comprehensive statement he has made on this subject matter. May I now ask a supplementary question. Could the minister give some idea as to how many of the 104 pilots are likely to find employment arising out of the first part of the statement the minister made?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry I cannot give an exact answer, but I shall inquire and report later.


INQUIRY AS TO PROMOTION OP USE BY ONTARIO HYDRO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys arising from a report in today's Toronto Star which purports to be Ontario hydro's reply to the request of the hon. member for Cape Breton South that Ontario hydro use 1 million tons of Nova Scotia coal a year and save the coal industry of Nova Scotia. Since Ontario hydro's reply appears to state that it has received no indication of the delivery cost of Nova Scotia coal and that it cannot ask its customers to subsidize the maritime coal industry, I should like to ask the minister whether his department and the dominion coal board have played any part at all in trying to assist the hon. member for Cape Breton South in his arrangements with Ontario hydro.


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minisler of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read that article but I shall take notice of it and inquire and reply on a later occasion.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EQUALIZATION FORMULA  CALCULATION OP GROWTH FACTOR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question about the letter he addressed on January 30 to the provincial premiers. Could the Prime Minister explain to the house the basis of calculation of the growth factor in the equalization formula?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question is one that arises out of a debate which the house has been having and has just concluded. It is a debating question rather than a question of information. If the hon. member disagrees with me I shall be glad to hear him, but that is the way it strikes me.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking to debate the matter at all. I am merely seeking information as to the formula. The debate, after all, was on an entirely different proposition, a proposition made last July.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I would suggest that since this letter was read into the record, surely a letter from the Prime Minister to the provincial premiers stands on its own feet. The letter is an important document. If there is some suggestion in it that a growth factor will be involved, it is in order to ask about this since the letter has no particular relationship to the debate aside from the fact that the minister quoted it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I attempt to assist Your Honour. Yesterday afternoon I asked the Prime Minister if he would give an answer as to the meaning of the phrase "growth factor" and provide us with some information which would indicate what was the basis the minister had in mind in the use of that phrase. Unfortunately the Prime Minister was not in his seat. I know he was occupied with important matters elsewhere. As he did not follow and close the debate, the right hon. gentleman did not take the opportunity of answering the questions that were put to him. An answer was given by his parliamentary secretary to the effect that a growth factor-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: I submit, Your Honour, that the question should be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate repeat his question in the light of the discussion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question was, would the Prime Minister explain the basis of the calculation of the growth factor in the equalization formula?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is properly one for the order paper. It asks for statistical information which members could not expect to be written on the minister's cuff. Furthermore, it is not one of those questions that has to be answered immediately because of its urgency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be most happy to put the question on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, at the urgent request of some of
1626	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the interested parties I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister giving consideration to the pleas of over 500 Prince Edward Islanders, including many Progressive Conservatives, who are interested in adopting some of the blue-blooded Sable island ponies?


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Transport has disappeared.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the minister, perhaps the hon. member would defer his question to another time.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: There is no urgency in the hon. member's question, and we will take it as notice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am prompted by the intervention of the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) to ask the Prime Minister if there is any truth in the rumour, which I think all of us will have regretted, that the hon. member has submitted his resignation as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it has always been so that after a person ceases to occupy a position feelings of deep regret are expressed. I thank the hon. gentleman for these words. I understand that the hon. member is about to tender or has tendered his resignation but that it has not yet been accepted.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his capacity as house leader. When can the house expect the names of the House of Commons members of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee on Indian affairs to be presented to the house so they may be communicated to the other place?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the house names the members of this committee in due course when the motion is called. Is the hon. member inquiring about the appointment of the members of the committee? If so, I suppose it is an inquiry about business that will be coming before the house. Perhaps the house leader might reply.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: When the report is ready it
will be presented to the house.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Have the two questions having to do with citizenship and origin been reframed and submitted to the cabinet, as indicated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce some days ago?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this whole question is being considered by the appropriate authorities, and when we are in a position to give a reply we will do so, not in piecemeal way but covering the entire situation.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question which perhaps should be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is not here. Will the questions be shown and submitted to the members by way of a letter from the director of the dominion bureau of statistics, in the same manner as they were on two previous occasions by the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that too will be answered in due course.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on January 30 last the hon. member for Kootenay West directed a question to the Minister of Labour with respect to whether the minister had received any complaints concerning the numbers of United States citizens admitted to Canada for employment in the construction of pipe lines in British Columbia.
This is the time of year when such complaints begin to come in and we have received a number, particularly from the leader of the C.C.F. group in the house and house leader of the New party, the hon. member for Assiniboia. I can assure him that we are examining each and every complaint that is brought to our attention, and that officials of the national employment service have orders to make strict application of regulations regarding the admission of workers. No one is being approved by the national employment service to do any job for which a qualified Canadian is available.
We are receiving excellent co-operation in this regard from the department of my collegue the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If the hon. member for Kootenay

West has any particular cases in mind in particular areas I would ask that he specify such cases, and I assure him that I will get a report in each case.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
That a special committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider radio and television broadcasting with power to examine and inquire into the matters herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon and to send for persons, papers and records;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary;
That the committee shall consist of 35 members;
That standing orders 66 and 67 be suspended in relation thereto.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, last Friday afternoon I started to reply to some of the matters which had been raised during this debate, and I had referred particularly to arguments advanced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who was the first speaker following the calling of the motion. I dealt with the point he raised as to the scope of the resolution and also the second matter with which he dealt and to which I replied at that time.
The hon. member also raised a question which he has brought up in every debate since I have been in this place, the argument that there should be a fixed parliamentary grant for the C.B.C. over a period of years rather than one vote by parliament each year. I have dealt with this matter on other occasions and I do not propose to spend much of the time of the committee this afternoon in repeating matters which I have stressed before. However, there are one or two obvious questions that arise in considering this matter. Over how long a period would such a fixed vote be scheduled? Would it be for one year, which is what we have now, or two, three or five years?
In theory an argument can be advanced for this procedure. If this nation had attained its full growth, if our territories were fully served by the C.B.C. or by private networks, if electronic devices had reached the climax of their development so there would not be revolutionary changes from year to year, if decisions had been made with respect to the institution of colour rather than black and white television; if all these matters were settled I think it would be fairly easy to 90205-6-103
Broadcasting
prognosticate the amount of money which should be allocated to the C.B.C. over a period of three, four or five years and vote it accordingly. But under the circumstances as they exist today, with the necessity of expanding our facilities in various areas in Canada, with the great electronic developments which are taking place and which render obsolescent equipment which the year before was thought to be adequate; with all the other questions with which the corporation has to deal, I suggest that this is not the time for us to fix an amount or even apply a formula of some kind applicable over a period of years.
How would one work out a formula? I have figures before me covering the years during which I have had some responsibility for the C.B.C. In the year 1957-58, the first year in which I had any responsibility, the corporation drew from the public treasury $41,600,000. The next year the amount was $51,900,000, an increase of $10,300,000. The next year there was an increase of only a little over $1 million, and the corporation drew down from the public treasury $52,300,000. The next year the amount was $60 million even, an increase of about $8 million. This year it is estimated the amount will be $70,418,000, an increase of about $10,400,000.
If one looks at commercial revenues, to which reference was made, one finds that in the year 1957-58 they amounted to $15,500,000;	1958-59,	$21,700,000;	1959-60,
$27,200,000. The next year there was an increase of only a few hundred thousand dollars and this year there will be a drop of about $300,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, one would need to have the wisdom of Solomon and the gift of prophecy of the late Joseph Howe, as well as a few other attributes that have not been given to mortal men, even in the Conservative government of this country, to make a reasonable prognostication or arrive at a formula upon which you could operate without putting the C.B.C. in a strait-jacket on the one hand or, from time to time, providing it with too much money. I say "too much money", but too much money is always a figure of speech so far as that corporation is concerned because there are many demands upon it, legitimate demands.
We remember when the taxation schedule was in effect and when the C.B.C. was in receipt of the excise tax on the sale of television sets. The sales of these sets were going up by leaps and bounds and there was a tremendous accretion to the treasury of the C.B.C., far more than its demands. When the demand for television sets levelled off the revenue of the C.B.C. fell off accordingly. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, therefore, that the

Broadcasting
proper procedure is the one which we are following at this time. I am not questioning for one moment the fact that the time may come when a change such as the one suggested by the Fowler commission should be made. It is easy to make these suggestions, but it is much more difficult to bring them into operation. I say at this time the policy of this government is to maintain the present system of parliamentary grants. This government is prepared to trust parliament. We believe in the supremacy of parliament, and that is the policy which is going to be followed in the immediate future.
What reason is there for suggesting a change? The only reason we have ever heard, Mr. Speaker, is the possibility of the corporation being under pressure from the government. The other day a suggestion was made that the corporation might be under pressure from the treasury board or it might be under executive pressure. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) quite properly said that it was just as necessary to avoid executive pressure on the C.B.C. as it was necessary and advisable to make sure that the judiciary of this country is not under executive pressure. I could not agree more with that position.
During the time that I have been reporting for the C.B.C. I have never heard any suggestion of the corporation being under executive pressure in any way, shape or form. I have seen no letters from my friends of the C.C.F. party pointing out any incident or complaining about it or referring to it. I have seen no letters from the official opposition with respect to such a matter. I have received no letters from anyone in Canada, pointing to any incident or any alleged incident which could possibly give suspicion to the fact that the corporation was under executive pressure. As a matter of fact, if one judges from the correspondence one gets, if there is any pressure it is not the pressure of the executive on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but it might be the pressure of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the executive. I think if there is any pressure anywhere, judging from the mail which I receive-I realize, of course, that we who are in the spotlight of politics are undoubtedly sensitive to political criticism and we have an allergy to this criticism which is not given to citizens further removed, and perhaps very fortunately further removed-


