1961-03-07

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Mandziuk.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of United Kingdom authorities the Canadian government has agreed to an arrangement whereby a battalion of the British army will train for the month of July at Camp Gage-town, New Brunswick. The name of the battalion designated for this training exercise will be announced by the United Kingdom. Royal Air Force transport command will airlift the battalion in Britannia aircraft to and from Canada as part of their joint service air mobility training.
In Gagetown the battalion will undergo normal training with the 3rd Canadian infantry brigade group under the direction of the general officer commanding eastern command. The cost of this exercise including the provision of Canadian rations will be borne by the United Kingdom. A similar announcement is being made today by the Secretary of State for War in the United Kingdom House of Commons.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE PRODUCTION OF ILLUSTRATIVE TABLES

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked if I would produce three illustrative tables which were laid before the recent dominion-provincial conference by the federal government. I now produce two copies of each of these three tables. If it is the wish of hon. members that these tables be inscribed in today's proceedings, there would be no objection to that course.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the documents just tabled be printed in today's Hansard as an appendix?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For tables referred to above, see appendix.]



EDUCATION WEEK


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege I would ask, through you, the indulgence of the house at this time to bring to your attention a matter of great public importance in this country; that is, the observation throughout our country of Canadian education week. Under the auspices of the Canadian conference on education a student representative of our high school students in Canada, known as "Jimmy", has been chosen. His name is, in fact, James.
I would draw the attention of the house to this fine young citizen who I am very happy to report is from Moosomin, Saskatchewan, and who is in the gallery today. James Zon-dervon is a 15-year old farm boy from Moosomin, Saskatchewan who represents some 785,000 high school students in Canada. His example, and the example of the support we all give him this week, I hope will bring to the realization of our youth the necessity for the furthering of their education and the great advantages attending thereto.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on a statement attributed to the hon. member for Calgary South, a member of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, to the effect that an approach should be made by Canada to Peking to find out the precise terms under which communist China would accept membership in the United Nations.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I presume this statement was made in the course of a speech, and it would be quite impossible for me to comment on the speeches made by different members of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Is the minister not aware that this particular member is a member of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations assembly that is now meeting, and that this puts his speech in a special category?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I cannot even comment on the speeches made here by the delegates to the United Nations. One of the hon. member's followers is a delegate and I would hate to have to comment on his speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, he is not.
[Later:l


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs whether I understood him correctly in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition to say that the government no longer took the responsibility for statements made by official delegates of the government at the United Nations.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as usual is a little twisted. I did not say that at all. The speech in question was not made at the United Nations; it was made in Canada. The hon. member realizes just how terrible it would be if we, for example, had to answer for the speeches he made in Canada or even in the house.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he agrees with the point of view of the hon. member for Calgary South?


Howard Charles Green: I have already said I am not commenting on the speech that was made by the hon. member or by other members. I make my own speeches on these questions.



REPORTED THREAT TO OPERATIONS THROUGH SHORTAGE OF FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would care to comment on a press report which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail, which indicated that the whole operation of the United Nations in the Congo is threatened by current bankruptcy of United Nations funds. Has the Canadian government given any consideration to a substantial increase in its contribution to this fund for this purpose?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the financial situation is difficult in this regard, largely as a result of some nations not paying their fair share or, for that matter, paying at all. Canada has been very careful to pay its own share of the cost and will do so in the future.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this appears to be an emergency situation partly arising because of the reason given by the minister and partly because of the need for increased funds for the Congo operation, has Canada given any consideration to enlarging its contribution?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, but this question will be discussed in the fifth committee in the United Nations. I can assure the hon. gentleman and other members of the house that Canada has done more than her share.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question based on the announcement in the March 4 issue of the Canada
Gazette, as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council has been pleased to make the following appointments :
February 15, 1961.
The following persons to be members of the national research council for a term of three years, from 1st April, 1961, to 31st March, 1964.
Included in the list:
Claude Jodoin, Esq., president, Canadian Labour Congress, Ottawa, Ontario.
Before I ask my question I want to compliment the government on their impartiality in this appointment. As I understand it, this is the first occasion in Canadian history on which a member of the national committee of an opposition party has been appointed-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I now come to the question. I think it is a precedent of pristine significance. Will the Acting Prime Minister inform the house whether Mr. Jodoin's appointment has been confirmed by the national council of the Canadian Labour Congress?


Howard Charles Green: I really am not in a position to answer that question for the hon. member, but I do suggest to him that if he expects this New Party to be a success he had better bring about a better contact with the Canadian Labour Congress, because they should have this information. All I can say is that Mr. Jodoin was appointed to the national research council on an individual basis and with the knowledge that he would make a worthwhile contribution.

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in order to remove, if possible, the misunderstanding created in the matter by recent government statements, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the position of the government in respect of nuclear warheads for the Bomarc missile remains as set out by the Minister of National Defence on June 23, 1960, before the defence expenditures committee, namely that the Bomarc anti-aircraft missiles to be effective would require nuclear warheads?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition and to two or three other people on that side of the house on several previous occasions, the whole question in connection with nuclear weapons remains as it was stated by the Prime Minister, I believe it was in 1959, and on several subsequent occasions since that time, and there has been no change in that regard since I last answered a question along this line.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Is the government's position, then, that which was stated by the Prime Minister on February 20, 1959, as reported at page 1223 of Hansard, as follows:
The full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads.
That was in the Prime Minister's speech.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is a straight factual statement with which I do not think anybody can disagree.



SALARY INCREASES FOR PREVAILING RATES EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize for not having had the opportunity to send him notice. Would the minister care to comment on complaints that prevailing rates employees of his department have received no increases during the last two years, although they feel such increases should have been forthcoming?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to comment on this matter, because I am not aware of any specific complaints in this regard.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: In reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's I would advise that representations have been received for the services of an icebreaker at Bonne bay. Owing to heavily rafted and ridged ice on the western coast of Newfoundland, it is not feasible to attempt an entrance into Bonne bay at the present time. However, ice reconnaissance flights over this area are being undertaken, and at the first easing of pressure an icebreaker will be dispatched.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg South asked about the contract for the construction of the new terminal building at the Winnipeg international airport.
When tenders on this project were opened late last year it was found that the lowest tender was substantially above the cost estimate which had been provided to us. Accordingly, treasury board directed that we review the project to see if further economies could be made which would bring the cost more into line with earlier cost estimates. In view of the size and complexity of the project this review has been a rather lengthy and complicated undertaking, but I expect that it will be completed shortly and that I will be able to make a further recommendation to treasury board in this regard. I can assure the hon. member that full and sympathetic consideration is being given to the use of Canadian labour and materials.
As for the access roads, while we have, I believe, heard from the municipalities of Winnipeg and St. James, we are at present awaiting comment from the recently established metropolitan authorities.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on February 27 the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked a question of the Minister of National Revenue in

Inquiries of the Ministry connection with alternative employment for persons who might be displaced by the curtailment of the international service of the C.B.C.
I have the following information. I am informed by the C.B.C. that some of these people have been transferred to fill vacancies in the national service and that the remainder are being considered for other possible assignments. This is a matter which has received and is continuing to receive attention from all levels of management in the corporation. The actual cut-off in international service is scheduled for March 31, 1961.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the minister gave the same answer in the house some days ago, I should like to ask whether any additional people have obtained employment in the meantime.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not to my knowledge.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me whether the department was making any progress in finding a means of arresting Dutch elm disease. I replied that I had no up to the minute information but would take the question as notice.
I am pleased to advise as follows. The Dutch elm disease occurs widely in Ontario and Quebec and in the upper Saint John river valley area of New Brunswick. The causal fungus is carried from diseased trees to healthy ones by bark beetles. Spread of the disease can be reduced by sanitation programs to remove weakened elm trees and branches in which the beetles breed, by spraying with d.d.t. to prevent the entry of beetles into healthy trees, and by prompt felling of diseased elms, with destruction of the bark, to prevent emergence of fungusladen beetles. An effective control program may require use of all three lines of action.
The Department of Forestry carries out continuing insect and disease surveys, and keeps municipalities and the public informed of areas of known distribution of the Dutch elm disease. The department is conducting research on host-parasite relationships as an aid to formulation of improved control procedures. It also provides a diagnostic service so that occurrence of the disease in suspect trees may be confirmed before expensive felling operations are undertaken.
Responsibility for the application of control measures rests with the owners, usually

municipalities or private citizens. The department provides information and advice to such owners on the organization of control procedures.
This is a disease of foreign origin and as such comes under quarantine regulations administered by the plant protection division of the Department of Agriculture. Officers of my department co-operate fully with the plant protection division in the exchange of information leading to appropriate quarantine regulations. In the event the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does not have publication No. 1010 on Dutch elm disease, I am sending him a copy.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Can he say whether the zinc oxide treatment has been found to be effective?


Hugh John Flemming: I would not be able to answer that at the moment.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister received a submission from J. J. Howlett, president, united packinghouse workers Ontario council, protesting the installation by the defence department of a $50,000 machine in the plant of Essex Packers at Hamilton for the processing of dried beef for defence contracts? If so, would the minister care to inform the house if an effort could not be made to instal these machines in an organized plant rather than in the plant of a low wage non-union firm?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from Mr. Howlett in connection with this matter, as well as a letter from another gentleman. Perhaps I might say that the defence research board was instrumental, with army support, in setting up a program to investigate a new food process known as freez-dry. In the course of their investigations, defence research board evaluated a series of firms to ascertain their capabilities to work this process. As a result of these investigations they recommended, from a purely technical aspect, either of two companies.
From that point on, of course, the matter was in the hands of the defence production department. As most members of the house are aware, all contracts for the defence department are made by the defence production

Tariff Board Act
department. I shall have to leave it to the ernment to set up at this session a defence Minister of Defence Production to deal with committee or a defence expenditures com-the other elements of this question.	mittee of the house?



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. At page 2708 of Hansard for yesterday there is recorded a reference by me to the fact that 50 per cent of the directors of Foothills Pipe Lines Limited must be from the United States, 50 per cent from Canada, and the chief executive officer must be from the United States. At that point there is recorded an interjection by the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Argue), "That is false."
I should like to read from the agreement made on December 14, 1960, page 14:
-fifty (50) per cent in number of the members of the board of directors of each of Foothills, Dakota and the fractionation company, each of which boards of directors shall always, be composed of an even number of directors, shall be persons who have been designated by Standard-
That is found on page 14 of the agreement. I would not make this point of privilege if I had heard my friend from Assiniboia say that that was a falsehood.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of privilege that has been raised, I should like to say that I naturally accept the statement of my hon. friend. However, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I am glad he has raised the point. I have no objection to it at all, but I wish to raise the question of whether it is in fact a genuine question of privilege to rise in the house to correct statements that have been made in prior debates. This might well have been done in the debate this afternoon between five and six o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On the point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has
made an explanation which he wished to make as a matter of privilege, and I think that should close the matter. Where there was no opportunity at the time I have occasionally permitted members to make explanations that referred back to previous debates, but I hope this will not be necessary very often.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the gov-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision on that point as yet.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER ON TAX SHARING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether a statement made by the Prime Minister at Quebec, as reported in the Montreal Star of March 4, 1961-and it appears in quotation marks-"no province would receive less than it had been receiving", would apply to the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen the text of the Prime Minister's statement, but I presume it is an allusion to the guarantees that were provided in the proposals submitted by the federal government to the dominion-provincial conference 10 days ago. The first of these guarantees was that no province should receive less in any year than the sum of money received under the present agreements averaged over the last two years of the present five-year period.
There was also the additional guarantee extended to the provinces whose yield from the proposed four sources of revenue was below the national average, that no such province would receive less in the new period than it would have received had the present arrangement been carried into the new five-year period.
I presume the reference in this case is to the first of these two guarantees.