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the minister one question? Is he distinguishing between executive pressure in so far as finances are concerned or all executive pressure?
[Mr. Nowlan.l


George Clyde Nowlan: I am thinking of all kinds of executive pressure. As I was saying, judging from the mail which one receives, and that is perhaps one yardstick, there certainly has been an increasing abundance of it suggesting that there has been pressures on the executive by the corporation; that is not for me to comment upon. I have seen no evidence of it. As I have said, there is no evidence whatever. There has never been a thought of executive pressure on the C.B.C., and I am sure there never will be as long as this government is in power, or any other government, I would hope.
We are following this policy at the moment, and there will be no change in it in the immediate future. Certainly one would almost think, dealing at least with one phase, C.B.C.- Radio Canada, if there is any major pressure it is the political pressure that Radio Canada has exercised in certain ways in the area which it serves. There are abundant complaints with respect to that. It is not for me to measure them, but I do know that there has been a tremendously increasing volume during the four years in which I have had some responsibility for reporting to parliament for the C.B.C.
The hon. member also brought up the question of the commercial policy of the C.B.C. He regretted the increase in advertising. I must say that I can get very irritated at excessive advertising as well. I recall one program to which I wanted to listen and there was sufficient advertising, although well within the scope of the regulations laid down by the board of broadcast governors, to rather irritate me. I said to myself, I will never buy that product again under any circumstances. This was perhaps a human reaction to advertising in that form. Anyone using the C.B.C. naturally has to guard against any excessive commercialism because I am sure it will redound against the corporation using it. We try to safeguard that by regulation by the board of broadcast governors, and we judge by the experience of the C.B.C. itself which has looked after that matter for many years.
If one is worried about excessive commercialism he should read, as I do from time to time, letters from United States citizens who live just south of the Canadian border or from Canadians who have moved, for business reasons, to the United States and away from the C.B.C. If one reads these letters one finds these people never appreciated the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation until they got away from it. They never knew what commercialism meant; they never knew about the way in which the airways could be saturated by blatant commercialism until they were subjected to some programs far removed from

the C.B.C. I know that for one letter in this vein that I receive the corporation gets thousands which commend the corporation for their restraint. As the figures I read a while ago indicate, there has been a substantial volume of commercial programs on the C.B.C.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a very expensive corporation. It costs more to run the C.B.C. now than it ever cost in the old days to run the Canadian National Railways. It costs almost as much as it did to run Canada itself at one time. The people demand extensive and expensive services. Undoubtedly expenditures have risen, and I suspect they will continue to rise. A certain amount of commercial revenue, therefore, is not only advisable but necessary and is good business on the part of the C.B.C. management. My own opinion is that we have not reached the stage where we can say that commercialism on the C.B.C. is interfering with the primary responsibilities of the C.B.C., that is the dissemination of the type of program outlined at the inception of the corporation. I believe that the programs of this type are being maintained at the present time.
I think one could say this in general, that the corporation is working out a reasonable compromise between commercial necessities on the one hand and the maintenance of a broad national system on the other hand. I want to congratulate the corporation on doing that. These are the four points which were raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), I believe, and I have dealt with them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question at this point?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As far as I can recall, I did not raise any question about excessive commercialism. The question I raised was with regard to advertising on the C.B.C. of United States magazines at the time the government was professing to be interested in promoting Canadian magazines. I was wondering about the good judgment of accepting that particular kind of advertising as opposed to any other kind.


George Clyde Nowlan: That was the substance of the question the hon. member raised. I well remember it. I made some comment of another kind at that time. I think he did so or at least I understood him to do so and I think the text will show it, and he is perfectly within his rights in doing so. I am not suggesting for a moment that he should not do it. He was suggesting the possibility of commercial broadcasting being so extensive that we are weakening the corporation.
90205-6-103i
Broadcasting


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I did not.


George Clyde Nowlan: If the hon. gentleman did not do so, other hon. members did. That was why I referred to the matter.
Various hon. members dealt with various questions. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) suggested that all crown corporations, particularly the C.B.C., should be the responsibility of a minister. That is, of course, an argument that has been advanced in this house from time to time but it is one which thus far parliament has not seen fit to accept. Although there may be criticism of the C.B.C. as perhaps being an independent creature and therefore divorced from parliament, there can also be equal criticism if there should be any suggestion that the corporation should come under the control of any minister or any government; that is not the policy, at any rate of this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor of the opposition.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member also referred to the necessity of expanding our programs and services in the French language. I agree with him entirely on that matter. I am not going to take up the time of the house in dealing with what has been accomplished in that matter in the last four years. A great deal of work had been done prior to the present government coming into power. We have carried out that program and the French network has been greatly extended and that extension will be continued.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: The question is this. What steps are being taken to make adequate provision for French television stations? What I have in mind is this. I know of an instance- and I do not want to blame anyone for it- in which a licence was granted on the distinct understanding that a certain period of the day would be devoted to French television programs. The station was sold and that was stopped entirely. I spoke to the new owner. He told me that this would not be continued because no programs were being sponsored by the French speaking people in that area. Surely that should not be the reason for determining that matter. It would strike me that this is not the private domain of any corporation, but that it is rather the public domain. That consideration prompts me to ask the minister what provision is being made in those cases? I agree with him that a tremendous impetus has been given both in the C.B.C. and in private stations with reference to-

Broadcasting


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions I should like to ask and a number
of comments I should like to make as the minister's speech goes along. It seems to me that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is taking undue advantage of his request for permission to ask a question. I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you could see that the rules are enforced?


Mr. Speaker:: As long as the hon. member who has the floor was not restive I did not think I should intervene. However, the fact is that the hon. member for Laurier made a short speech.


Lionel Chevrier: I apologize to the house, Mr. Speaker, but not to the hon. member who has interrupted me. I do not apologize to him because he is often a sinner in that respect. I now come back to the question and ask the minister whether he would answer it?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment. I should be obliged to get advice from the C.B.C. with respect to it. I would suggest, with deference, that this is a question which should be explored in the committee and I presume it will be explored there. If the hon. member wants me to get him any information from the C.B.C. prior to that time I shall be glad to do so.
I might say this in passing, although I am not sure that it is in order. One perhaps should not discuss what one may have in mind with respect to legislation to deal with the French network. However, I think this is a fair comment to make. The C.B.C. today-and I am speaking now very roughtly-or Radio Canada covers about one third of the operations of the corporation. It serves the whole province of Quebec and part of New Brunswick and has now gone as far west as Manitoba. The number of directors, who were allocated on a regional basis, in my opinion do not give adequate representation on the board of directors to Radio Canada. One cannot, of course, and one should not by legislation designate directors from a certain group, a certain region, or a certain race. I have considered this matter and the committee may consider it. I have considered recommending to parliament this year the enlargement of the board of directors. Some amendments to the act will have to be brought forward. I think I am prepared to recommend that the number of directors be enlarged by a reasonable number so as to give additional representation on the board to Radio Canada and those on the French network.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) dealt at some length and very forcibly

with what he said was an infringement of free speech having regard to the fact that certain programs-and I think they were Canadian citizen programs or Canadian forum programs-were interfered with or were in some way controlled by the board of broadcast governors. This is a matter which I think can be dealt with much more effectively in the committee itself than by me at this time. The circumstances to which the hon. member refers are well known. There are rules for controversial programs, where the time is usually used as a forum. The understanding is that all sides should be represented in those discussions.
In the case of an individual program or an individual station, if all sides are not represented and one side fails to show up or something of that kind, the station management can go ahead with what they have, with the one side represented, provided that they undertake to give the other side an opportunity to be heard at some future time so that both sides of the issue can be presented. But when you have a program emanating from a station and then that program is taped and sent off the next day or the day after to a score or more stations across the country which are not under this responsibility, then the taped program presents only one side of the question. That is in general the problem with which the board of broadcast governors is confronted. It is that phase for which they have made regulations and it is that phase which they would like very much to have examined by the committee when the committee has an opportunity to meet.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) dealt at some length with the international service and the fact that the C.B.C. is curtailing its shortwave broadcast to western Europe. Because of the fact that this matter was the subject of a starred question it was necessary for me to deal with it in part this afternoon. However, because the hon. member for Essex East stressed it to such a great extent, I want to deal with it again here for a moment or two.
As I have already said, it is true that the international service to western Europe has been curtailed in certain languages. This is not the first time that has happened. It was curtailed to a marked degree or a substantial degree anyway five years ago and it has been curtailed still further within the last few months.
As I pointed out, there are two economic reasons for this. The north country is developing. At one time it was served by radio by the armed forces and other facilities. Those facilities have been breaking down, they are obsolete and worn out, and it is necessary now

to service the whole north country with adequate radio coverage. In order to do that we are using some of the facilities at Sackville for beaming radio programs into the north country. Another point is that it is very desirable that we get our programs into that highly developing country.
Africa, is a country where there is not such an extensive knowledge of Canada, and our existing service to Africa is being extended substantially. It is, of course, being done on the advice of the Department of External Affairs, which has always worked in close co-operation with the C.B.C. in handling these shortwave programs.
We are maintaining our services to eastern Europe on our shortwave facilities. Throughout there has been some comment about jamming, and so on, and it is interesting to note that reports indicate a substantial decrease in this jamming during the last few months. In Poland there is apparently no jamming now. There have been programs exchanged between Russian and Canadian stations, largely on athletic events, and there is a move on foot now to broadcast programs which might be emanating from Russia.
The old concept of the shortwave service has to be changed in this modern age, and I am told by the officials of the C.B.C. that because of tape recording and modern techniques a better program service will be available now to western Europe.
The hon. member spoke about losing trade because we did not have a shortwave service here. I am sure that if our exporters had to depend entirely on the C.B.C. for the development of trade they would not feel like paying taxes to maintain it on that ground alone.
In western Europe we have common ideas. We have an exchange of ideas and people back and forth at all times. Movement is free and their facilities are available to us for our recordings, programs, and so on. I am told we can give a better Canadian service by using these new facilities than we were ever able to give in the past by the conventional shortwave service which has been used for so many years.
There is a wealth of information, of course, which is available by recording, radio, television, and so forth. In that connection I have a memo here which I think sets forth this point very authoritatively. I am not going to bore the house with the figures of how many people have been served, and so on. There is always some question about this, but in fact there is a very substantial listening audience in eastern Europe for Canadian programs. It is because of this information which we have received that we are maintaining shortwave service to eastern Europe.
Broadcasting
I am told that as a result of the better reception made possible by local rebroadcasts of Canadian programs it is expected that the actual number of listeners in the countries concerned will remain substantially the same and might even increase. Thus the decision to eliminate shortwave broadcasts to these five countries would not appear to affect Canadian interests and influence there adversely. Indeed, improvements may occur and considerable savings in public funds will have resulted.
The memo goes on to say:
I should perhaps mention at this point that the Voice of America, the United States counterpart of the C.B.C.-I.S., does not broadcast by shortwave to the five countries in their national languages.
That is a memo which, frankly, I received from the Department of External Affairs on their reaction to this situation.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), with his usual interesting, forceful manner, covered various facets of the C.B.C.'s operations. I do not intend to deal with all his points. I think I have already dealt with some of them. He raised a very interesting point, of course, and it was something which was raised impliedly by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in referring to the advertising of United States publications: Just how far does a Canadian national organization go, which is created for the purpose of developing a Canadian culture and an essential Canadianism? Just how far does it go in emphasizing United States' institutions in broadcasts and telecasts? The hon. member pointed out-as was very obvious at that particular time-the telecast which had been made on the occasion of the inauguration of President Kennedy and repeated, I believe, over national systems here. He wondered what contribution that would make to the development of Canadianism and whether Canadian political figures would receive the same treatment in the United States.
It is a very interesting question. One sometimes wonders what treatment Canadian political figures do receive. I received a letter a while ago from Quebec complaining of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) did not appear on Radio Canada news the night of his Christmas telecast. I made inquiries respecting that matter and was informed that the Prime Minister was a political figure, and since his telecast had appeared at noon it was not thought proper that he should appear again that night, on the news, and Mr. Pearson's Christmas message was carried instead. It is to be noted that the President of the United States appeared three times on the occasion of giving his address on the state of the union. So there is a very interesting field there about which no one has the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister at this point, but it is necessary to point out that the hon. gentleman's time has expired. However, if the house would agree to allowing him to continue-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps I could have two or three more minutes in order to complete my remarks. There has been a pattern established in this country whereby radio and television licences have been granted in the past to interests which also control newspapers and one can hardly change that policy in midstream because if we were to do that I can imagine many newspapers in this country which would have to divorce themselves from radio and television. I think, sometimes, it would be a very good thing for this government if there had been no applications from newspapers, because then there would have been no resentment or criticism by those newspapers who have applied for television stations but failed to get them and who therefore felt that this government was, perhaps, more subject to criticism than would otherwise have been the case. In any event we have this system in Canada today as a result of which, according to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), the people of Toronto will have available two television stations, the C.B.C. station manned by so many personnel of the Toronto Star that he wonders how that newspaper is ever produced; and if the hon. member expects the other television station to be manned by personnel of the Telegram there will be a great opportunity for a newspaper to do very well in Toronto.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) raised a question about service. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) raised various questions with which, I think, I have dealt in part. He also stressed the necessity of extending television in French speaking areas of Saskatchewan. As I have

said, I hope and believe that this will be done.
I agree entirely with the hon. member that it should be done.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Pugh) brought up the question of low power relays. Similar questions asking for additional services were raised in respect of Grand Falls, Humber-St. George's, Halifax, and other areas, and in addition there were other hon. members who did not raise the question in the house but who wrote me notes and reminded me that they had been after me many times before in this connection. They hoped they would not be overlooked because they had not taken up the time of the house on this occasion. Among them was the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp) who has written to me with particular reference to Tisdale.
Then, of course, there was the perennial question raised by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Forbes) with respect to the extension of radio and television to northern Manitoba. This is a problem with which he has confronted me ever since I took up my present position. It is a very difficult problem. The government of Manitoba is servicing that country with a telephone system. It is going to cost a lot of money to extend television and broadcasting services to the north country. It will have to be done, and I am hoping some way can be worked out whereby with some co-operation we can reduce the cost of those services, because after all the C.B.C. has got to work within certain limits. If it costs, say, $50 per family to provide a service in one area while in another area, equally remote, a service can be provided for $15, hon. members can see the type of problem the C.B.C. is facing in this connection. We have discussed this question time and time again and I am hopeful, and quite confident, that some solution can be worked out.
I think I have covered, though inadequately and hastily, the points raised during the two days when this matter has been before the house. I appreciate the manner in which hon. members have brought these matters to my attention and I hope the committee will have a fruitful session. It will have several months of work before it. Even if we can get out of here by May 1, which we are all hoping to do, it will have three months in which to operate, and I am sure it will be able to make a report which will prove very helpful.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not wish to interrupt the minister, but before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think one of the hon. gentleman's remarks may have left
Customs Tariff
the implication that I was associated with an objection to President Kennedy's broadcast. I want to make it clear that I am very much in favour of having President Kennedy on the C.B.C.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to make the point very clear. There was no objection to Mr. Kennedy's broadcast. The more the better. But it does raise the issue of what we do with our own politicians. I do not like to be linked with the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, but we seem to have the same point of view on this.


George Clyde Nowlan: If I left the impression that either of the hon. members was complaining about President Kennedy's appearance, then I would correct it at once. No one did. But, as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said, it was brought up as an example of how we handle this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