TARIFF BOARD ACT


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Tariff Board Act to increase the number of members of the board from five to seven, and to provide for the salaries of the new members; and to provide further for consequential amendments designed to facilitate the adoption by the board of a panel system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in introducing the supplementary budget on the evening of December 20, 1960, I made the

Tariff Board Act
following reference to the subject matter of the resolution now before the committee, as reported at page 1013 of Hansard:
In view of the heavy program of important work which awaits the tariff board, the government proposes to enlarge the board and to provide for expediting its work. The government is fully aware of the urgent need to modernize sectors of the tariff which have become out of date. At the same time we consider it important to provide for careful investigation and public hearings before major tariff revisions are introduced. This permits all interests and all points of view to receive full consideration. We believe that the tariff board is the appropriate body to undertake this task, and that in order to do so expeditiously the board should be enlarged sufficiently to permit it to adopt a panel system.
Accordingly I am placing on the order paper a resolution looking toward a bill which will provide for an increase in the board's membership from five to seven. Additional membership will make it practicable for the board to operate normally as two separate panels, and to proceed simultaneously with two inquiries or appeals. In addition to authorizing an increase in the membership of the board, the bill will provide also for consequential amendments designed to facilitate the adoption and operation of a panel system.
The bill to be introduced pursuant to this resolution, when adopted, will accordingly provide for an increase from five to seven in the number of members of the tariff board. The increase in membership is proposed in order to facilitate the operations of the board. It will enable the board to sit at the same time in two panels, each with a minimum of three members. This change should permit the important functions performed by the board to be discharged more expeditiously, while at the same time ensuring that adequate account is taken of all relevant considerations.
Having regard to the nature of the problems with which the tariff board deals, I think it will be agreed that it is important that each panel be large enough to reflect the possibility of differing points of view. For this reason it has not seemed appropriate for the tariff board to operate with one-man or two-man panels, although such panels may be perfectly satisfactory in some other fields. There would be serious objections, I take it, to having even a two-man panel deal with an important tariff board reference or appeal.
It is contemplated that in future the board will normally sit in two panels, one presided over by the chairman and the other by the first vice chairman. The amendments to the act which are proposed will not, however, restrict the wide measure of freedom which the chairman now has and always has had, throughout the period since the board was first established in 1933, to arrange the board's internal business as he sees fit. For example, it will be possible for all seven members of the enlarged board to sit on any reference

or appeal if, in the judgment of the chairman, the importance of that appeal or reference justifies such a procedure.
The proposed bill will provide also for minor and consequential amendments flowing from the proposal to increase the membership of the board and to adopt a panel system. These consequential amendments relate to such matters as the designation of the persons to preside at sittings of panels, revision of some of the provisions relating to the powers and functions which may be exercised by the chairman, vice chairmen and members of the board, and a new provision authorizing each member of the board to administer oaths and take and receive affidavits, declarations and affirmations.


The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Rea):: Order. Before the hon. member rises, I wonder whether hon. members would please lower their voices when talking. It was very difficult to hear the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, it is true that in the speech from the throne there was a suggestion that the tariff board would be divided into panels, as I recall it, and also in the budget proposals of December 20 last. In a speech which I made on December 21 I said that on the face of it this had merit.
The tariff board has been of great service to this government and to governments that have preceded it. On the other hand, by reason of legislation recently introduced by this government, I think one might wonder whether in the future this tariff board will have the same jurisdiction, the same influence and the same importance as it has had in the past. A great many members on this side of the house showed resentment in a recent debate, to which under our rules we are not allowed to refer in the course of this discussion. However, I would refer the minister only to his words about erosion. We feel that aspersions have been made toward the existing tariff board, and we think this is of some importance in this debate and consideration of the new legislation before us today despite, as I know, the limitation regarding reference to previous debates during a current session. I know that the hon. member for Ottawa West very strongly resented the fact that possibly the tariff board, which we are now asked to enlarge, had in the last decade been charged with an erosion which was contrary to parliamentary will. I cannot go into recent debates, but hon. members will recall that these matters have been discussed.
I simply want to say in this instance and in this context that the tariff board was for 17 years, from 1940 to 1957, I think, presided over by one of our most exemplary and

distinguished public servants. It happens that the same individual was asked to represent his country in international trading negotiations, including the GATT agreement of 1947. One of the matters that have bothered me this session has been the assertion on the part of the government that there could possibly be any erosion on the part of the past tariff board of Canada's interests in the last decade, when we had presiding over the tariff board for almost 17 years this same gentleman, whom I will name. I refer to Mr. Hector McKinnon, the gentleman who led our delegations years ago when we were treating with other countries for trade opportunities.
I just cannot believe that under the presidency of Mr. Hector McKinnon such a thing like erosion in law could occur in the last decade. I am again, perhaps not properly, referring to another debate. I think it is just impossible for this House of Commons to believe that the late head of our tariff board for this period, who was also concerned with our trade negotiations for 17 or 20 years, could in any way in this dual capacity erode parliamentary decisions or the interest of this country. I scoff at this suggestion. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you that after retirement this gentleman who was accused-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not discussing the resolution at all. He keeps referring to a debate that went on last month for seven days. With respect I make this suggestion to you. Can we not confine the discussion to this resolution? It is clearly against the rules of the house to keep referring in this way to a previous debate of this session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River referred to a matter which arose in a previous debate and which has to do with the whole character of the tariff board which we are now being asked to enlarge. Surely the minister is going to justify his conduct in asking us to increase the size of this board which he himself in another debate this session accused of disregarding the law made by parliament. Having made such a serious charge against this board, when he asks us to increase the board against which he made these charges surely he is not going to circumscribe our right to debate his own proposal.


William Moore Benidickson: I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, that I am not speaking in any way in contradiction to what I suggested on December 21 was a proper course. I think we should have a panel system in view of the increased responsibilities of the tariff board. What I want to say, however, is that the government
Tariff Board Act
cannot have this both ways. They cannot accuse the tariff board over the last decade of having been an opponent of parliament, of having in its decisions eroded the intent of parliament, and then ask at the same time that this board be continued and increased to two panels, without a proper discussion in this committee.
In addition I want to say this with respect to my view. It would not have been possible for the tariff board of the past to have eroded the intent of parliament, in view of the fact that this government felt that even after the retirement of the gentleman of whom I have spoken, after 17 or 20 years in office, the chairman of the tariff board-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you to rule on the point of order. The hon. member is discussing something entirely outside the scope of this resolution. He keeps referring to what has been said in the course of a previous debate at the present session. Surely that procedure is clearly out of order. We are here discussing a resolution that contemplates an increase in the number of members of the tariff board.


William Moore Benidickson: In the past debate, Mr. Chairman, I have never referred to the particular matter I am discussing at the moment, nor do I recall anybody else having done so. We are discussing only the tariff board. We are discussing its enlargement and the possibility of creating two panels. In that connection I am referring in my remarks only to the chief architect in recent years of that board Mr. McKinnon who was serving Canada. I am saying there is a possibility that whoever is appointed to the tariff board from now on might be put in a dual and perhaps unfortunate capacity. I think the past chairman of the tariff board has not been treated properly in references made by the minister in debates this session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


The Chairman:: Order. I thought the hon. member was making only passing reference to the former chairman of the tariff board. As he is doing more, I must agree that the point of order raised by the minister is well taken. The resolution deals only with the increase in the number of members of the board. The application of the Tariff Board Act or the conduct of the tariff board, when these matters are not related to the number of members of the board are not subjects relevant to the resolution.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, if those appointed to this board are likely to have a dual responsibility; if on one hand they are given responsibility to represent Canada in trade treaty negotiations and then on the

Tariff Board Act
other hand are to be asked to be members of a board, I think you would at once agree that my remarks are relevant.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest-


Mr. Clancy:: I rise on a point of order.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order may I say this, Mr. Chairman. Under a measure of this kind which asks parliament to approve an increase in the membership of the board, surely it is in order to discuss the competence of the board as it now exists. If the board is wholly competent to deal with all questions put before it, then perhaps it may follow that we do not need this increase in number. However, if it should be correct, as has been said, that the board for particular reasons has not been able to do the best kind of job, in the opinion of the Minister of Finance, then that would be an argument for enlarging the board.
I think it is out of order to quote at this stage statements that have been made in a previous debate. However, when the Minister of Finance in the budget speech itself and since that time has made many statements about the conduct of the board, surely it is in order to discuss the conduct of the board. What is the increase for? If the board has been completely competent to do and completely efficient in doing everything put before it, why then ask for an increase in the board? Surely the chairman is not going to say, "You can just discuss a roman numeral, numeral V or numeral VII."


William Moore Benidickson: That was the point I had in mind.


Jacques Flynn: Is the hon. member speaking on a point of order?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on a point of order. Surely it is relevant to discuss erosion on the part of the last tariff board in a debate relating to a bill which is going to increase the number of members of the board to perform duties in the same sphere.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I take strong objection to the breaking of the rules of this house by the opposition. If you are going to enforce the rules they should be enforced for everyone.


Jacques Flynn: This problem of relevancy, as all hon. members realize, is always a very difficult one. In the view of one hon. member a subject may be relevant but in the view of another hon. member it may be out of order. I must say that relevancy must be

real and not simply the result of imagination. An hon. member can claim that his remarks relate to the resolution under discussion because that hon. member desires to discuss certain aspects of a problem which is of peculiar interest to him, but I must say that hon. members should realize that the resolution preceding a money bill is only to be considered in principle in regard to the expense involved and therefore the scope of the debate should not be enlarged to include a discussion regarding the function of a board or the members thereof. It may be that an hon. member in order to make a certain point which is relevant must discuss a problem which is perhaps not strictly relevant, but I think members should remember that in general they should not use such a debate as an opportunity to discuss some irrelevant problem.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think when we are considering the composition of a government board we are entitled to look to the work which has been done by that board in the past and any criticism that has been made with respect to it. Unfortunately the criticism with respect to this board has been made this session by the Minister of Finance, when he referred to erosion by this board. I realize there is a rule, Mr. Chairman, that we are not supposed to discuss any previous debate-


Jacques Flynn: I want to point out to the hon. member that if the problem of erosion, as he describes it, has something to do with the number of members it is relevant, but if it has nothing to do with that it certainly is not relevant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on that point I think I can demonstrate in a few sentences that it is highly relevant. We are being asked in this resolution to decide whether it is expedient to expend more of the taxpayers' money by appointing additional members to this board. If the work of that board is detrimental to the country we should not be adding to its membership, we should be abolishing it. The Minister of Finance made certain suggestions in another debate, and it is true that if he had made those suggestions outside of this house no one would question their relevancy. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has not once quoted that debate; he has merely alluded to the fact that in a particular place the Minister of Finance made criticisms which, if he had made them any other place, would have been indubitably relevant. I suggest a mere technicality of the rules does not make it irrelevant in these particular circumstances. The fact of the matter is that if this board has

been disregarding the law made by parliament we should abolish it, not add to it, unless this is a measure to pack the court. I say this is a most fundamental thing. We have not come here to say whether there should be nine, six or seven bodies; we are here to discuss what this board is going to do.


Jacques Flynn: I feel that it would be relevant if put in the words of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but thal is not the way the member for Kenora-Rainy River has put it.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, surely the question was whether or not the board up to now had eroded the will of parliament. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has suggested that this subject should be included in the question before us. He has asked why should we have additional members on the board when there is the possibility that they will not serve parliament's will.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would briefly suggest, having listened to this discussion with some interest, that one appreciates the difficulty in which Your Honour finds himself, though I believe a careful analysis of what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has said would warrant the conclusion that he has not transgressed the rules. His use of the word "eroded" might psychologically give the impression that there has been a violation, because of the use of that word in another debate. But I would suggest to the Minister of Finance, if he would take advice, that if he showed some patience in the matter he would find that facility of debate would be unimpeded. However, if he takes the occasion to interrupt us at every opportunity he not only thwarts discussion but provides an obstacle to his own objective.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would be out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance said he was out of order. I do not think that is the function of the Minister of Finance. I suggest to him, simply as a friend, that he withhold his anger and display some patience, and he would realize then-


Mr. Grafftey:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the Minister of Finance followed my suggestion he would give the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi an opportunity to again interrupt from his seat. I suggest that the Minister of Finance refrain from resorting to these tactics so that he might facilitate the course of the debate.
Tariff Board Act


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I hope the house will make note of one thing that has happened this afternoon. I am referring to the successive points of order raised by the government side and by the opposition side. By a series of points of order the opposition members have placed upon the records of this house that which they have been told could not be placed on the records in normal debate. I suggest, sir, that these tactics are being consistently used by the opposition to override the ruling of Your Honour time and time again. The opposition members, by raising successive points of order, have referred to that which Your Honour has ruled against in the course of normal debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi takes his seat I would like to ask him whether he was in the gallery during the pipe line debate.


William Heward Grafftey: I would inform the hon. member that I was not in the gallery during the pipe line debate, and that I am discussing what has been going on this afternoon. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a flagrant disregard of the rulings made by Your Honour which has created a great waste of time in this committee.


Jacques Flynn: I have tried to inform hon. members what I think is relevant in regard to the debate so far. I am quite sure the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River will do his best to limit himself within the boundaries which I have indicated.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your ruling. I did not think I was inconsistent in referring to the question of past aspersions on this tariff board when we are discussing its enlargement, but I will stop there in any event.
I do, however, have a number of other matters to raise at this time. I would like hon. members to look at the speech of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance made last Thursday. He boasted at that time that this tariff board was the creation of one of his heroes, the late Lord Bennett. I think he said that the tariff board was created in 1931 under Lord Bennett's Conservative administration. The parliamentary secretary did not tell the house that the findings of the tariff board were to be subject to ministerial approval. That provision was taken away by a Liberal administration subsequently, and that is part of the effort that is being put forward in connection with another matter, not necessarily this-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: -and I stop there.