[Stage Direction]
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the customs tariff and to provide:
1.	That the said act be amended by adding thereto immediately after section 2 thereof the following section:
"2A. (1) For the purposes of this act, goods shall be deemed to be of a "class or kind" made or produced in Canada if
(a)	in the case of goods other than goods custom-made to specifications, goods of approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada; and
(b)	in the case of goods custom-made to specifications adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time.
(2)	Notwithstanding subsection (1), goods other than goods custom-made to specifications shall be deemed not to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless at least ten per cent of the normal Canadian consumption of goods of the same or approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada.
(3)	The decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the following matters:
(a)	the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described in subsection (2), and
(b)	whether goods are custom-made to specifications, and whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time."
2.	That subsections (9) and (10) of section 6 of the said act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(9) For the purposes of this act, notwithstanding section 2A, goods may be deemed to be of a class or kind not made or produced in Canada where similar goods made or produced in Canada are not offered for sale to the ordinary agencies of wholesale or retail distribution or are not offered to all purchasers on equal terms under like conditions, having regard to the custom and usage of trade."
[Stage Direction]
Customs Tariff
3.	That subsection (4) of section 6A of the said act be repealed.
4.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the 21st day of December, 1960, and to have applied to all goods mentioned therein imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
Donald Methuen Fleming: The resolution now before the committee contemplates certain amendments to the Customs Tariff. The text of the proposed amendments is actually contained in the resolution itself. This follows the practice of the house in giving to hon. members in precise legislative form the text of amendments to such statutes as the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act. The practice, of course, with respect to amendments to the Income Tax Act is somewhat different. There it is the practice to state the gist or effect of certain amendments. But in the case of statutes such as those I have mentioned the practice is to set forth in the resolution the precise terms of the proposed amendments. That is true in the case before us.
The proposed amendment is to be found in Hansard of December 20 at page 1017. In the budget speech on that date I dealt at some length with the situation out of which the proposed amendment has arisen and the proposed effect of the change in legislation. I do not wish to cover again the ground I sought to traverse in my remarks that night. They are to be found at pages 1013 and 1014 of Hansard of December 20. Perhaps in this part of my opening remarks I might just touch briefly on some of the features of the proposed amendment.
The anti-dumping provisions of our customs laws date from the year 1904. They were introduced by the late Mr. Fielding. It was in the year 1907 that legislation was first introduced which makes use of the expressions "class or kind made in Canada" or "class or kind not made in Canada" or similar phrases embodying the class or kind principle. This again was a measure introduced by Mr. Fielding.
I have already said in general terms that originally this legislation embodying the class or kind concept was intended to be given a broad interpretation, and it was in fact given a broad interpretation until about a decade ago. I think it is an incontestable fact that the intention was that the reduction given off the ordinary rates of customs duty in the case of a class or kind of goods not made or produced in Canada was intended to apply to goods not directly competitive with those in Canada.
[Mr. Nowlan.l
As I have said that was the kind of interpretation that was always given to these phrases in the law until about the year 1950. In the earlier period the differences in the rates applicable on the one hand to goods of a class or kind made or produced in Canada and on the other hand of a class or kind not made or produced in Canada was not as great as latterly, but in these more recent times with a growing difference in these rates the incentive has been very greatly multiplied on the part of importers or on the part of producers in other countries who wish to export into the Canadian market to bring their goods within the definition of those of a class or kind not made in Canada.
In other words, the incentive in this regard has grown considerably. This has had the effect of increasing the litigation which has marked the period of the last decade. Indeed one can say that in the period up to the last decade the administration of the terms to which I referred was fair and workable but in the decades since-I am speaking now particularly of the 1950's-the litigation has greatly expanded. Indeed there has been what might fairly be called a welter of litigation. This is attributable to several factors, one of which I have mentioned, namely the fact that the incentives are very much larger now with a considerable widening of the difference in the rates applicable as between the two types, and on the other hand the fact that there has been a growing volume of imports. This has also had the effect of increasing the volume of litigation.
Another factor of considerable importance is that a trend developed which I think it not unfair to say gathered a fair amount of momentum in the course of all the litigation, a trend of departing from the original interpretation. The result of this has been an erosion of the original interpretation given to these expressions in the Customs Tariff and accompanying that erosion a lessening of the benefits enjoyed by Canadian producers from the Customs Tariff, a measure of protection of their competitive position that parliament certainly intended to give them and which they enjoyed under the recognized interpretations down to the period of the last decade.
I have already said something on the subject of the relationship of GATT to this question. The committee is aware that a number of the rates on various commodities which are affected by this phrase are bound under GATT, but the definitions contained in the present statute and order in council are not bound. They were not the subject of negotiation. The effect of the trend of interpretation of the definitions in the Customs Tariff in the past decade has been to give a windfall benefit to the producers of other countries

who are seeking markets in Canada, something that was not expected on the part of the negotiators who represented their countries in the various GATT negotiations, beginning with 1947.
Nowadays-and of course GATT has continuously emphasized this fact-when countries are in a position to reduce their tariffs they seek compensating trading advantages in the markets of other countries, particularly of countries which are interested in obtaining a reduction of the tariffs of the first country. These become very important in the course of negotiations when it becomes a matter of making exchanges of trading advantages.
The result of this course of decision in Canada over the past decade relating to words used in our own Customs Tariff has been to give to the exporters of other countries an advantage in our market for which there has been no corresponding concession made by those countries in their markets in favour of the exports of Canadian goods into those markets. That is why I refer to this as a windfall. It was something that was not to be expected on their part when the GATT agreements were first negotiated or in the early renewals. It was not paid for and it was not a matter of agreement at all. It has been a windfall benefit.
We do not think that under modern conditions a windfall benefit should be given to other countries unless Canada obtains corresponding benefits in their markets in the course of negotiations under the auspices of GATT. That has been the approach to this question in recent years and it is a sound approach.
The number of times these important phrases appear in the Customs Tariff is quite extraordinary. If you comb through the provisions of the Customs Tariff in detail you will find that the expression "of a class or kind not made in Canada" appears in 70 items and you have similar appearances of corresponding expressions such as "of a kind not produced in Canada", "of a class or kind not produced in Canada", "of a class or kind not manufactured in Canada", and so on. There are half a dozen other similar expressions appearing. There are many items in the Customs Tariff in which this expression or one similar to it appears.
What of the meaning of these words? I think it is common ground that in legislating with reference to business transactions it is desirable that the legislation be clear, that those who are entering into important business transactions under the provisions of the law should know what will be the consequences, particularly in relation to financial 90205-6-104
Customs Tariff
results. There have been definitions in the present section 6 of the Customs Tariff. They are subsections 9 and 10 of section 6. The present amendment would propose to repeal these two clauses, substitute new clauses and introduce certain new provisions. The new provisions are set forth in the resolution.
The effect will be to set up two types of goods under the broad category that we are discussing. They are goods that are made up according to specifications, which may be called custom made, and then there is the broad class of goods not of the custom-made type. In the amendment proposed we have two classes of goods, one described as goods "custom made to specifications" and the other described as "other than goods custom made to specifications", etc.
Definitions are provided in the amendment which it is believed will be of very great assistance in clarifying the law. In that way they will be of assistance to those who are entering into business transactions involving imports. These amendments will also have the desirable effect of restoring to the interpretation and administration of these provisions what was fully accepted until a decade ago when this process that I have described as one of erosion set in. In other words, we are proposing to restore to this concept the well recognized and established meaning that this concept and these phrases bore from 1907 right down to the beginning of the last decade.
In relation to this matter of definition there is an important point. I will enlarge on it in dealing with the proposed definitions as applied to the two classes of goods referred to in the new amendment. The statute, in the clauses to which I have referred, authorized the governor in council to establish the percentage of the normal Canadian consumption and to fix such percentage in defining whether goods are or are not of a class or kind made in Canada, and it was by an order in council that these powers were exercised. The order in council is P.C. 1618 of July 2, 1936. It provides that "articles shall not be deemed to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless a quantity sufficient to supply 10 per centum of the normal Canadian consumption of such article is so made or produced".
In other words, there has never been a statutory provision defining the percentage of consumption in the Canadian market that must be produced in Canada before the article in question shall be deemed to be of a class or kind made in Canada. That has been a definition established by order in council in existence now for some 25 years and passed under the authority of the statute. One of the results of the amendment now submitted to the house is that this definition will no longer

Customs Tariff
rest upon an order in council. We are proposing that the house should legislate completely on this subject without the necessity of any recourse to the fixing of percentages by order in council.
With respect, I invite the committee to approach this question from the point of view of dealing with the amendments according to their terms and, I think, the clear sort of definition that is proposed in the amendments. There is no occasion whatever for exaggerated statements in relation to the purpose of this amendment. Since the resolution was introduced into the house on the evening of December 20 there have been statements describing it as a measure of high protectionism. It is nothing of the kind. The effect of this measure is to restore the concept that was accepted and, indeed, not challenged in this country up till a decade ago, a well established and unchallenged concept. The fact is that there has been an erosion of that concept since and that producers in other countries have taken advantage of that erosion and have been shipping into the Canadian market more than they would otherwise have been entitled to at these very low rates applicable in the case of goods of a class or kind not produced in Canada, and they have done so without Canadians obtaining any compensating advantage in the markets of other countries.
This is the point, and it is the essential point that the government has in mind in bringing this legislation before the house. There is no justification or warrant whatever for describing this, as it has been described in certain newspapers, as a measure of high protectionism. It is nothing of the kind.
If it will be of assistance to the committee I should like to draw attention now to what I believe to be the essential features of the amendment now proposed. Let me just recapitulate them briefly in the hope that it may be of assistance to the committee in the discussion to follow.
First, for the first time the legislation will contain a positive definition instead of merely a negative limitation. Thus the negative formulation that "goods shall not be deemed to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless" would be replaced in respect of the entire subsection by the positive formulation that "goods shall be deemed to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada if".
Since a positive definition is being introduced it is appropriate that it be placed in conjunction with all other definitions in the Customs Tariff, that is to say, immediately after section 2, and that is why it is proposed to insert now a new section numbered 2A. The positive formulation may be expected to 
eliminate the uncertainties which might have surrounded a mere limitation although in fact, in the past, words with a limiting effect have in general been applied by the department and the courts as if they were a definition.
Second. I have already drawn attention to the two kinds of goods, goods that are custom-made according to specifications and goods that are not custom-made according to specifications. Perhaps this latter group could be called, for simplicity's sake, "shelf goods". They are goods of a kind that may often be found upon shelves, in inventories or in stock.
Now, I have pointed out the difference that is drawn in the proposed amendment between these two types of goods. I point out that in regard to shelf goods we have a provision to be found in 2A (1) (a):
in the case of goods other than goods custom-made to specifications, goods of approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada;
That is the definition or interpretation to be given to the words "of a class or kind made or produced in Canada". Then, in clause (2) of the amendment we have these words:
Notwithstanding subsection (1), goods other than goods custom-made to specifications shall be deemed not to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless at least 10 per cent of the normal Canadian consumption of goods of the same or approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the second observation I wish to make in regard to shelf goods. The word "approximately" is now inserted. This is designed to restore the breadth and flexibility of the whole concept which has been gradually narrowed down by the decisions of the tariff board, supported by the courts, reversing the rulings of the department, departmental rulings that were in accord with the interpretation well established up until a decade ago. It should be noted that in many cases these departmental rulings were in effect, as I have indicated, at the time the tariff items involved in "class or kind" were bound by GATT.