Tariff Board Act


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: After being out of order for the last three minutes.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think I was out of order, because I was referring to the tariff board and its history. The parliamentary secretary claimed that it was in Lord Bennett's time an exceptionally good board, and helpful to the Canadian public. Actually under Lord Bennett's regime it was subject to ministerial veto. I say it is important to remember this when we debate this matter at this time.
While it is not in order to refer to another debate, I wish to say that the tariff board has a definite relationship to our very important obligations to the general agreement on tariffs and trade which was negotiated in 1947. I ask those who may speak subsequently on behalf of the government, to tell us to what extent we are obligated under our so-called GATT agreement to maintain a tariff board, and whether in their opinion, or in the opinion of those associated with them under that agreement, as a result of legislation that has been recently proposed by Canada, a breach has been made in that agreement.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must say that certainly part of this discussion is entirely irrelevant to the matter under debate, and is not within the scope of the resolution which we are discussing at the present time.


William Moore Benidickson: I feel somewhat restricted but I should like to refer to article X, section 3 (b), which I have quoted in a previous debate, and which I think refers to something equivalent to a tariff board. It says that those who are associated with GATT must have what I think we are dealing with in this debate, namely something in the nature of an appeal board that is free from restriction or intimidation above the bureaucratic or administrative level. It reads:
Each contracting party shall maintain, or institute as soon as practicable, judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or procedures for the purpose, inter alia, of the prompt review and correction of administrative action relating to customs matters.
I say that this is very important. In conclusion I simply wish to say that I am no expert in this field of tariff administration, although I have had some years of experience in parliament. It is a complex problem that has bothered all of us, but I have been persuaded by the opinion of a number of experts who tell me that if they were the minister of national revenue-


Richard Albert Bell: Who are these experts?


William Moore Benidickson: -and were given the arbitrary powers that were given to the minister of national revenue by this parliament, with the massive majority he has on
TMr. Benidickson.]
the other side, that in 1958, for valuation of products entering this country, and the arbitrary powers which are likely to be given to the minister again in the additional legislation of 1960-61, they would feel that any recommendations of the tariff board to the Minister of Finance with respect to a change of rates on tariff items would be a nullity. I am completely persuaded that these arbitrary powers, which are subject to no appeal, will add to that result.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the government should want an increase in the number of personnel of the tariff board at this time, and should want what is quite a revolutionary amendment to allow the tariff board to sit in two panels. What I think this does in effect is to make two tariff boards, or it makes it possible for a board consisting of seven members to sit simultaneously as two panels, discuss questions before each panel and decisions to raise or lower tariffs on the basis of their decisions.
I think this is part and parcel of the government's policy, which is to increase tariffs and to make legislative provision for changing the rules so there can by an across the board general increase in tariffs, not by means of specific amendments but by inserting the little word "approximately" in the definition of goods of a class or kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not out of order. The result is the government has decided that il needs to enlarge the tariff board to make it more efficient, to allow a greater number of cases to be appealed to the board and decisions to be made so they can facilitate this general Tory increase in tariffs. It is not long since the number of members of the tariff board was increased by parliament. In 1956 a bill was presented to parliament containing an amendment whereby the membership of the tariff board was increased from three to five. It is now provided under the law that three members of the board are sufficient to hear an appeal. Therefore two can take a rest while three are working. It seems to me that under this three who are working and two who are resting formula the board as it is now constituted should be sufficiently large to deal with the normal number of cases that may be appealed to it, though perhaps not large enough to deal with the very large increase in cases that will undoubtedly come before the board because of the other steps being taken by the government to allow a broader classification of goods for the purpose of bringing about higher tariffs.
I do not think a case has been made for the passage of this legislation unless one accepts the attack of the minister on the

tariff board. I take it that it is in order to refer to those portions of the budget speech having to do with this particular measure, and I would point out that in that speech the minister made it perfectly clear that in the view of the government the present tariff board has not been doing a job.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a matter of fact he has accused the tariff board-


William Moore Benidickson: Of eroding the law.


Hazen Robert Argue: -of undermining the law itself-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: -of so undermining the law by what the minister has called erosion that it has been necessary on the one hand to amend the law and on the other hand to make provision for the tariff board to sit in two panels. The all-out attack by the minister on the tariff board, in which he accused the board of eroding the law, and the subsequent move to increase the number of members of the board and allow the board to be divided into two panels, are in my judgment evidence of a very disturbing policy. It is very disturbing that the government has embarked on the road of higher tariffs and more tariff increases.
The minister has said that such a host of applications are pending before the tariff board that the board must be divided into two panels so that cases can be heard simultaneously. When one takes this legislation in conjunction with the government's general attitude and the statement of the minister, I suggest that this is part and parcel of a Tory high tariff policy that is being implemented day by day to the great detriment of the people of this country.


Mr. Speakman:: You do not believe that yourself.


Hazen Robert Argue: Therefore we feel that this legislation is unnecessary, or that if it is necessary it is made so by these other bad policies of the government which are increasing the burden of work on the tariff board and the number of appeals that will be made. We believe that we are justified in opposing the resolution and the legislation to follow because in so doing we are opposing the government's high tariff program.


Thomas Miller Bell: Just plain buncombe.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, we have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for Assiniboia. Apparently they have lost consciousness of the fact that
Tariff Board Act
we are living in an expanding country. There was a time when parliament met for four months in a year, but we now meet for ten months. Our tariff problems are becoming more and more complex and more and more manifold. My office in this building is on the same floor as that of the hon. member for Assiniboia, and I say to him that his own secretariat has been increased several times in the last few years.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


Edwin William Brunsden: Oh, yes, it has.


Hazen Robert Argue: It has been reduced.


Edwin William Brunsden: Oh, tut, tut.


Hazen Robert Argue: It has been reduced.


William Moore Benidickson: Dave Lewis and Stanley Knowles have reduced it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no. It has been reduced by this economy-minded government.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, my thought is that we have a population explosion and an industrial explosion. We are in a period of great development. We are in a period of transition with respect to manufacturing and trade. I cannot conceive of any logical reason why the tariff board should not be increased by two members for the reason that it is one of the hard-pressed organizations of government. I do not mind admitting quite frankly that I have a few problems respecting manufacturing in which tariffs are involved and, without any criticism of the tariff board, may I say I have not been able to get decisions because there are so many other people ahead of me.
I welcome the idea of the board sitting in two panels. I welcome the idea of expedition of decisions, regardless of what the decision may be. When the hon. member for Assiniboia casts aspersions on the government, I say to him that he certainly is not thinking of the good of Canada.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has made a case against expansion of the tariff board, and I listened to him with a great deal of respect although I do not agree with him. I think we need an up-to-date tariff board which will render decisions as soon as possible after cases are heard, and it does seem to me that this enlargement of the board will give us that expedition.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken, and who was not unkind to me, said that I opposed an additional tariff board panel. I never said that. I said that on December 21, after hearing the minister propose a two-panel system, I had approved of what the minister suggested. What I said was that I would regard all

Tariff Board Act
tariff board activities, even under the proposed enlargement, as a nullity if appeals are denied in the way they are denied under the new 1958 legislation and as proposed in this 1960-61 legislation.


Richard Albert Bell: When did the hon. member say that on December 21? Would he mind pointing it out?


William Moore Benidickson: Well-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You would not ask him to
refer to a previous debate.


William Moore Benidickson: Under the rules I am not allowed to indicate that, but I have been told that I did say that. If I did not say it I certainly intended to say it and would have said it except for the criticism I received on that Friday afternoon from the hon. member for Carleton, who said it was time I sat down.


Richard Albert Bell: Oh, no. The member for Carleton made no such statement at any time.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on this resolution may I direct the attention of the committee for a moment to the reference made by the minister in his supplementary budget to oilseeds and vegetable oils. He stated that representations had been made to the government by growers of rapeseed in the west and by soybean growers in the east with regard to the tariff on these products. For this reason the minister decided that the best course would be to increase the number of members of the board from five to seven in order to facilitate study by the tariff board of the problem of edible oils and the expediting of their findings.
The minister mentioned also that a point of view concerning the appropriate rate of duty for these products had been expressed by soybean growers and by feed manufacturers. Because of the wide interchangeability of oilseeds and their products for a variety of agricultural and industrial uses, modification of the duty for some items without compensating others would be disruptive of production and trade.
The statement of the Minister of Finance, as outlined in the terms of the resolution before the committee, is most welcome and coincides with the representations of farmers and farm organizations right across this country. The rapeseed producers-


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers did not ask for an increase in the tariff board.


Reynold Rapp: I base my remarks on the briefs and representations that were made by these farm organizations. If the hon. member for Assiniboia will contain himself for a moment I shall put those briefs and representations on the record.

The result of this change would be that the rapeseed producers in the west would be able to sell a little more rapeseed oil on the domestic market in competition with United States rapeseed and soybean oil coming into this country tariff free. I may remind the committee also that one pound of rapeseed replaces one pound of soybeans. As a result of this fact we were able to get a little higher price for our rapeseed meal in the west, and we were able to sell our rapeseed oil at a reduced price. The biggest single factor working against the use of this oil in Canada is the fact-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must tell the hon. member that I have difficulty relating his remarks to the resolution before the committee.


Reynold Rapp: The hon. member for Assiniboia advanced arguments as to why the number on the tariff board should not be increased. I think I should be given an opportunity to make my point that the number on the tariff board should be increased to coincide with requests made by farm organizations and by farmers themselves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I completely agree.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I might say a word on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, although I do not accept the statement that has been made by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort or the arguments he has been putting forward, I believe his statement on the point of order is accurate. If we are dealing with an increase in the personnel of the tariff board, it should be in order to point out some of the work that may be given to this tariff board. I do not follow the argument of my hon. friend, however, to the effect that if a matter is referred to the board this will mean an increase in the tariff. I do not know that one can prejudge the work of the tariff board.
With that observation, however, I feel it is in order to make some reference to the work the tariff board may have to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rose at the same time as the hon. member for Assiniboia, and I was going to say almost the same thing he has said. I do feel that if there is any case to be made for spending more of the taxpayers' money on this tariff board, surely hon. members are entitled to make that case. This is all the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort was seeking to do. He was seeking to argue that this was an important matter that should come before the tariff board, and it might not be disposed of so quickly if there were not two panels.


William Moore Benidickson: May I speak to the point of order? I do not support the argument that was advanced that the possibility of increased

membership on this board would take care of the problem about which the hon. member has been speaking. What has surprised me is the fact that he has been the only member from western Canada who has not been silent, slavish and tongue-tied with respect to tariffs.


Jacques Flynn: I agree that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort should be able to make reference to some of the work that could be submitted to the tariff board, enumerating the problems that could be submitted. However, if the hon. member seeks to discuss each problem in detail, that is another matter. This was the trend of his remarks when I interrupted him.


Reynold Rapp: The minister outlined, in his supplementary budget, the reasons for increasing the membership of the tariff board from five to seven. Some of these reasons related to representations that were made by some farm organizations. I should like to put on record the fact that the Saskatchewan oil seed conference made representations in favour of certain trade practices. They have requested that a reciprocal tariff be imposed much more in line with the tariff imposed by the United States.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is out of order, definitely out of order.


Reynold Rapp: The hon. member was not out of order when he said that the board should not be increased because high tariffs were not in the best interests of the country. I am saying this reciprocal tariff is in the best interests of western agriculture and agriculture as a whole in Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Western Canada is for lower tariffs, not higher tariffs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance proposes that there should be an increase in the personnel of the tariff board. He proposes that we should increase the personnel from five to seven. The tariff board is a very important instrument in the work of the government of this country, and we should not summarily dismiss a recommendation of this kind as the hon. member for Assiniboia did, if I may say so, in a most irresponsible manner.


Hazen Robert Argue: What did I dismiss?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I said that I do believe-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, what I said was that I had no knowledge of farm organizations asking for the two panel system.	,
Tariff Board Act


Murdo William Martin: I do not believe my statement was an exaggeration in any way, in the light of the reply we have just received.
The point I am seeking to make is that the hon. member for Assiniboia referred to this as a proposal that should be opposed without establishing, in my judgment, a basis for his opposition. As a matter of fact he did not offer any argument at all. I believe that the Minister of Finance, however, should explain to the committee in a more precise way his reasons for feeling it is necessary to recommend an increase in the personnel of the tariff board, and to have two panels instead of one.


William Moore Benidickson: Particularly when he is cutting down on the appeals.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, particularly when the appeals are being cut down. I thought the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, which were held by you, Mr. Chairman, to be out of order, were valid. The Minister of Finance cannot have it both ways, particularly in the light of the position he takes in another context.
Since the tariff board was first set up in 1926 as an advisory body under the chairmanship of the late W. H. Moore, and later given more definite judicial as well as advisory functions under the late Mr. Justice Sedgewick, it has performed valuable services for Canada. The hon. member for Assiniboia should not dispose of the whole matter just so summarily. I think the Minister of Finance should deal with that argument. He should indicate what is the backlog of cases, if there is one, and I presume from what the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort has said that this is the case. The instance that he himself mentioned as one of the reasons why the board should be increased is an argument on this point. As one who comes from the soyabean district of Canada, I can well appreciate his interest in this matter. I urge the Minister of Finance, instead of spending all his time in raising points of procedure, to deal now with the argument of the hon. member for Assiniboia-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Give me a chance and I will. I am waiting to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says, "Give me a chance". I am now urging him to do this. He could have pointed out in the beginning that these cases cannot be heard unless a new panel is set up. If that is the case, we ought to know about it. I do not know whether that is the case, but I presume that is the situation. I think the Minister of Finance ought to give us the

Tariff Board Act
reasons which he feels are present and justify the course which he is advocating at this time, particularly in view of what he had to say in another debate about the conduct of the board.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have now the opprtunity to deal with this subject in detail. The fact is that the proposed enlargement of the personnel of the board is very necessary, it is urgently necessary, because of the very large backlog of work now awaiting consideration by the board. At the present time that backlog consists of no fewer than eight references, and 69 appeals. The chairman of the board, in urging an enlargement of the board so that it may make some progress with this very large backlog, has informed me that according to his present estimate it would not be possible for the board to deal completely with this backlog of business within a couple of years.
It is just as true in this area of the nation's business as it is in the courts, that justice delayed is justice denied. Persons who have important matters within the scope of either appeals or references to the tariff board are entitled to have their business transacted before that board with a reasonable measure of dispatch.
The case that has been cited by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale is a case in point. The reference, No. 131, concerning oilseeds, vegetable oils and related products has been directed to the tariff board by myself, as I indicated I would do in the supplementary budget speech of December 20 last. Unless there is an enlargement of the personnel of the board, and if the board is compelled to go on as presently constituted, with only one panel, it will be a very long time before this reference can be heard.
Persons in this country who have important matters to put before the board in the course of hearings of references or appeals should have these matters dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Under present circumstances these matters are being delayed.
I think it is high time this action was taken. Far from questioning the importance of the board, the course that the government has followed enlarges the importance of the board. The course that I indicated earlier this afternoon, in accordance with my supplementary budget speech on December 20, points out the intentions of the government in regard to the review of the Customs Tariff and the modernization of many of its provisions, which by present-day standards are quite antiquated and badly need to be modernized. Undoubtedly a very large volume of work awaits the board, not simply the

backlog to which I referred, but also further references and other business which will undoubtedly come before the board from time to time.
At the present time it is estimated that one reference alone will occupy the time of the board for two years. This is the major reference on the chemical items in the Customs Tariff. These hearings have already been proceeding for several months, but much remains of this major undertaking on the part of the board. As long as the board is compelled to continue sitting as only one panel, there is simply no hope of the board reducing the backlog of work; on the contrary, it is likely that the accumulation of work will increase rather than be reduced.
Therefore the resolution now before the committee is intended to bring aid and assistance to this important tariff board, to enable it to transact more expeditiously the appeals and references which it has to hear, all of them of very great importance and in every one of which all interests concerned are entitled to a reasonably expeditious hearing and transaction of their business.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister has recognized that the official opposition has not opposed the setting up of a second panel which would perhaps review some of the tariff considerations that will be referred to it. However, the minister -as you observed, Mr. Chairman-did not deal with the point that I raised, that in consequence of the arbitrary opportunities given to the Minister of National Revenue in legislation passed in 1958, and again proposed this session-which are non-appealable to the tariff board-perhaps their activities will not be so great. The minister has not commented upon that matter.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, may I lend my support to this resolution. I feel that parliament itself should examine the situation of the various boards it sets up. The tariff board is just one of these. We have heard from the minister and others about the tremendous backlog of work facing this tariff board. This is something that should be cleaned up right away. We must give the board the means to clear up this backlog. I would refer to the speech of the hon. member for Medicine Hat. It is not as though we in this country are always in a static condition. This is a growing country. I think he should have mentioned one thing further; that is the complexity of tariffs and our tariff dealings with other countries, which are coming more and more to the fore. Our manufactures are growing, and if we do not have the facility of a tariff board to handle these questions as they come



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-8, to incorporate Canadian Federation of Music Teachers' Associations-Mr. Smith (Winnipeg North)-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, would the sponsor of this bill inform the committee whether an organization similar to the one proposed in this bill is incorporated in Canada?


Mr. Smiih (Winnipeg North):: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Chairman. To my knowledge there is no similar organization.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Objects.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the sponsor of the bill would answer a question in connection with clause 2. It is my understanding that this bill proposes to deal exclusively with associations and organizations of teachers of music in order to promote the efficacy of teaching and the advancement of music.
Clause 2, dealing with the objects of the bill, reads:
(a) to encourage and assist all movements designed to improve standards of musical education and the training of teachers of music, to encourage and assist in the organization of music teachers' associations in the provinces of Canada and to stimulate the acquisition of all-round musicianship-
And so on. While I do not advance the cause of James C. Petrillo of the United States federation of musicians, this clause does say:
-to encourage and assist in the organization of music teachers' associations-
I wonder whether the sponsor would say whether or not one of the functions of such an association of music teachers could, under this bill, be the regulation of relationships between the association of music teachers and the group or organization which might employ those music teachers? Is it the intention of this bill to involve these people in any way in the field which is generally classified as labour-management relations?


William Murray Smith: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is at all one of the purposes envisaged by the association.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the sponsor of the bill one question. As a general rule a national federation is formed as a result of separate provincial organizations which desire to get together in order to achieve national expression. Would 90205-6-174
Private Bills
the sponsor of the bill name the provinces which at the present time have an organization of music teachers? Also, would the hon. member say whether they are part and parcel of a group, in all provinces where they are organized, sponsoring the formation of this federation?


William Murray Smith: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that these associations now exist in the various provinces of Canada and that this bill, as the hon. member has pointed out, is to bring the various provincial associations together as a federal organization.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand that there are no provincial associations of music teachers west of Ontario, because I notice that there is no mention of any in this bill.


William Murray Smith: I believe
there are some west of Ontario, but I am not sure of that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in the
objects of the federation as set out in clause 2, there is included:
-and to stimulate the acquisition of all-round musicianship

That is a rather ugly use of the English language. Would the sponsor of the bill inform the committee the name of the gentleman of the legal profession who drafted this bill? That is a very unusual term.


William Murray Smith: I am not
quite sure who drafted it. Counsel on the bill was a very renowned gentleman in the city of Ottawa, Mr. E. H. Coleman, who I know has had a very distinguished career as a lawyer, and in years gone by as an official of government. He headed one of the best law schools in Canada, the Manitoba law school.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, could I also ask the sponsor what is the intent behind paragraph (c) of clause 2, which deals with the promotion and extension of music credits in the schools and universities of Canada?
A school curriculum is completely within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. To the best of my knowledge nearly all provinces have school credits under the curriculum of the province. Is this an interference with the jurisdiction of the provinces with regard to the curriculum of schools and the ratio of credits in all their forms of study?


William Murray Smith: I do not believe that could be construed from the wording of paragraph (c), which is:
-to promote the extension of music credits in the schools and universities of Canada;
Of course, everyone realizes that the curriculum comes under provincial jurisdiction.

Private Bills
However, there is nothing to prevent anyone promoting credits in addition to those that now exist, or from promoting credits that do not in fact exist. Because one is promoting credits, this does not necessarily mean one is forcing the legislature to include them. Promoting the extension of music credits does not, I think, in any way interfere with provincial jurisdiction.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, paragraph (d) reads:
-to promote and maintain the status of professional music teachers in the community.
Would the hon. member mind explaining to the committee just how this federation intends to promote and maintain the status of professional music teachers in the community. How would it proceed?


William Murray Smith: I should imagine it would proceed possibly along the same line as some other associations which promote and maintain the status of members of parliament in the community.
I should think that a music teacher in a community is a very highly respected person, and because of the contribution he is making to culture and the arts it would be desirable that his status in the community should be such as to attract people and students to participate in various aspects of music in order to promote culture in the country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am rather interested in that explanation because it almost implies that the promotion would be along the same line of activity as is carried on by a political association, which is usually organized to elect a member of parliament and not to maintain a professional status.
Have any standards been established in this desire to promote and maintain the status of professional music teachers in the community? Have any definite standards been established to which they work or aspire?


William Murray Smith: I am not
aware that there are any set standards, but I would assume that each individual teacher, or each association of teachers would have its own standards. I am quite certain that they would be very high standards. If the hon. member is worried about those standards, I can assure him that the persons I have met who are interested in this matter certainly have the highest standards. I am quite sure the hon. member has nothing to worry about in this regard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I am correct in understanding that the hon. member means they will promote the highest professional standards as far as music teachers are concerned?


William Murray Smith: Yes, I would assume that is so.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 2 carry?
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Membership.


Harold Edward Winch: Clause 3 deals with membership, and it is interesting to note that the wording is as follows:
The membership in the federation shall comprise the members of the association and all others who are from time to time admitted to membership under the provisions of the by-laws or rules of the federation.
I am not now implying that this consideration was in the mind of the hon. member who sponsored this bill or those who drafted it. In the past over the years we have seen the introduction of legislation of this type which on the surface seems to be excellent and to have the highest motives. Then as time went by and amendments were brought in and regulations were brought down, it was found that it was used not only on a restrictive basis with regard to membership but also with regard to licensing. Can the hon. member tell us whether he has any indication of the rules and regulations that will be promulgated under clause 3 and whether there is any intention whatsoever that the power of the association with regard to the restriction of membership or otherwise will be used in any way so that music teachers will be compelled to belong to the federation or be licensed by it in order to practice their profession?


William Murray Smith: I have no information as to the rules which are now in existence or which may be in existence in the future. I have no information whatsoever on that matter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-By-laws and regulations.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is a rather interesting clause. It has to do with by-laws and regulations. I refer to paragraph (c). I should have said that it is an interesting paragraph. It reads as follows:
(c) the time and place for holding general or special meetings of the federation and the notice and other requirements thereof, provided that general meetings shall be held only once in every two years unless the federation decides that they shall be held more frequently:
Can the hon. member inform us as to the reason for the rather unusual provision that general meetings shall be held only once in every two years? That is a rather unusual provision in by-laws.


William Murray Smith: I would
presume that the reason for that provision is the distance that a great many people attending the meetings would have to travel. It was probably also felt that the amount of business to be done at a general meeting would be of such a nature that a meeting every two years would be all that would be required. A saving clause, of course, is there, namely that they may meet more frequently if the federation so decides. I would presume the reason for the provision, or possibly one factor in connection with it, would be the distance various people attending would have to travel.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member mentioned the fact that this saving clause is here:
-unless the federation decides that they shall be held more frequently.
Does that mean the membership, the executive or the heads of the provincial section? What is meant by the words "unless the federation decides"? Who makes that decision?


William Murray Smith: I admit that the term is somewhat ambiguous but I would presume that the interpretation would be that the members of the federation would decide or possibly a substantial number of them; because without members the federation, of course, cannot exist. Although, as the hon. member indicates, the wording is slightly ambiguous, I would presume that it means the membership of the federation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Additional powers.
Frank Howard: With respect to clause 6 I have only a general query, noting that these are what you might call special or additional powers, as I take it, requiring the consent of 75 per centum of the members present at a general or special meeting, in order to purchase land, borrow money and to do the other things listed thereunder. I wonder why there is the provision with regard to 75 per centum of the members present. Is this a normal percentage to have in organizations of this sort; is this provision at variance with what we normally believe to be the majority decision of members; or is there any particular reason why 75 per centum is listed as the differential number having regard to the members present?


William Murray Smith: I think that the clause is quite normal. There are a great many associations that require the consent of 60 per cent of the members present in order to transact certain business, to amend the constitution and so on. I do not think that provision is contrary to any established practice. Indeed, I think it is the established 90205-6-I74i
Private Bills
practice, for certain decisions that any association makes, to require the consent of a certain percentage of the persons present in order to make those decisions.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Constitution, by-laws, etc. of association to continue until amended or repealed.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Clause 8 reads as follows:
The existing constitution, by-laws and rules of the association, in so far as they are not contrary to law or to the provisions of this act, shall be the constitution, by-laws and rules of the federation until amended or repealed at a general meeting of the federation.
My question is this. Has the sponsoring member a copy of the constitution, a copy of the by-laws or a copy of the rules? If so, will he read them to the committee?