George James McIlraith: May I clarify one point before the minister leaves it? When he says the interpretation was well established up to a decade ago, do I understand him to suggest that the tariff board and the courts changed their decisions or that appeals were taken to these bodies and their decisions differed from the interpretations of the departmental authorities?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; I think if the hon. member will examine the record of what I have just been saying he will see that the changes have been brought about in the

narrowing of the concept, what I have described as a process of erosion that has oc-cured as a result of the decisions of the tariff board on appeals and decisions of the courts.
The third observation, Mr. Chairman, is on the 10 per cent requirement which also relates to shelf goods. This requirement has been transferred from the present order in council to the basic legislation and, at the same time, it is provided that "Canadian consumption" is to be "as determined by the minister". This change is designed to reduce uncertainty and eliminate profitless litigation.
In so far as this matter of the jurisdiction conferred upon the minister is concerned, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding in some of the newspaper articles that I have seen on this subject. It has been pretended that this clause is designed to destroy the jurisdiction of the tariff board and to vest in the Minister of National Revenue arbitrary powers. That is a far-fetched, indeed fantastic, misinterpretation of the language of the proposed amendment.


Mr. Hellyer:: That is what it says.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what it says. It is quite evident the hon. member for Trinity either has not read the clause or has not read it with any degree of adult understanding.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is what it says in English. I do not know in what language you are reading it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Evidently the hon. member does not know how to read English.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly you don't know how to read it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like now to refer to the fact that the regular appeal procedure of the tariff board will remain open to those concerned with regard to (a) whether or not imported goods are of approximately the same class or kind as goods made in Canada; (b) the determination of the amount of Canadian production and (c) whether or not the number of articles manufactured in Canada does, in fact, constitute a minimum of 10 per cent of the normal Canadian production.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And that is not arbitrary power?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this illustrates how completely befuddled the hon. member for Trinity is. I am talking about the jurisdiction of the tariff board and the hon. member, lost in his usual fog, is talking about the arbitrary powers of the minister. I am not talking about the powers of the minister 90205-6-104J
Customs Tariff
at all, I am talking about the right of appeal to the tariff board, where the door is open. Perhaps the hon. member, until he comes out of his fog, had better remain silent.


George James McIlraith: The minister had better
address his remarks to the bill. It is a very important bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is an important one, which can be better understood without these gratuitous interruptions by the hon. member for Trinity who has not read the bill.


George James McIlraith: These interruptions are
brought about by your gratuitous references on the basis of personality.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member for Ottawa West address his efforts to restraining his colleague from making these gratuitous and irrelevant interruptions?


George James McIlraith: No, he is trying to keep the minister in order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister does not need this gratuitous assistance from the member for Ottawa West.


George James McIlraith: He could do with a model of some sort.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He will not be looking to the hon. member for Ottawa West for any helpful instructions. He will take them from other sources, but not from the hon. member for Ottawa West who has been holding forth in his sepulchral tones.
Now, the fourth observation I should like to make on this subject in the hope that it will be of assistance to the committee is this: For the first time an attempt is made to grapple with the problem of "custom-made goods". There has been a good deal of discussion over the years, Mr. Chairman, in regard to this matter, and I think it is quite clear that it never was intended by any government that introduced words of this kind that custom-made goods should automatically be ruled as not made in Canada. However, the rulings of the courts have tended in that direction.
In the field of custom-made goods, each product is either unique or virtually unique. Accordingly, it has been found necessary, in the provisions relating to this field, to confer upon the Minister of National Revenue a discretion that is broader than was necessary with respect to mass-produced or "shelf" goods. This is the reason, and a very complete reason, in my mind, for the proposed provision with respect to custom-made goods put forward here. We have in the proposed amendment the following provision:
For the purposes of this act, goods shall be deemed to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada if-

Customs Tariff
I shall now refer to clause (b):
-in the case of goods custom-made to specifications, adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time.
This definition with respect to goods custom-made according to specifications will undoubtedly bring the position much closer to the original intention, to the established understanding and meaning of this legislation of a decade ago and will stop the process of erosion that has occurred in this period.


Mr. McMillan:: What does the minister mean by "a reasonable period of time"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a matter of fair interpretation. It will depend upon the nature of the particular goods. Naturally every one of these cases will have to be examined on its own circumstances, and regard will have to be had for all the circumstances such as the length of time it takes to bring a particular article into production. It is a matter in which regard will have to be had for the business practice in this situation and I think the hon. member will appreciate what may be regarded as a reasonable time will vary from one type of goods to another. Something might depend also in such situations on the extent to which order books were filled up.


Mr. Pugh:: Will the minister accept another question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


David Vaughan Pugh: This thought just runs in my mind. Would you be obliged to have a firm offer from a producer in Canada to produce that type of goods; I refer to a firm offer from a producer in Canada indicating that he is going to produce the item or could produce it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. It is not necessary that it be a firm offer. However, in any situation that arises calling for an interpretation in this matter, regard obviously will be had for all of the circumstances that concern it. That does not necessitate a firm offer in the sense of a binding legal obligation. But when the question arises for determination with respect to one of these custom-made goods, it will be the duty of those who are given that responsibility under the legislation to determine whether, having regard to all the circumstances, adequate facilities exist in Canada for economic production of that item of goods within a reasonable period of time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question, for the purpose of clarification?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister explain how you could make any determination of whether there was any demand for custom-made goods before you had a customer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that we are still speaking of custom-made goods?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not shelf goods?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All right. With regard to custom-made goods, suppose the situation arises in respect of a Canadian importer or, let us say, of a manufacturer in another country who wishes to know what will be the tariff rate applicable to his goods if they are here in Canada. A ruling is asked for. It may be asked for in advance of actual entry. If entry occurs, of course, a decision must be made as of that time. That decision is important because the results can be substantial having regard to the wide difference in the applicable tariff rates. Regard will be had to capacity and that will involve a determination in Canada as to whether the facilities exist. It does not mean that goods of precisely the same type and manufactured according to precisely the same specifications must have been made previously. There are numerous situations in which goods that are similar in nature have been produced but not of precisely the same kind as those that are specified in the particular case. It is in this area that some rigid and hard decisions have been made in the past.
I am prepared to contend that it never was the intention of parliament and never was the intention of governments that introduced legislation of this kind down through the years since 1907 that where the capacity exists, it should be a precise requirement of the legislation that the particular item of goods should actually have been made before it shall be deemed to have been of a class or kind made in Canada.


The Chairman:: Order. I must inform the committee that the minister's time has expired. I understand there is unanimous consent that he continue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think I have completed my general remarks on the introduction of the bill. I realize there will be many questions. It is for the committee to decide whether they wish to ask questions now or later. I am here to serve the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was simply trying to elucidate the last point made by the minister. I think perhaps I did not make my

question sufficiently specific. However, taking the answer the minister gave, I understand that if an importer of some article that is not now an article that is made currently in Canada-that is, a custom-made article- goes to the department and asks for a ruling the department would then have an onus put on it to search around Canada in order to find out whether there was capacity to make this article before giving an answer as to what the duty was. However, a great many people order things, although perhaps not a custom-made article of the kind the minister has in mind, and they do not go and ask the department for a ruling in advance. Indeed, I am not sure whether the department would give it. What I should like to know is what the modus operandi is here? I think we should all like to know this because we cannot form any judgment about this matter without knowing it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think there is one circumstance bearing on this question that will help to answer the question of the hon. member. What we are dealing with here are, broadly speaking, not small articles.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are dealing here largely with large machines and indeed often machinery systems. In this situation I cannot imagine these people going very far in incurring substantial obligation without assuring themselves of where they stand with respect to the custom duties that are likely to be imposed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly the point that I should like the minister to follow up. He is asking us to make what is in effect a new law with respect to custom-made goods, a law that has not existed previously. We should know how it is going to operate. Suppose there is no manufacturer for these custom-made goods. There may be a potential manufacturer but there is no actual manufacturer now. Every time someone comes to the Minister of National Revenue to make an inquiry about wanting to import some new kind of huge bulldozer from some other country, must the Minister of National Revenue refuse to answer what the duty on it will be until he searches from one end of Canada to the other in order to find out whether there is a potential manufacturer here and perhaps get by a construction season and put the work off to another year? That is the kind of practical problem that will arise in this case. As the minister so correctly stated, these are big machines or perhaps systems of machinery, where a big capital investment is going to take place,
Customs Tariff
and people are not going to want to wait six months while this question is being determined.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member may be unconsciously exaggerating the difficulty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are not here in the realm in which there are great numbers of producers involved. There are perhaps not more than about eight or ten manufacturers of heavy machinery or large items of machinery in Canada. Hence the difficulty that the hon. member foresees in those proportions is not anticipated.
I made brief reference to the subject when I spoke on December 20 and drew attention to the fact that there is confidential information often available in these cases that enables the department to make rulings and to obtain what is required in the way of data from the producers who are concerned.
May I make just this one final observation. This matter is of interest not only with respect to the customs duties under the 70 particular items of the Customs Tariff to which I have referred but it is also of considerable importance in the administration of the anti-dumping laws. If hon. members will have regard to section 6, subsection 1 of the Customs Tariff they will see that dumping duties apply only in respect of goods of a class or kind made or produced in Canada. Accordingly all class or kind determinations are strictly relevant in this connection. The anti-dumping laws cannot be invoked unless what is concerned are goods of a class or kind made or produced in Canada.
In so far, therefore, as the new legislation results in "made" determinations in borderline cases, this will have the effect of enabling dumping to be dealt with by the application of the anti-dumping duty.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of our debate we have an opportunity to elicit further information. It is true that the minister did describe his intentions in his budget speech of December 20 to an extent, but I was rather disappointed in some of the imponderables in connection with these proposals. We have had very little additional information given to us this afternoon beyond what was described when the minister spoke on this subject on December 20.
At this stage there are a number of questions that naturally arise because the minister's statement to date is lacking in the necessary information. The minister indicated that in an amendment of this type to the Customs Tariff Act the language that we find

Customs Tariff
in the resolution will compare very closely with the language that will appear at the next stage oi debate when we have before us the amending bill.
If that is so, and we accept that, I think all of us who have read the language in the resolution that is now before us will see very quickly that, far from finding here something in the nature of preciseness, in some of the essential factors we find the very opposite.
The hon. member for Welland raised a very pertinent question, which I have here in my notes and which arouses my curiosity in connection with the language of this resolution. It refers to the language and what is a "reasonable period of time".
Before we proceed from the resolution stage to discussion of the bill I think the minister should give us a much better explanation than he has so far provided as to what is a reasonable period of time. I felt that the explanation was very foggy indeed and it certainly did not satisfy the curiosity that I have as to the minister's intention in respect to a reasonable period of time.
Then I would draw the attention of the committee to another phrase which is certainly also very vague indeed. I think we must have some further explanation of the intention of the ministry in regard to it. I refer to the phrase in the very same section. What is going to be, in the opinion of the minister, "economic production"? That is indeed a very wide and broad phrase and would require considerable clarification.
While the minister recited perhaps six or seven times, simply as a statement, that there has been within the last decade, by reason of litigation, what he called an erosion of what was the original intent with respect to this item in the Customs Tariff, I was disappointed that he did not give any cases to illustrate what he had in mind in this respect. I think that as the debate continues we should hear from the minister a citation of some of the litigation and hearings before the tariff board and in the superior courts about which he complains and which he says are largely responsible for his decision to bring in this amending legislation.
I felt that the minister certainly skirted around section 3 of this proposed resolution when I think he used the phrase "The proposed legislation will give a broader discretion to the Minister of National Revenue in so far as decisions under this section are concerned". It is certainly not a matter of broader discretion. One simply has to read the language. It says here:
The decision of the minister shall be final with respect to-

This, that and the other thing. That certainly was the understatement of the day, when the minister attempted to brush aside this arbitrary power by saying that there is a broader discretion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has unintentionally quite misunderstood my statement. I was drawing attention to the fact that the power of decision conferred on the minister applies in the one class of goods but not the other. I was dealing with the two classes of goods, one the custom-made class of goods and the other the shelf class of goods.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, one has only to read the language here, which is very plain:
The decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the following matters:
(a)	the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described in subsection (2), and
(b)	whether goods are custom-made to specifications, and whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time.
When one reads that language one recognizes immediately that this is certainly not a matter of broader discretion, which was the mild description given by the minister, but the conferring upon the minister of arbitrary powers of very substantial consequence indeed, an absolute discretion in these matters which are matters of fact. I take it that the minister, with powers of this kind, could perhaps in his discretion make decisions that are contrary to fact, such as would be determined and have been determined hitherto by litigation by an appeal on the part of the taxpayer to our courts, our tariff board and the like.
That, with respect to these matters, is a right that is being taken away from the taxpayer. This, instead of providing preciseness and something definite, I suggest will actually bring in uncertainty on the part of the business community when they find that they are not going to be able to rely on a history of judicial decision. These matters are of utmost importance in their cost of production, because, as the minister said, most of these items of the custom-made type are exceedingly expensive and are perhaps a basic factor in the cost of production and in manufacturing of other goods that have to be produced in competition on a world wide basis.
I am satisfied that when these matters are not likely to be decided by rule of law and the recording of decisions of the tariff board and our courts, and depend, on the contrary, on the decision of a minister, many businessmen facing this uncertainty will perhaps

decide that they cannot go ahead with their plans because of the vagueness and uncertainties of this law.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will hear from the minister further about some of the definitions of these broad phrases that are contained in the language of this resolution.
I refer to a reasonable period of time, economic production, adequate facilities and the like. I do not think we can give adequate consideration to a discussion of the intent in this legislation until we get from the Minister of Finance or from the Minister of National Revenue who will be making the decisions under this statute a further explanation of what their real intentions are under the broad provision which is contained in this resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I could deal with one or two of the points which have been raised. I believe we are to rise in a minute or two-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the custom is that a representative-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was assuming the hon. member for Assiniboia would not wish to speak when there are only about one and a half minutes remaining before we rise.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to speak for that minute and a half.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. member for Assiniboia continues, may I ask a question-


Hazen Robert Argue: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister made a misstatement and I should like to have some clarification.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I have the right to speak. In the minute and a half or minute at my disposal I should like to say that while I listened with great care to the spokesman of the liberal party I was unable to determine in my mind from his statement the exact position which the Liberal party takes on this question. I should like to say for the C.C.F. new party that we feel that this resolution should not be embarked upon, that this is a return to Tory protectionism and a continuation of the policy followed by this government since it took office of carrying forward one increase in tariffs after another. The government in embarking on this undesirable policy is in my judgment working against the modern trend. The government, in going forward with this kind of policy, is using old weapons, old means which have invariably led to increased tariff barriers and retaliation in the past and to impediments to an expanding international trade.
National Oil Policy
This government has, of course, been very free with its advice to other nations. After certain discussions had taken place overseas in December with regard to common market procedures the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time made it perfectly clear that Canada was prepared to retaliate if Britain went into the common market. I wonder if the government is retaliating in advance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is utterly silly. There is no retaliation here at all, and if the hon. member does not know that he does not understand much about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister's skin is very thin.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not. It is quite normal, but I wish something could be said about the way the hon. member uses his tongue to say things which are utterly at variance with the facts.
Progress reported.


STATEMENT ON NATIONAL OIL POLICY
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As the house is aware, the government has been giving active consideration to the situation of the oil industry in Canada for some time. It has had the benefit of a constructive report from the royal commission on energy, and the national energy board has studied intensively the changing conditions which have characterized the period since the commission reported.
I wish to inform the house that the government has decided upon a national oil policy which is, briefly, to achieve target levels of production of oil, including natural gas liquids, which will be set from time to time, and which will be designed to reach approximately 800,000 barrels a day in 1963. This objective for 1963 can be achieved by the industry on an economically sound basis, and will be approximately as high as the figure which would be achieved if the Montreal pipe line were to be constructed.
The production target level for the first part of this period will be an average of 640,000 barrels a day for the year 1961, with a level of not less than 625,000 barrels a day to be attained by mid-year. This compares with an average production of 550,000 barrels a day in 1960.
These targets are to be reached by increased use of Canadian oil in domestic markets west of the Ottawa valley, and by some expansion of export sales largely in existing markets which can be reached through established pipe lines.

National Oil Policy
The growth in domestic use is predicated in particular on substituting in Ontario markets west of the Ottawa valley products refined from Canadian crude for these now supplied from foreign crude. This will require in Ontario the displacement of the present small imports of crude, and a progressive reduction in imports of foreign products and transfers of products refined from foreign crudes in Montreal. Refining capacity in Ontario will have to be increased over the period so that by 1963 capacity is sufficient to enable the Ontario market west of the Ottawa valley to be supplied substantially from Canadian crudes.
The government program for expanded production of oil will be on a voluntary basis, but importers of crude and petroleum products will be required to report their imports monthly from January 1, 1961 in order to permit the national energy board to continue to assess the situation.
The increase in production of Canadian oil reflected in these target levels will of course require a sincere effort and full co-operation by all segments of the industry. The government desires that this effort and co-operation will be forthcoming without formal regulation.
The government has instructed the national energy board to evaluate the contribution of individual companies to the general efforts of the industry, as well as to report periodically on the progress of the program. If this progress suggests that voluntary efforts are not producing the results anticipated, then the government will take whatever further steps the circumstances may require to ensure the success of its policy, including the proclamation of section 87 of the National Energy Board Act, which provides for the regulation of imports and exports of oil.
In developing its policy the government has full regard to the interests of other countries which might be affected by its decisions. Its present program is designed to achieve the national objectives with the least possible disruption of normal trade patterns.
The increase in exports which is integral to the government's program is wholly consistent with the growth of sales of Canadian oil contemplated when exemption from United States oil import controls was established, under which Canadian oil is relatively free to move into the United States by overland means of transportation.
The progressive displacement of imported crudes and products in the Ontario market is considered to be fully consistent with the public announcement of the government of Venezuela that it considers that its oils should not reach these markets in the interior of Canada.
[Mr. Hees.l
The United States government has been made aware of the Canadian government's plans in view of the close connections between the oil economies of the two countries. Other interested governments are being informed today of the contents of the announcement which I have just made.