William Murray Smith: I have not a copy of them with me but I should be glad to obtain them and) forward them to the hon. member as soon as possible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is rather unusual, Mr. Chairman. We are being asked to pass a bill covering a certain constitution and certain by-laws and rules without the proposed legislation coming before the House of Commons. With regard to the bill respecting the incorporation of the Legion, copies of the constitution were provided. It seems to me that we are passing a bill here without having full knowledge of what is contained or implied in clause 8. Has the hon. member sponsoring the bill any knowledge of the constitution, the by-laws or the rules or has he read them? If so, can he assure the committee that in his opinion they are appropriate in relation to this bill?


William Murray Smith: I should be glad to give that assurance, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-First general meeting.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is another rather unusual clause, Mr. Chairman. It reads as follows:
The first general meeting of the federation shall be held within eighteen months from the time this act comes into force at such time and place as the present executive committee of the association may determine.
Here we are incorporating a formerly unincorporated association. This clause provides that the first meeting need not be held for 18 months. Can the sponsoring hon. member indicate why there is this unusual delay in calling the first meeting?

Private Bills


William Murray Smith: I do not
think there is any delay, Mr. Chairman. The clause provides that the meeting must be held within 13 months. Eighteen months is the maximum. I think the hon. member might possibly be misinterpreting the clause. It does not say that the meeting will be held 18 months from now. It says that it must be held within 18 months. A previous provision in the bill states that the annual meeting need be held only every two years. This is a maximum limit of 18 months. It must be held within that time. I daresay it will possibly be held much sooner than 18 months. However, 18 months is the limit.


Frank Howard: While it is quite true that the first annual meeting or the first general meeting could be held next week if this act is proclaimed to be in force by that time, or it could be held the day after the act comes into force or it could be held 18 months afterwards, this is the thought I had in mind. Why have the maximum of 18 months? Why not have a shorter maximum in order that the association may get under way and in order that the executive will be placed in a position of having to call the first general meeting within a relatively short period of time rather than within the 18 months?
It was my thought that such a first general meeting would be held as soon as possible. Surely one is entitled to come to this conclusion because the federation is being established and there has been undoubtedly a great deal of preparatory work involved in the promoting and fostering of this measure. I would think that the 18-month period is too long. I wonder if there is some particular reason for a period of 18 months rather than a period of six months in this regard.


Mr. Smith (Simcoe North):: I believe there was an explanation given in the committee in regard to the meetings of the directors coinciding with a biennial convention to be held within the next 18 months.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Federation vested with rights and assumes obligations of association.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The corporation created by this act is vested with all the rights and assumes all the obligations of the association. Could the sponsor inform us what the rights and obligations of this association are?


William Murray Smith: Mr. Chairman, my recollection is that there was no similar inquiry made in the committee and I was unavoidably absent at that time. My information is that this clause was explained to the satisfaction of the members of that committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Perhaps the hon. member would explain the rights and obligations of this organization in general because perhaps some of us do not know what they are.


Heber Edgar Smith: I understand that the obligations refer to the debts of the present unincorporated body and that the rights would refer to the right to collect moneys and fees presently owing to the body.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Am I to understand from what the assistant sponsor has said-he was a member of that committee and I appreciate his helpfulness-that this clause is related to rights in respect of the assets and liabilities and not in respect of other wider rights?


Heber Edgar Smith: That is my
understanding.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-7, respecting Queen's University at Kingston- Mr. Macdonnell-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather intriguing bill from an historical point of view. Am I to judge from the answers to questions made by the sponsor when the bill was given second reading that the sponsor gave a rather detailed account of the reasons for this rather unusual bill so far as the powers of the university are concerned when the bill was considered by the committee?


Mr. Macdonnell:: Yes. The counsel for the university stated those reasons at some length. He referred to a statement made by the dean of the law faculty at the university who explained that this particular measure had reference to questions of administrative organization and was therefore not transgressing the rule that education is a matter for the provincial government to deal with. This is a matter of administration which goes back to the original act of 1882 now being amended. I was sorry to find that there is apparently no record of any debate at the time of the passing of the original act in 1882. The information regarding the matter of administration was apparently given and accepted in 1882 at the time that the statute was passed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor whether he has any vested or personal interest in this bill as a result of being a foi ner student at the university in question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a personal but not vested interest, if I understand correctly the meaning of those words. I certainly have a personal interest in regard to the passage of this bill because I think it would be of help to the present administration of the university. I point out this is not a mandatory matter but a permissive one. We all believe in flexibility and I would suggest that the passage of this bill will lead to flexibility in the position of the trustees in regard to their action from time to time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the sponsor agree that I was correct in suggesting a vested interest if I explained that the vested interest was as a result of the contribution this university has made to Canada generally?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, I imagine that would be right. From my point of view the university has made a great contribution. I would repeat the old saying, "it pleases he and it don't hurt I." I do not think this change does anyone harm but will do a lot of good.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I raised certain questions on second reading but regret to say that I was not able to attend at the meetings of the committee to hear the answers. I did notice in reading the bill and also from what the hon. gentleman has said that this legislation was passed in 1882. It occurred to me as a historian that in 1882 Sir John A. Macdonald was prime minister of this country and that the Tories at that time believed in a unitary state and centralized form of government which perhaps explains why the legislation was passed without question by the parliament at that time. I have heard that some Tories in different parts of this country take a rather different view today. I wondered if the hon. member had sought to advise his colleague, the hon. member for Roberval, in regard to this bill before its presentation or if the hon. member for Roberval had taken any interest in regard to it at any stage of the proceedings?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As far as I am concerned the answer is in the negative. I am sure that any opinion from the hon. member would be of great interest.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-ll, respecting the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts Association-Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Private Bills
On clause 1-Change of name.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Godin:: Perhaps the hon. member sponsoring this bill could enlighten the committee on why in the petition a request is made to adopt the English name for the association as well as the French name. I believe the sponsor of the bill is aware that certain difficulties may arise from this. I should like him to enumerate the problems envisaged that are solved in the sense that the various associations interested in this one movement are satisfied that there may be a charter available for those who have developed a Catholic section of the scouts du Canada and therefore the request before the committee is for the adoption of those two names. It is possible that in the eyes of many hon. members this legislation takes away the privilege of that association in obtaining a charter for a similar purpose?


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: I do
not believe there is a conflict here, Mr. Chairman. The Canadian Boy Scouts Association has within its membership a very large number of French-speaking boy scouts. The federation in the province of Quebec is affiliated with this association and works in conjunction with it at other points, and consequently, since there is a large number of French speaking Catholic boy scouts and other French speaking members who are affiliated with the boy scouts association it seemed logical that the two languages should be designated in respect of the name of the association, as it will be used in either language in Canada. As for any possible future event that may occur, I do not see that the designation of the French name of the association creates any possibility of conflict, at least in the way suggested by the hon. member.
(Translation):


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might perhaps explain why the French translation is not identical, or at least why we have not here a literal translation of Boy Scouts of Canada, as, in this request, there is only the mention Scouts du Canada, though, literally, it should be Gar-gons scouts du Canada.
Moreover, the hon. member might explain why, under the circumstances, a French label is suggested which is not necessarily a translation of the English designation.
(Text):


Stuart A. Fleming: Because, Mr. Chairman, where the phrase is used in French throughout the world and

Private Bills
where the phrase "federations des scouts ca-tholiques de la province de Quebec" is used the phrase "boy scouts" is not used. At the present time in the province of Quebec where there is a French-speaking federation affiliated with the boy scouts association the word "boy" or "garpon" is not included. It is not used wherever boy scouts exist in the Frenchspeaking world. I believe this is correct and is the explanation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in the explanatory note to this bill I find the following:
The present name, the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts Association, was established when this association was, in effect, a branch of the boy scouts association incorporated by royal charter in London, England, on January 4, 1912. Since that time the Canadian association has become an independent member of the international boy scout conference.
Then, it goes on to give reasons for changing the name. The question I wish to ask the sponsor of this bill is, how has this association functioned since the time it became an independent member of the international boy scout conference? How did it operate legally? Was it incorporated on a national basis, and were its reports made under its act to the appropriate federal official, or was it incorporated under provincial legislation and the reports made to the provincial officials? If the hon. member's research into the bill is sufficient, I would like him to explain to the committee how the organization operates in Canada in relation to the provinces and the federal government under a royal charter granted in Great Britain in 1912?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Since that time the boy scouts association of Canada was incorporated in Canada under an act of this parliament, an act which happened to be amended last year and is now before the committee. My recollection is not absolutely certain on this matter, but I think the original act was passed by parliament in 1924. In any event, for a good many years the boy scouts association has operated under the terms laid down by an act of this parliament.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That was my point. I was just interested in it. I am not suggesting the hon. member has all the information at his fingertips. How did it operate legally as an independent body and a member of the international boy scouts association prior to incorporation by an act of this parliament?


Stuart A. Fleming: The
international boy scout conference as a formalized organization is relatively new. Probably when the original change was made at

that time the international conference was not contemplated. In becoming a member of the conference probably the Canadian association never considered that no change of name might lead to a misunderstanding as to its independent status; but now it is felt that it would be desirable to identify the organization as distinctively Canadian and wholly responsible to a Canadian association rather than any association outside the country. It was to clarify that point that this suggested change was made.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether I am correct in assuming this. Perhaps this is somewhat of an answer to the query posed by my hon. friend from Kootenay West. On the left-hand side of the bill before us, right opposite the preamble, there are some notations listed, and I give one of them, namely 1914, chapter 130. I wonder whether this would not be the reference to the initial statute that established the Canadian general council of the boy scouts association as an independent member and as a distinct entity, one operating under the royal charter rather than under the legislation which was passed in 1924, which I believe was the date given by the hon. member. The year 1917 and chapter 73 would indicate to me that that was the year when the amendment of the initial 1914 statute was made. This is the year when it was initially established by virtue of a private bill, I assume.


Stuart A. Fleming: It
could very well be.


Osias.-J. Godin: Possibly the hon. member could satisfy the committee that complete understanding exists between the federation, which I understand is not necessarily affiliated with the Canadian general council of the boy scouts association, and the boy scouts association. I understand there is a letter of understanding between them to the effect that the federation operates according to its own regulations in the province of Quebec and those other parishes where there are groups of Catholic youngsters who have similar objects and follow the rules generally except as those rules are amended in accordance with the religious training of the youngsters. In the event that Les Scouts Catholiques du Canada would like to obtain a charter, can the hon. member assure us that there would be absolutely no objection on the part of this organization which now wants to be known simply by the name Boy Scouts of Canada? Can he assure the committee that this association will have no objection to a charter being granted to another group with similar ambitions such as Les Scouts du Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I
regret that the hon. member was not in the committee the other day when the chief executive commissioner for Canada was present. He is the man to whom this question perhaps should have been directed. However, I do know from my own experience over a good many years that there has been the closest co-operation between the federation and the Canadian Boy Scouts Association, that they maintain continuous consultation on all matters affecting both English-speaking and French-speaking boy scouts, and that both organizations recognize allegiance to the chief scout of Canada. Consequently, I think it is safe to assume that this very close co-operation and harmony will be maintained.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



JEAN GEORGE LIPSMAN

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. SD-1, for the relief of Jean George Lipsman.-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the sponsor of these divorce bills, shall they stand?


Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Speaker, I request that all divorce bills on today's order paper stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order No. 4 covers divorce bills SD-1 to SD-53. Orders Nos. 5 to 26 cover bills SD-54 to SD-75. Shall these bills stand?


Frank Howard: Without consolidation.


Mr. Speaker:: Without consolidation. Perhaps the house would concur in taking all the divorce bills together even though it means taking them out of order. The purpose is not to consolidate them but so as to deal with them all at this time because I understand the request is being made that all divorce bills stand. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN PIONEER INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-10, to incorporate Canadian Pioneer Insurance Company.
Private Bills
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is very little I can usefully say in further explanation of the bill. It is a clear-cut bill in complete conformity with the regulations and the legislation covering the incorporation of insurance companies. What is being sought in the bill is the incorporation of a fire and casualty insurance company which is to be known by the name of Canadian Pioneer Insurance Company and, in French, La Compagnie d'Assurance Pionnier Canadien.
The required procedure of publication in newspapers has been followed and the Department of the Secretary of State has approved of the name of this particular company. Perhaps it might be useful for the house to know that the incorporation of this company does not mean an increase in the number of fire and casualty insurance companies in Canada. As a matter of fact, it merely replaces a company that existed previously, the London and Provincial Marine Insurance Company, which ceased operation as of last December. The sponsor and financial backer of the Canadian Pioneer Insurance Company is the Yorkshire Insurance Company of London, and the London and Provincial Marine Insurance Company was a subsidiary of Yorkshire of London.
As hon. members know, the Yorkshire Insurance Company of London has been established in Canada since 1907 and has operated since that time. In December Yorkshire withdrew the London and Provincial Marine Insurance Company from operation and has assumed all of its payments and in its place is sponsoring the Canadian Pioneer Insurance Company.
The capital stock of the company will be $2 million divided into shares of $100 each. Before the company can commence operations the capital stock subscribed and paid for will have to be approximately $620,000. In the bill there are also some special insurance clauses and for the company to commence operations under those provisions a further amount of money will have to be paid with the result that the company will be able to commence full operations only when at least $1 million in stock has been subscribed and paid for.
I have been informed that when the Canadian Pioneer Insurance Company is completely organized and fully operating it is the intention to allow Canadian participation in the company. The bill has been submitted to the other place and to a committee of the other place. It has also been studied and approved by the superintendent of insurance.