Lionel Chevrier: The house has listened with care and I am sure a great deal of interest to this statement which on the face of it appears to be an important statement emanating from the government with reference to the oil industry. After having looked at it carefully and at first blush this appears to us to be not a statement of national policy but only a repetition of what was contained in the recommendations of the Borden commission set up some few years ago.
As all hon. members know, the Borden commission presented to the governor in council in July of 1957 a special report on oil. The announcement today in our opinion is a faithful reproduction of the Borden commission's recommendations as they can be found at page 6-32 of the second report of the royal commission on energy. I should like to place on the record a brief summary of the recommendations of that commission:
To summarize, the commission recommends:
(1)	That it be national policy
(a)	to encourage and permit the export of Canadian crude oil without licence, and
(b)	to ensure the continued use, consistent with the interests of the Canadian consumer of petroleum products, of Canadian crude in refinery areas of Canada accessible to it by existing pipe line facilities, thereby increasing the market outlets for such crude oil.
(2)	That to implement such national policy the oil companies concerned take steps as soon as possible to displace, with products refined from Canadian crude, a volume of petroleum products now moving into the Ontario market from the Montreal refinery area equivalent to approximately 50,000 barrels daily of crude oil.
(3)	That to implement further such national policy the Canadian oil industry take vigorous and imaginative action very substantially to enlarge its markets in the United States on a basis that will ensure the continuing participation of Canadian crude in these markets and in their expansion.
(4)	That no government action should at this time be taken to ensure the construction of pipe line facilities to transport Canadian crude oil to the Montreal refinery area and that before any such action is taken an opportunity be given to the oil industry to demonstrate that it can find markets elsewhere in Canada and the United States sufficient to sustain a healthy and vigorous Canadian oil industry with the incentive for further exploration and development.
(5)	That, if government action should become necessary to implement the national policy we have recommended above, imports of crude oil be made subject to licence and that such licences be denied (except for some good and sufficient reason) to refiners in a refinery area in Canada where adequate pipe line facilities exist for the transportation of Canadian crude oil to meet the demands of such refinery area, but that crude oil

imported through a pipe line or by motor carrier or rail and produced in the country irom which such crude oil is imported be exempted from such licensing.
I ask the house to find the difference between the statement just made by the minister and the recommendations of the Borden commission which I have just read. I submit there is no difference in essence, between the two and I challenge the minister to point out any material difference between the recommendations I have just read and the statement he has made.
Of course, we will examine very carefully the statement that has been made and in due course and from time to time as the opportunity arises, we will make known our position on this policy. After listening to the statement, the only conclusion to be derived is that (1) it took the government two years to take cognizance of the report of the royal commission and (2) it took the government the two-year period preceding that to submit this matter to a royal commission on energy.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the statement put before the house today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) is undoubtedly an important one for a lagging Canadian oil industry. I believe that this announcement of policy by the government holds out the hope of renewed activity, renewed production and an increase in markets for our Canadian oil industry.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) appeared to be critical of the government's policy because he alleged it followed the royal commission's report. The report is in much greater detail than this statement. I know it follows it to some extent but I can see no reason to criticize the government for having gone forward with certain recommendations put before the country by this royal commission.
Business of the House
For many years hon. members of this group have advocated a national energy policy. We hope this is a step in the development of such a greatly needed national energy policy. I tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that the type of policy enunciated today to deal with a difficult trade situation as far as the oil industry is concerned in the opinion of our group is a preferable one to that of increases in tariffs as a means of dealing with this problem.
We, of course, will have to study the target figures. We will concern ourselves with how this policy is implemented, with the allocation of markets among Canadian companies, and so on. We will have comments to make on this aspect of the policy as it unfolds.
It is well known to hon. members of this house that the international oil industry is in general an international cartel and to the extent that this policy will encourage production in Canada by independent oil companies we believe it will be a welcome policy in the opinion of Canadians. We like to see any government adopt the kind of social planning necessary to the welfare of ou! country.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow and Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will carry on with the budget resolutions. If they are concluded, we will take the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on Friday.


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

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	For each of the radioactivity sampling stations in Canada, what was for each month since July 1, 1959, the level of each radioactive material so found in (a) milk; (b) soil; (c) rainfall; (d) air; (e) water; (f) bones; (g) cereal grains by type; (h) salt water fish; (i) fresh water fish; (j) vegetables by type?
2.	Have any steps been taken to measure the levels and effects of such radioactive materials in the human body and, if so, what are the results of such steps and studies?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1. (a) Table attached.
(b)	Soil-Initial samples collected during summer of 1960; analyses not yet completed.
(c)	Table attached.
(d)	Table attached.
(e)	Water-No measurements made.
(f)	Bones-(Measurement of strontium-90 content in micro micro curies per gram calcium). Human bone samples are made available to the Department of National
Health and Welfare through the co-operation of pathologists across Canada. Samples are not received at specific intervals nor from specific sampling stations. Results for samples collected since July 1959 will not be available until the publication of the next annual report.
(g)	(i) Cereal grains-wheat-(measurement of strontium-90 content in micro micro curies per gram calcium). The Department of National Health and Welfare and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited jointly operate a wheat monitoring program. To date measurements have been made in the laboratories of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The initial report on this program is in preparation, (ii) Cereal grains other than wheat-No measurements made.
(h)	Salt water fish-No measurements made.
(i)	Fresh water fish-No measurements made.
(j)	Vegetables-No measurements made.
2. A total body monitoring facility is being
constructed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the laboratory to house this facility will be ready in February. A preliminary period for the installation and calibration of instruments will be necessary before the equipment is ready for operation.
1. (a). MILK-Measurement of strontium-90 content in micro micro curies per gram calcium
Sampling Pebiod
1959	1960
Station	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.Calgary	
21.8	16.6	16.2	15.2	13.5	16.6	15.6	15.1	15.0	14.3	14.8	9.3	9.4	8.2	8.8Charlottetown	
N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.Chicoutimi	
20.0	19.6	12.5	15.5	18.6	19.3	16.1	19.5	18.1	18.8	19.3	N.S.	N.S.	13.2	10.4E. Florenceville	
19.6	16.6	12.7	14.2	21.0	N.S.	N.S.	19.0	15.5	16.9	19.9	12.0	12.1	14.0	10.6Edmonton	
12.4	15.5	12.6	14.4	13.2	16.1	16.5	16.6	14.1	15.9	10.3	4.0	10.4	7.8	7.5Granby	
18.5	14.1	15.9	11.1	16.0	15.0	20.2	26.8	19.4	19.3	21.9	11.7	18.3	12.3	10.3La Durantaye	
26.1	14.0	9.9	12.8	19.4	18.9	19.9	19.5	21.7	20.5	19.1	12.2	18.6	11.5	10.2London	
8.9	4.8	3.1	4.9	6.4	7.2	5.1	6.3	7.5	6.9	5.2	4.5	4.8	3.8	3.4Megan tic	
27.3	16.1	15.3	16.6	14.8	21.5	20.1	23.1	23.4	24.7	26.2	16.7	17.6	16.7	13.6Moncton	
33.5	18.8	15.7	13.1	19.2	17.0	13.6	11.6	13.0	13.0	10.7	11.0	7.9	12.0	9.6Ottawa	
13.3	6.4	5.7	5.9	8.2	10.4	10.7	10.9	9.8	9.2	7.7	5.3	5.5	3.7	3.8Saskatoon	
14.9	13.6	10.7	11.3	N.S.	13.7	10.1	12.1	13.2	13.3	15.6	6.4	6.5	6.4	5.8Sussex	
24.2	14.5	16.2	13.5	19.0	16.8	18.6	18.6	13.0	14.7	13.8	9.9	11.4	11.6	9.0Vancouver	
23.8	14.9	16.3	18.4	18.0	22.8	17.2	17.6	18.7	14.3	13.4	13.6	11.9	9.7	9.0Walkerton	
5.7	4.9	3.4	5.0	7.6	7.3	5.1	5.6	6.2	5.4	5.8	5.4	4.7	3.4	3.3Winnipeg	
9.5	12.2	10.2	12.2	13.6	13.9	N.S.	N.S.	12.0	12.0	11.5	N.S.	6.7	5.8	6.3Average	
18.6	13.5	11.8	12.3	14.9	15.5	14.5	15.9	14.7	14.6	14.3	9.4	10.4	9.3	8.1
Questions
1 (c). RAINFALL-Measurement of total fission product beta activity expressed as millicuries deposited per square mile
Sampling Peeiod
Station	1959	1960	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.Aklavik	-	11.2	2.8	3.3	2.0	1.69	N.S.	4.18	3.52	4.78	2.36	6.8	4.7	1.9Calgary	-	3.6	3.2	3.3	12.8	4.12	2.84	N.S.	12.40	12.70	27.00	7.7	4.1	2.2Chatham, N.B	
-	-	-	-	-	-	0.07	9.25	6.80	7.02	9.40	15.20	N.S.	11.4	5.5Coral Harbour	
-	21.9	N.S.	6.5	6.6	3.0	3.85	3.92	2.16	3.20	7.50	5.03	10.0	6.7	3.6Edmonton	
-	34.3	N.S.	16.3	2.2	4.3	2.70	3.04	3.44	N.S.	16.10	12.60	12.5	10.7	5.3Fredericton	
-	-	-	-	-	-	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	13.20	12.70	12.6	4.9	2.7Ft. Churchill	
-	-	-	-	-	5.1	4.73	1.35	2.70	6.10	6.78	11.30	8.7	6.8	3.3Ft. William	
-	-	-	-	3.5	3.4	0.68	3.17	4.19	9.50	9.92	12.90	16.0	9.7	2.4Goose Bay	
-	-	-	-	-	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	12.10	9.7	8.3	6.3Kapuskasing	
-	-	10.0	7.6	5.8	1.0	3.92	1.48	7.43	13.10	13.10	7.05	8.2	7.1	4.4Montreal	
-	-	7.6	9.0	9.4	8.9	5.94	13.00	11.41	14.00	13.90	12.30	10.1	4.4	4.1Moosonee	
-	28.8	10.0	10.6	8.2	2.2	4.12	3.98	6.55	13.90	10.40	7.57	12.2	5.8	5.0Ottawa	
-	10.7	12.0	6.7	5.1	15.1	6.61	7.90	7.29	11.00	17.50	10.60	7.9	2.5	5.7Regina	
-	-	12.1	6.9	33.5	2.7	2.90	21.30	9.52	9.40	11.00	22.80	8.1	7.5	2.0Resolute	
-	4.3	8.4	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	1.49	12.80	1.19	4.0	2.5	N.S.Saskatoon	
-	-	-	-	-	1.0	3.04	1.01	4.79	6.26	13.20	13.20	4.5	4.8	2.1Shearwater, N.S	
-	-	-	-	-	-	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	4.10	10.30	12.10	11.0	5.0	1.3Torbay	
-	14.6	12.8	13.2	9.1	N.S.	11.4	11.88	9.05	3.19	4.57	9.26	4.5	5.3	5.5Toronto	
-	-	10.4	1.1	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	6.95	3.31	16.50	21.90	15.20	11.4	5.8	3.3Vancouver	
-	-	-	-	8.0	11.7	7.22	7.42	8.78	6.50	13.20	5.65	0.07	7.0	2.1Whitehorse	
-	-	7.5	1.9	5.3	2.3	4.25	N.S.	1.35	4.25	5.41	6.31	5.3	4.9	4.1Windsor	
-	-	6.8	6.7	6.1	3.4	5.40	7.63	3.71	5.22	11.60	15.50	6.3	8.0	2.1Winnipeg	
-	-	3.4	8.3	7.6	6.5	2.02	6.62	5.81	7.30	8.61	13.80	5.8	6.9	4.2Yellowknife	
-	-	5.7	8.5	3.9	1.1	2.02	0.40	1.69	0.86	6.92	3.73	8.9	3.8	1.6Average	
-	19.1	8.7	7.3	7.6	5.1	4.03	6.28	5.48	7.56	11.08	11.14	8.4	6.2	3.71646	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
1 (d). AIR-Measurement of total fission product beta activity in daily air filter samples, averaged for month and expressed in disintegrations per minute per cubic meter of air sample.
Sampling Period
1959	I960
Station	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oet.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.Aklavik	
0.90	0.50	0.54	0.25	0.37	0.27	0.28	0.37	0.42	0.50	0.37	0.27	0.22	0.11	0.09Calgary	-	-	0.11	0.32	0.37	0.32	0.32	0.36	0.54	0.60	0.51	0.49	0.48	0.34	0.23Chatham N.B	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.23	0.38	0.37	0.33	0.43	0.39	0.29	0.19Coral Harbour	-	0.76	0.35	0.26	0.27	0.37	0.25	0.33	0.39	0.53	0.33	0.35	0.28	-	0.08Edmonton	
1.79	0.92	0.51	0.34	0.30	0.32	0.28	0.36	0.48	0.55	0.40	0.38	0.41	0.28	0.20Fredericton	
-	-	-	-	-	- .	-	-	-	0.26	0.32	0.36	0.30	0.25	0.15Ft. Churchill	... -	-	-	-	-	0.27	0.26	0.48	0.42	0.68	0.35	0.32	0.23	0.14	0.11Ft. William	
-	-	-	-	0.34	0.27	0.27	0.45	0.56	0.40	0.49	0.45	0.37	0.30	0.17Goose Bay	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Kapuskasing	
-	0.65	0.40	0.31	0.34	-	-	0.46	0.49	0.50	0.61	0.52	0.36	0.29	0.15Montreal	-	-	0.62	0.30	0.30	-	-	0.25	0.37	0.40	0.41	0.57	0.39	0.32	0.19Moosonee	-	0.58	0.46	0.30	0.26	0.28	0.25	0.42	0.44	0.44	0.42	0.42	0.36	0.22	0.15Ottawa	
2.33	1.52	1.17	0.29	0.34	0.28	0.23	0.25	0.69	0.37	0.54	0.56	0.41	0.35	0.22Regina	-	1.13	0.55	0.30	0.29	0.26	0.33	0.41	0.44	0.45	0.53	0.46	0.36	0.28	0.18Resolute	
0.75	0.53	0.31	0.22	0.33	0.28	0.22	0.47	0.39	0.50	0.31	0.18	0.26	0.10	0.06Saskatoon	-	-	-	-	0.25	0.29	0.31	0.43	0.46	0.54	0.54	0.50	0.43	0.29	0.20Shearwater N.S	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.36	0.35	0.31	0.30	0.28	0.17Torbay Nfld	-	-	-	-	0.31	0.21	0.20	0.20	0.28	0.28	0.24	0.33	0.29	0.19	0.14Toronto	-	-	0.82	0.40	0.32	-	-	0.31	0.45	0.48	0.44	0.58	0.40	0.35	0.24Vancouver	-	-	-	0.27	0.27	0.20	0.18	0.35	0.47	0.33	0.23	0.26	0.26	0.13	0.19Whitehorse	-	-	0.28	0.32	0.22	0.16	0.26	0.50	0.38	0.34	0.38	0.18	0.18	0.19	0.10Windsor	-	-	0.54	0.35	0.35	0.29	0.31	0.37	0.52	0.57	0.50	0.64	0.45	0.37	0.25Winnipeg	-	-	0.46	0.33	0.35	0.26	0.34	0.51	0.54	0.40	0.53	0.45	0.41	0.30	0.18Yellowknife	1.04	0.50	0.28	0.33	0.29	0.36	0.49	0.42	0.51	0.46	0.47	0.29	0.19	0.11
Questions

Questions
RADIOACTIVE LEVELS ABROAD	3. YeS.

Question No. 61-Mr. Howard:
1.	Since January 1, 1960, has any information been received from other countries regarding the levels of radioactive material in those countries?
2.	If so, what are the names of the countries and the levels of radioactive material so found?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister
of National Health and Welfare):
1.	Yes.
2.	The Argentine, Austria, Denmark, England, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
A wide range of radioactive substances originating in radioactive fall-out are measured in these countries in samples of air, rainfall, soil, milk, wheat and food products and human bone collected and analysed at different times. Single copies of the reports are kept on the files of the Department of National Health and Welfare. As there are a great many such reports, they are not reprinted here but are available within the department for study by interested members of parliament.


MR. DACOUGNA  DEPORTATION TO FRENCH GUIANA
Mr. Argue: 1.	Did Mr. Dacougna of French Guiana seek entry to Canada, at Montreal, in September, 1960?
2.	If so, was he affianced to Miss Louise Bolduc of Coaticook, P.Q.?
3.	Was his passport in order?
4.	Was he in possession of return transportation to French Guiana via Trans-Canada Air Lines?
5.	Was he refused admission to Canada?
6.	Was he put in gaol, and, if so, for how long?
7.	Was he subsequently deported and, if so, on what grounds?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes; by correspondence only. The couple had never met.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	Mr. Dacougna was held in the custody of the provincial police from 2.40 a.m. to 8.10 a.m. on September 23, 1960, and from 9.05 p.m. on October 6, 1960, to 4.55 a.m. on October 7, 1960. Since there are no separate immigration detention facilities at Montreal airport or in Montreal itself, it was necessary to make use of the local goal facilities for these periods of overnight detention.
7.	Yes; the order for deportation was issued under section 5(p) of the Immigration Act.


PROVINCIAL WINTER WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Racine: How many winter works projects, in each province, have been accepted by the federal government (a) during 1959-60; (b) since the beginning of the 1960-61 period to date?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
Winter works projects accepted by the federal government:
	1959-60	1960-61 (to Jan. 27/61)
British Columbia ....	. 406	569Alberta 	. 373	616Saskatchewan 	. 392	631Manitoba 	. 91	219Ontario 	. 761	1,347Quebec 	. 336	1,489New Brunswick 	. 70	156Nova Scotia 	. 113	90Prince Edward Island .	. 1	13Newfoundland 	. 48	105Yukon Territory 	. 2	1Northwest Territories .	. 1	-Indian Bands 	. 8	51Totals	2,602	5,287
Thursday, February 2, 1961