Private Bills
Inasmuch as the bill is not necessarily a controversial one, I hope that the house will permit it to go to the banking and commerce committee without delay.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question before he technically resumes his seat. I understood him to say it was the intention of the company to allow Canadian participation in the ownership of the company. Could he explain what he meant by the word "allow" or in what way this will take place?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, rather than
allow Canadian participation I understand that the company would encourage Canadian participation to take place both financially and in the administration of the company.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask one more question. I have reference to one of the clauses of the bill and I will not refer to it in detail. Under clause 8 it is provided that the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act shall apply to this company. I wonder if the hon. gentleman could explain what this Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act is, and what would be the relationship between that act and this company once it has been established?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not know that I can go into all the details concerning what is included in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. What is meant by this particular clause of this bill is that once the company is incorporated it will be subject to the provisions of that particular act.


Frank Howard: Is that a public act, the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes.


Frank Howard: Oh, fine.


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

James Stanley Speakman: the second reading of Bill No. S-13, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
He said: After waiting some considerable length of time, I finally have the opportunity of moving second reading of this bill. I am afraid my time is going to be rather restricted. I had hoped to go into some of the historical background of the district in which this spur line would be constructed. However, I should like to say that during the construction period of this 8.5 miles of spur line, which will provide a service to a new gas extraction plant, employment will be provided for about 
20 to 25 men in grade construction for a period of about two months. Employment will be provided for 60 to 70 men in the actual laying of the ballast and the rails for another period of a month and a half. For a period of approximately three and a half months, therefore, employment will be provided for some^ thing in the order of 60 men.
As I have said, this new spur line will service a new gas extraction plant of the British American Oil Company at a place called Rimbey, where gas will be produced for the trans-Canada pipe line. There will be 326 million cubic feet of raw gas daily going into the pipe line. In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, there will be 68,000 gallons of propane; 98,000 gallons of butane; 325,000 gallons of pentanes plus and 233 long tons of elemental sulphur. This will result in a considerable amount of traffic. The propane will result in approximately 10 carloads per day, the butane approximately 17 carloads per day, the pentanes plus approximately 50 carloads per day and the sulphur about 5 carloads per day.
The movement of these products will provide employment for two railway men daily at the plant and will call for the addition of three train crews in the division in which the spur line will operate. If one considers there are about four men to a crew, one can see that the increase will cover about 12 men. In addition, a section crew of four men will be needed. During the construction period, therefore, an average of 60 men will be employed for about three and a half months and permanent employment will be provided for something in the neighbourhood of 25 years for about 18 men.
I would ask the house to give second reading to the bill as quickly as possible so that it could go to a committee and be reported back to the house without delay. This matter is of considerable importance to the district I represent, to the oil industry and the economy of Alberta as well as to the economy of Canada generally when we consider that the export of this amount of natural gas will do a great deal in helping to correct our imbalance of trade with our neighbour to the south.


Frank Howard: I want to ask one question of the hon. member, but I was a bit slow in getting to my feet. However, the hon. gentleman has the privilege of speaking again to close the debate, so perhaps he could take advantage of that opportunity to answer this question I have in mind. The debate will be concluded before six o'clock because there is not a great deal of controversy about this matter.

up, I suggest we are derelict in our duty. I think we should do something about it.
The remarks made by some hon. members are typical, but I cannot help but go back to what the hon. member for Humboldt-Mel-fort said in regard to rapeseed oil and his long fight to have this reference brought forward. Naturally, he wants to have this matter brought to a head. He wants to see it given consideration, and this reference should be dealt with as quickly as possible after his long fight for it.
Certain references were made by the hon. member for Assiniboia which left me a little cold. I would remind the hon. member about this. He talks about the Tory party and high tariffs and he says this will mean a general increase and high tariffs across the board. I would remind the hon. member that the last three budgets produced a total of 392 changes, 203 of which were more or less formal changes of an administrative nature, and only 65 increases were put into effect. Also, there were 124 reductions.
In the light of these figures it is perfectly stupid to say that the Tory party wants high tariffs. We do not. We are out to give a little protection to industry and growers-


Hazen Robert Argue: Tell that to the farmers out in the west.


William Moore Benidickson: Just a little the government says.


David Vaughan Pugh: When you talk about the western farmers not wanting protection, do not tell that to the people in the Okanagan who are fruit growers, because they will not believe you. They will run you out if you say that.
Mr. Chairman, I have said all I wished to say. I have given my views on this matter, and I definitely support the resolution.


William Moore Benidickson: You said it, just a little.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised that the Minister of Finance, after raising points of order in the debate, should himself have transgressed the rule of the house by anticipating the conclusion of a debate on the bill introduced to this house by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort. That bill would have the effect, of course-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not refer to any bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -of adding to the name of his constituency. But the bill has not yet passed the house and the historic name of Tisdale has not yet been added to that constituency.
I just draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance has broken one of the well known rules of the house,
90205-6-173
Tariff Board Act
namely the one to the effect that you must not anticipate another debate on a motion that is before the house. Having made that important and pedantic point I intend to address myself to the resolution. However, I just thought that I should first point out that even Homer nods.
I think the minister, in his reply to my friend the hon. member for Essex East made a quite compelling argument for adding an additional panel to the tariff board. There is no doubt that if that number of cases is outstanding-and I do not question for one second the statistics given by the minister- or if that number of references and appeals is outstanding, it is important and urgent that this business should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible consistent with the efficiency of the operation. But that is no quarrel on that between the government and the opposition at all. Indeed, I imagine that there would have been little discussion on the part of the opposition with regard to this resolution we are now considering had it not been for the reflections which, in other circumstances, have been cast upon the existing board and upon its conduct in the last ten years by the minister who himself is now introducing this resolution.
It is hard to feel that the government can be entirely happy about asking us to increase the size of a board which the government has found to be so inefficient and so disregardful of the will of parliament. That is the only question that arises in our minds; and it does not really arise very seriously in our minds because we on this side of the chamber do not believe that the tariff board has disregarded the will of parliament at all. We believe that the tariff board has followed the will of parliament as faithfully as a conscientious man like Mr. Hector McKinnon can do so.


William Moore Benidickson: You are absolutely right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In our view, there is no question about that matter. That is not to say that some of their decisions may not have been wrong. They are mortal; they are human; and probably some of their decisions were wrong. However, we believe that they have consciously and conscientiously tried to carry out the will of parliament. If we could be quite sure that men of the calibre of Mr. Hector McKinnon, Mr. Buchanan and some of the other distinguished people who have served and are now serving on the board were going to be appointed, there would be no question in our minds about supporting this resolution enthusiastically. On balance, I think we have no choice but to support it in any event because so long as we are going to have tariffs-and I do not think there is anyone who does not think we are going to

Tariff Board Act
have tariffs in this country for a long time to come-it is of great importance that the tariff law should be administered fairly and, as the minister has said, as expeditiously as possible. About that matter I think there cannot be any difference of opinion.


Richard Albert Bell: That is all this resolution is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Carleton says that is all it is or all that the resolution does. I say that we would be a great deal happier if this resolution was really designed without arriere-pensee, without equivocation, to carry out what the minister said was one of the objectives of expanding the board in his baby budget speech of December 20; I want to quote one sentence from that speech. As reported at page 1013 of Hansard the minister stated:
At the same time we consider it important to provide for careful investigation and public hearings before major tariff revisions are introduced.
We agree wholeheartedly with that view on this side of the chamber. But the thing we cannot understand is why the government is increasing the membership of the tariff board and establishing two panels and at the same time trying to limit and restrict its jurisdiction.


William Moore Benidickson: And while reducing
public hearings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the thing we cannot understand. We cannot understand this shocking inconsistency. That is where all our difficulty lies. Of course, I may say that the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary may be impressed by the fact that 20 horses equal 20 mice, but we are not impressed. To say that so many increases were made in the tariff and so many decreases were made and that consequently that fact proves that the government is low tariff or high tariff is simply nonsense. As everyone knows, you may increase the tariff on an item with a huge volume of importation and you may decrease it on an item that is never imported at all. To call that equal is, as I say, the kind of arithmetic that we think-


David Vaughan Pugh: I rise on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -unfortunately too often characterizes the performance of the Minister of Finance.


Jacques Flynn: Is the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary rising on a point of order?


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the references to the number made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the last reference to the increase in volume 
et cetera; my remarks were strictly for the hon. member for Assiniboia who said that this was another Tory attempt to increase tariffs across the board. The figures that I submitted merely showed that there was a change. What the form was, I do not know, and I do not think it enters into the question at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Although there was no point of order involved, Mr. Chairman-


David Vaughan Pugh: I think the chairman will decide that matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to say,
Mr. Chairman, that while there was no point of order involved, I was happy to allow the hon. gentleman to interrupt me in order to make his clarification. I must say that it is a clarification that I would expect the hon. gentleman to make because I think he is the kind of member who can add two and two and get four. My point is this.


Hazen Robert Argue: You do not agree with him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I do not agree with the minister in using the illustration in the first place.


Hazen Robert Argue: You do not agree with the hon. member that tariffs have gone down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I try to be fair to all hon.
members.


Hazen Robert Argue: He said so.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member for Assiniboia would not mind replying to me when I have finished instead of interrupting every sentence halfway through.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is the greatest interrupter in parliament.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, I will not attempt to compete with the hon. member for Assiniboia in this or in any other field. I may say that I have not perhaps the same compulsions on me at the present time as has the hon. gentleman and I am prepared to make due allowance.


Richard Albert Bell: May we be sure of that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can be quite sure. No one has ever accused me of the lack of candour. However, I want to get back to the minister's arithmetic since the subject has been introduced by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. I want to get back to that matter. I am afraid the minister's illustration with regard to so many

items in the tariff being increased and so many being decreased is rather characteristic of the way in which the minister does arithmetic with the public accounts and with everything else, as the provincial governments have recently had reason to find out. That was not in this chamber, so that the allusion to it by way of analogy will, as Your Honour realizes, be completely in order.
But to come back again to the resolution itself, may I say this. Before this resolution passes-as I think it will and should pass- I think the minister should answer the question that was put to him by my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. The minister was asked to give some estimate of the amount of the volume of work of which the board is to be relieved as a result of certain changes, if they are made, that are now in contemplation. This is a directly relevant factor. The minister said there had been a welter of appeals. The Minister of National Revenue said there were very few of them.


William Moore Benidickson: In the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, in the past. I am talking about history. I am not talking in the least about what is going to happen in the future. I am asking a question merely about what is going to happen in the future because the need for this extra panel will be to some degree determined by whether or not the other legislation is going to reduce the work load, if I may use a horrible phrase, of the tariff board. However, sir, I think we should have a serious estimate of the amount of work of which the board will be relieved.
I have one other question I would like to propose to the Minister of Finance. I think this is a proper question, sir, in view of one or two analogies to which I intend to make reference. I would like to know whether the government has any competent people in mind who will be appointed quickly to this board once parliament has passed this legislation. I am not referring to a kind or class of person but to competent individuals in themselves. I do hope that we will not be kept waiting three months as we were in regard to the appointment of members to the productivity council before the government makes its appointments which, as the minister quite properly said, are very necessary and urgent.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am rather interested in the last few remarks of the member for Bonavista-Twillingate when he asked when these people were going to be appointed and who they are likely to be. I am interested in knowing if they will likely be appointed under civil service procedure or by the minister himself. We are asked legislatively to make provision for the appointment 90205-6-173i
Tariff Board Act
of additional members to the tariff board. We know that we will be asked at another stage to enlarge the directorate of the Canadian National Railways. We know to date that this government has appointed two treasurers of the Tory party and a defeated candidate to the directorate of the Canadian National Railways. Will this same type of judgment be exercised in connection with appointments to the tariff board? I feel that the Minister of Finance should answer some of these questions.


Jacques Flynn: I would advise the hon. members for Assiniboia and Bonavista-Twillingate that if they wish to pursue a conversation they should do so elsewhere.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would like to suggest that one chairman is sufficient to carry on with and that the other chairmen who have been so busy this afternoon should limit their activities.
I would like to comment on the fact that the opposition must by now have exhausted itself in raising various matters of various degrees of irrelevancy.


Hazen Robert Argue: Who is the chairman now?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am addressing myself to the chairman. I want to say that I understood the hon. member for Assiniboia to refer to the addition of an extra panel resulting in two panels busily grinding out higher tariffs. That is the impression I got from his remarks. One must assume therefore that the tariff board has been doing that in the past. Perhaps that is an unfair impression but I do not know why the hon. member for Assiniboia should suppose that the tariff board is going to change its whole character, which it would have to do to accomplish what he suggests. I would suggest there is nothing in the past history of the tariff board to suggest that it has been grinding out higher tariffs. I have not made a mathematical calculation in respect of that matter, but I understand that the tariff board has been a very judgmatical board in its actions. It has been doing anything but creating higher tariffs.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed by the thought that the setting up of two panels will result in the grinding out of decisions for higher tariffs. I have a very good reason for thinking that, namely the proposal of the government to change the definition of "goods of a class or kind" to "goods of approximately the same class or kind". Instead of having the whole series of decisions of the board, to which the board itself can refer for guidance, the whole basic rule is being changed. In regard to the word "approximately" and goods custom-made-

Tariff Board Act


William Moore Benidickson: There will be henceforth no appeal to the board.


Hazen Robert Argue: The decision as to the consumption in Canada has no appeal but I do not think the government has wiped out all appeal, as the hon. member has just suggested. I suggest that changing the whole definition-in the words of the Minister of Finance broadening the definition-makes up for the errors of erosion brought about by the decisions of the tariff board in the past. I suggest that is the basic reason the government is now bringing in an amendment providing for two panels; so that more decisions can be made. These decisions, in my judgment, are very likely to be nothing more than decisions resulting in higher tariffs because the complaint of the minister is that the decisions of the board in the past have eroded the law and have not provided the tariff level which, in his opinion, we should have. He is suggesting a change in the law which will result in such a deluge of applications-because the definition will be changed -that he thinks we must provide for two panels to meet simultaneously to deal with the backlog which presently exists and the backlog he has suggested will undoubtedly exist in the future.


Mr. McMillan:: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I believe he said there were six references before the tariff board and 69 appeals.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said there were eight references and 69 appeals.


William Hector McMillan: I would like to know how many of the 69 appeals refer to the class or kind items which will be covered under the provisions of Bill No. C-72, where the minister's decision will be final and therefore not appealable to the tariff board?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have no information on that particular subject.


William Hector McMillan: I feel that information
would be of value.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at a later stage in this legislative development the minister would provide that information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not see what relevance it has to this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the Minister of Finance does not know the relevancy I think I can tell him. This deals precisely with the question I put to the minister which he has not attempted to answer. I asked him whether or not the work load of the board is likely to be reduced if cases of this description now being referred to the board will not be

so referred in the future. It is very important to know whether in the existing backlog there are many such cases which would presumably not arise in the future or, at any rate, to anything like the same extent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is strictly a matter of speculation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not asking the minister to give us this information now but I feel the request of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is a reasonable one. We are not opposing this resolution but merely seeking information. If this resolution is adopted there will be another stage at which the minister could quite readily give us this information, and I assume the tariff board could easily supply the minister with it. Surely that type of information is not secret.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the Minister of Finance give us some undertaking in regard to supplying this information because it will have some bearing upon our judgment with respect to the desirability of enlarging the board to look after an increased work load. I know it is difficult because it involves another piece of legislation this session which we are not supposed to discuss at this time, but I think the minister should undertake to at least make inquiries of the board regarding the number of appeals which relate to the items which, under the proposed legislation before this committee, would not be appealable to the tariff board.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That certainly is a very fair question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It invites me to speculate and I must decline to speculate on that matter. The statistic that I am dealing with now has to do with appeals pending before the board. These appeals are pending on the law as it stands today.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister whom I admire for his legal talents and his usual preciseness knows that appeals to the tariff board are made under certain sections and under certain defined precise violations of the sections of the Customs Tariff. Surely, the minister knows that appeal procedure is adequately accurate to determine whether or not appeals of this kind would be possible in the future if the legislation having to do with another act which is now before us is passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, whether the minister is willing to speculate or not, sir, surely it is not an unreasonable request to ask the minister to tell us at a later stage of the discussion of this legislation how many of the appeals which are now before the board relate to class or kind items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a very different question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was the question put.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the question asked by my hon. friend from Welland in the first place.


Thomas Miller Bell: No it was not.


William Moore Benidickson: It is exactly what he meant.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman,-


William Moore Benidickson: Are we going to have trouble here? Will the minister indicate-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Arnold Peters: I wanted to ask a couple of questions. For one thing, I should like to know how many of the present members of the board, if any, are due for retirement? If some are due to retire it appears that there are people available for appointment to the board who have the required knowledge to fill this type of position.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are no retirements until 1967.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Welland asked a question. The Minister of Finance paid no attention to that question. Later the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate paraphrased the same question, and the Minister of Finance said, "Oh, well, that is a different matter altogether", thereby implying that in his judgment the question deserved an answer and would be answered. The Minister of Finance has not answered it. The minister shakes his head and by these nods seeks to suggest confusion. But this is a simple matter; this is something the minister must not dodge. He acknowledges now that the question is a proper one; it is one that does not call for speculation; it is one to which he can make reply. We are asking the minister to make that reply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, so far as the question was properly and clearly asked I made it quite clear that I have no such statistical information as to the particular questions involved in the 69 pending appeals. This is business before the tariff board; it is not business before a government department. I have the information which I have given to the committee that there are eight references and 69 appeals pending before the tariff board and I have no analysis of all these appeals. Surely, the hon. member is not going to expect that I will go through all of these 69 appeals and analyse all the issues involved in them.
Tariff Board Act


Murdo William Martin: No one is asking the minister to do that. The minister is the minister in the government to whom the tariff board reports, and it should be a matter of no great inconvenience for the minister or his officers to ascertain before the passage of this bill what is the statistical reply to the question originally put by the hon. member for Welland and later insisted on by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The minister surely cannot take the position that because he is not on the tariff board he should refrain from giving, or he should not be asked to give the house statistical information that will enable hon. members of this house, to determine whether or not the recommendation for an increase in the personnel of the tariff board should be acquiesced in.
That is the situation. I think the minister is taking an impossible position for any minister to take. I know the minister is an overburdened man. I realize that, but nevertheless the fact that he is overburdened does not relieve him of carrying out obligations which are his as a minister of the crown. Among those obligations is the one of answering questions that may assist hon. members in determining whether his proposals should be accepted. Does the minister take the position that this information should not be given to the committee? No one is asking him to sit down with pencil and paper and determine how many cases are of this kind or of that. All we are asking is that his parliamentary secretary, for instance, now leave the chamber, go to the telephone and ascertain from the registrar of the board what are the facts.
The problem is not any more difficult than that, and yet the minister sits there in his arrogance today and refuses to give us this information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister is going to get this information for us.


Mr. Montgomery:: How can he? If the hon. member stayed in his seat he might get the information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton who has just made a speech from his seat is an old member of this house who sat on this side of the house in the days when some of his friends at least did a lot of talking, and none more loudly than the present Minister of Finance, about the right of members of parliament to information and the right of members of parliament to speak.


Mr. Ricard:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no point of order from the other side then; they had all the chances to speak that they could possibly desire.

Tariff Board Act


William Moore Benidickson: And there were no flags.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are being asked to vote the people's money; that is what we are being asked to do, to vote the taxpayers' money to increase the size of this board, and we seek to get some information, which ought to have been forthcoming in the first place, about the scope of the work the board now has. We are not speculating about its future work; we are talking about its present work. As my hon. friend from Essex East just said, the parliamentary secretary could earn a bit of his salary by going and telephoning to the board. We are not being unreasonable. We are not asking to have this information this afternoon; we are merely saying that at the next stage we should be told how many of these appeals are appeals on class and kind items; that is all. Surely somebody in the board knows that, or between now and the next time this matter comes up somebody in the board would have time-busy though they are, some clerk in the board would have time-to count them. I assume they can count to 69. It is not a tremendous problem.
If the minister had to do the counting himself we perhaps might have some doubts about it but, as the hon. member for Essex East has said, we are not asking the minister to do the counting himself; we would not think of asking him to do it. We are simply asking him to ask the board for the information and to give it to parliament whose servant he is supposed to be. This seems to be the hardest lesson for him to learn.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is matter of great importance. I hope the minister is going to deal with it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, of course, Mr. Chairman. However, the minister is not going to undertake to supply information until he knows that the information is available and in existence. If the information is available and in existence I see no reason at all why it should not be given to the committee at the proper stage of the proceedings.
Until I know it is in existence and available I do not think any hon. member should ask me to undertake to submit it. I hope I have made myself clear, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has asked me to make inquiry. I will ascertain if the information is in existence and available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has made a concession which up until now he was reluctant to make. He has now undertaken to ascertain whether or not this statistical information is available. We thank the minister for this very generous attitude with regard to trying to supply parliament with information which we had presumed, of

course, was already in the minister's mind, when he decided to make this particular recommendation to his colleagues in the government and to parliament. I say that because I would think that the minister could not possibly determine whether the tariff board should be increased from five to seven members, unless he had some appreciation not of what the situation is likely going to be in the future in this context but of what the statistical record is to date with regard to this type of case that has come before the tariff board.
The minister, obviously stung by the question of the hon. member for Welland, now realizes the most unfortunate position in which he has allowed himself to be placed. While we have been urging the production of this information, the country should know what the attitude of the Minister of Finance is regarding this question. We have not asked merely what in the minister's opinion is likely to be the number of cases in the future-


Hazen Robert Argue: Why would you not ask that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but rather what is the approximate number of cases of this type that the board has been engaged in considering up to now. The answer to that question certainly would dispel even the argument of the hon. member for Assiniboia who, without any rhyme or reason, said he was going to oppose the bill.
While we have been asking and are asking now for this information, what does the minister do? He has before him two very able officials. On his right is his parliamentary secretary. All around him in the house are many hon. members of the Conservative party who complain that they have not got enough to do. Surely between the officials, the parliamentary secretary and the hon. members who sit behind the minister, a telephone call could have been made to the registrar of the tariff board to ascertain how many cases of this type they have dealt with in the past. That information is available and has already been given to the house on other occasions.


Mr. McGee:: Why don't you call them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for York-Scarborough says, "Why don't you call him?". Why does the hon. member for Essex East, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, the hon. member for Ke-nora-Rainy River, the hon. member for Welland, not leave the house and go to the telephone booth and therefore provide that the data which the opposition should give to a measure such as this? That is the attitude

of hon. members of the Conservative party. This simple example indicates their disregard for parliament.


James Stanley Speakman: Yes, teacher.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member, who sits in his seat in the back row and whose only contribution is by way of interventions from his seat, says, "yes teacher". We are dealing now with an important principle, one that used to engage the attention of the Prime Minister when he was the private hon. member for Prince Albert, and later when he was the leader of the opposition. We asked the Minister of Finance to give us some information which he refused to give and with regard to which he said later that he would be glad to look into the matter and at some later date, if the information is available, he would give it to the house. That is the attitude of the government, and I regret that the Minister of Finance should be the instrument in this particular instance of the government's insolence and arrogance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think the request that has been made is a very reasonable one. I do not understand why the Minister of Finance tried to evade the question or why he should tell the committee that unless the information is available he is not going to have the necessary research done that will disclose the information. On the request of hon. members of this house surely the minister should have a search made of the applications before the board to find out how many are class or kind appeals.
It is interesting to note that the hon. member for Essex East was relatively quiet this afternoon until recently and that he has made it clear that he and the other hon. members of his party support the resolution. They say now that they have not enough information and they want more. They say that we have pre-judged the matter. They have pre-judged it because they now admit that they came into the committee without adequate information. Now, in a great storm of indignation, they are telling the minister to produce the information because they need it but they have already said that no matter what information may disclose they are tying themselves in with the government and are voting for a two-panel system even though they do not know whether it is needed or what the present situation is.
They go on to say that they are not asking the minister to make an estimate of the number of cases in the future. The minister must have made an estimate of the work that will come before the board in the future because surely the legislation that is before the committee is based on that estimate. I suggest that class or kind cases are likely
Fire Losses Replacement Account Act to constitute a very substantial portion of appeals and references to the board. With the sweeping change in the definition a deluge of appeals on this very point will come before the board in the future. Members of the Liberal party say they are against the change in the definition, the widening of the rule, and they have proved they are against it, but they are prepared to facilitate the evil consequences of widening the rule by voting for the minister's measure and without having the necessary information. I think this is an indication of complete irresponsibility on the part of the official opposition.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to reply in any detail to the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia. I spoke on the resolution and I think everybody knows that this is just one of perhaps five stages in which this type of proposal will be advanced. I spoke with some knowledge of the value of the tariff board. I spoke with some knowledge of the delays in decisions following the deliberations and studies of the tariff board. I indicated during the debate-and I think the member for Assiniboia may have been absent-that this matter was referred to on December 20 and that I replied thereto during the budget debate.
The hon. member says that there was a lack of knowledge on the part of the official opposition but from a scrutiny of previous debates during the present session I think it is obvious that is not the case. We were courteous to the government. If the Minister of Finance had not, as usual, been rather truculent and had simply agreed to make inquiries as to the availability of this information, perhaps we would not have had a 45-minute debate that may not have been too helpful.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinion) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-74, to amend the Tariff Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FIRE LOSSES REPLACEMENT ACCOUNT ACT


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-47, to amend the Fire Losses Replacement Account Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. C-47 is to make the provisions of the
2738	HOUSE OF
Fire Losses Replacement Account Act fire losses replacement account available, subject to the approval of the treasury board, to certain proprietary crown corporations in addition to government departments and certain designated agency crown corporations that may now be granted advances from it. The act, which is chapter 28 of the statutes of 1953-54, establishes a fire losses replacement account and authorizes the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the treasury board, to make advances from the account up to a maximum of $5 million at any time to restore, rebuild or repair property administered or controlled by departments and certain agency crown corporations that had been damaged or destroyed by fire. The purpose was to ensure that when a fire loss did occur and the replacement or repair of the property destroyed or damaged was urgently and immediately required, and there was not sufficient money available in the appropriation for the service suffering loss, authority and funds could be obtained to proceed with the repair or replacement without delay, on the understanding that the account would be recouped subsequently by charges to the appropriation for the service concerned.
At present, the account is available to, (a) government departments as defined in the Financial Administration Act, except those departments or portions thereof excluded by regulation, and (b) agency crown corporations named in schedule C to the Financial Administration Act and designated by regulation for the purposes of the act. Under (a), to which I have referred, only the director of the soldier settlement and the director of the Veterans' Land Act have been excluded, while under (b), all agency crown corporations except the national harbours board have been designated. I may say that the national harbours board has its own self-insurance fund.
The proposed amendment would provide that proprietary crown corporations, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which are dependent upon parliamentary appropriations for the financing of their capital programs, might conform to government general policy of underwriting its own fire loss risks, and be able to deal expeditiously with the repair or replacement of property damaged or destroyed by fire by drawing accountable and reimbursable advances from the account. It is urgent that this provision be made since such agencies as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have no recourse except to the Department of Finance appropriation for miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses, which could prove seriously inadequate if a major fire loss occurred.


The bill, Mr. Speaker, is a short one consisting of changes in only two sections of the act.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the first amendment to this measure since the legislation was introduced by the previous government in the session of 1953-54. I was a bit disconcerted for a moment because I do not believe the minister made any reference to a possibility which I had in mind, namely that the principle involved in this amendment had been discussed in a parliamentary committee. I must confess that I thought it had. I am not going to name any names, but across the way I see one or two hon. members with whom I have a recollection of sitting in a committee- I cannot remember whether it was public accounts or an estimates committee-in which they asked whether or not crown companies were insuring their properties through private insurance agents. I did make inquiries yesterday from the Clerk of the house and he could not confirm my recollection. I have made inquiries, also, of the treasury board and the offices of the comptroller of the treasury, and they did not confirm my recollection. Perhaps before this debate concludes, hon. members opposite who have an interest in this subject might confirm my recollection.


Richard Albert Bell: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but was that not in connection with public liability rather than fire? I think the hon. gentleman will find such is the case.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) may have sat with me on that committee and have an even better recollection of the matter than I have because I know it was during the period in which he had responsibility as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.
However, perhaps when we come to a later stage of our debate the minister would indicate why in the public accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960 the fire losses replacement account on page K-21 has a blank opposite it. I know that this is an account under which the proper officer of the crown makes advances for expenditures and those advances are recouped in the same year. I am not for a moment suggesting there is anything improper about the fact that when one looks at item 8 there is a blank in the public accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks on this bill. I would not for a moment presume to make a lengthy analysis of its terms and import.
I listened with interest to the minister's detailed, and I thought quite thorough statement on the purpose and intent of the bill. It is a measure that covers, shall I say, the technical aspects of the administration of insurance in Canada, which to many of us sound as dry as dust. But it is a very important bill, related to the proper administration of something over $9 billion worth of investment in this country, investment upon which millions of Canadians depend at least for a measure of security in various respects.
I have had but a short time to glance through the bill. I must say that life in this parliament provides insufficient time to adequately study this type of bill. That is why we are very fortunate in being able to refer these matters to committees. However, in the short time I have had to read through the bill and, shall I say, digest it with my very slow-working mental digestion, as far as I can see the principle of the bill is to be found in clauses 12 to 16. These clauses make it possible for insurance companies to enlarge their investment powers, by providing a greater choice as to the type of investments in which they can indulge. I think
2756	HOUSE OF
Canadian and British Insurance Act that on the basis of experience, and particularly in view of our expanding and developing economy, that is a very wise and progressive provision.
As far as this group is concerned, I think it is quite safe to say that we hope this measure will increase Canadian savings, and that as the result of increasing Canadian savings it will increase Canadian ownership in these companies. As far as I can discover from reading the bill, that should occur as the result of these amendments.
As I said before, this is a technical, complicated piece of legislation. It requires specialists who actually understand this matter to explain and administer it. However, regardless of that it is a measure of great importance to millions of Canadians who find, through insurance of various types, a measure of security surrounding their daily lives and their future.
I am glad the minister has suggested that the bill should go to the banking and commerce committee where it should receive a thorough study. I agree with what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Ben-idickson) had to say. He said that not only should the committee listen to the superintendent of insurance and other capable officials of this government, but the committee should take this opportunity to hear evidence from those who are active in the administration of insurance companies and should be provided with an opportunity to question them.
I suggest there is no necessity for haste in dealing with an important, technical measure such as this. I suggest that the committee should take all the time needed to examine the officials, to hear evidence from those who administer or take part in the administration of insurance companies and to examine them. This is an extremely difficult and complicated question for any person to deal with if he is not closely connected with it from day to day. When the bill is reported to the house, I trust that the committee report will contain information that will be of value to us and will enable us to criticize constructively or to offer amendments to the various clauses of the bill with at least a greater understanding and a greater knowledge than is possible at the present time.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: When the minister concludes the debate, Mr. Speaker,
I wonder whether he would be good enough to say a word in explanation of the new definition given to a British company. Perhaps he already did so and I missed it. I do not want to refer to any sections of the act; we cannot do that at this stage. However, at the very outset I find a rather basic 

change in the definition which is now suggested. The old definition reads as follows:
"British company" means any corporation incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or any British dominion or possession other than Canada.-
And so on.
This makes it a fairly limitative objective in dealing with British insurance companies. The suggested amendment changes this definition to read as follows:
"British company" means any corporation incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom or any other commonwealth country including any political subdivision or dependent territory thereof-
Of course the minister may have a full explanation as to why we are now expanding the latitude. For example, we can conceive that there may be members of the British commonwealth whose position in the commonwealth is not as sound as we should like it to be. For example, if a republic is to be admitted into the commonwealth, a new status is created in these countries in having whatever priority, protection or preference they might have which formerly British commonwealth countries or British possessions actually had. In the new definition I see an extension of that category. I hope the minister will offer some explanation of that matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am really not going to speak on anything except one aspect of this bill and, strictly speaking, I am really not doing that on my own. My hon. friend from Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) was absolutely not able to be in the house this evening. Since he was not able to be here to do it himself, I wanted to draw attention to a few observations he made in March of last year-on March 15, to be precise-almost exactly a year ago, about one subject that is touched upon in the bill. I think it is of sufficient importance that it ought to be considered in committee on this bill. Its importance to the economy as a whole is such that I think it warrants some mention in the house on second reading.
Since I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject and have never done so, I make no apology for quoting briefly from the remarks of my hon. friend from Trinity as reported at page 2084 of Hansard of March 15, 1960. He stated as follows:
The third suggestion-
That was a suggestion about the housing act.
-is that the government introduce amendments to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act to permit conventional mortgage loans to a maximum of 80 per cent of the appraised value rather than 60 per cent as at present. I have taken

the trouble to inquire into the experience in other countries where they have larger ratios of loan to appraised value, and the result of this survey is quite conclusive. The experience in the United Kingdom, where their building societies collect money from the public and lend it against the security of housing, is very interesting. I understand that after the war they made mortgage loans as high as 95 per cent of the appraised value, and many at 90 per cent. Even now they are making loans at 80 and 85 per cent of the appraised value. The losses resulting from this policy have been practically negligible. In the United States the experience is similar under the federal housing administration and the veterans housing administration.
At that point the Minister of Public Works interjected a question:


Mr. Walker:: May I ask the hon. member a question there? Are these conventional loans you are speaking about, through insurance companies and trust companies?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, they are loans made, at least in Britain, under the auspices of the building societies. In the United States they are under the F.H.A. and the V.H.A. However, what I am saying is that the experience of all mortgage loans over a long period of time has been very good and leads one to the conclusion that a higher proportion of loan under the conventional system would have an equally excellent record so far as losses are concerned. The risk is practically eliminated.
As my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) pointed out, it is true that under the provisions in the bill at the present time the 60 per cent is to be raised to two thirds. Of course, as my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River has already said, we would certainly support that increase. However, in line with the experience referred to by the hon. member for Trinity in the United Kingdom and the United States which should not be so different from what we might expect in this country, I think it would be desirable to give consideration to the possibility of raising this figure, if not to 80 per cent which the hon. gentleman suggested, at least to 75 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: Central Housing and
Mortgage Corporation goes as high as 95 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River has pointed out that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation itself goes as high as 95 per cent. These companies would not be compelled, of course, to go up to the full limit; it is just a permissive limit. If it would have the effect of making the financing of additional housing a little bit more practicable, particularly in times like these, it seems to me it would commend itself to everyone in the house. I therefore commend to the attention of the minister, the government and the committee the suggestion made just a year ago by my hon. friend from Trinity.
Canadian and British Insurance Act


William Hector McMillan: I should just like to ask the minister a question. He spoke about deposits being left with the government of Canada to guarantee Canadian policy holders. I think they were $2J million or whatever the amount was. I wonder in what form this deposit is carried. Is it carried in securities or in the statement of the government of Canada is it shown as an asset and also as a liability?


William Moore Benidickson: And at par.


William Hector McMillan: And at par.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members who have spoken on this bill for the observations they have made upon it. I entirely agree that this bill should have the most thorough and painstaking examination in the banking and commerce committee. Indeed, one reason why I proposed that the bill should go to that particular committee is that a better opportunity will be afforded in that committee for that type of scrutiny than is afforded in the larger committee of the whole. There will also, of course, be opportunity to call before that committee whatever persons or representatives may commend themselves to the hon. members of the committee in that regard.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) referred to the representation before the committee of the other place on banking and commerce and expressed the hope that Canadian life insurance companies would see fit to be represented in the hearings before the banking and commerce committee of this house. I also hope and indeed am quite certain, that they will. I think it may have been overlooked by the hon. member that the companies were represented at the sittings of the banking and commerce committee of the other place.
Those individuals who appeared there include the following: Mr. J. T. Bryden, vice president and general manager of the North American Life Assurance Company. He is the first vice president of the Canadian life insurance officers' association and attended in the absence of the president, Mr. D. E. Kil-gour, who is general manager of the Great-West Life Assurance Company of Canada. Also present were Mr. A. Ross Poyntz who is president of the Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada; Mr. A. M. Campbell, vice president of the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada; Mr. A. H. Lemmon, vice president and treasurer of the Canada Life
2758	HOUSE OF
Canadian and British Insurance Act Assurance Company and Mr. J. A. Tuck, Q.C., general counsel for the Canadian life insurance officers' association.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, on this point, does the hon. minister recall that I indicated that these people were present but did not give evidence before the committee of the other place?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The chairman of that committee asked Mr. Tuck if he wished to make any observations regarding the bill. Mr. Tuck contented himself with stating that the companies favoured the bill. These were his words:
Mr. Chairman, we favour this bill and have no changes to suggest in it.
He did not ask to be called but expressed a willingness to answer any questions members of that committee might wish to ask. I think there is no doubt at all about the views of the life insurance companies with respect to the bill. They like the bill. They have asked for changes in the legislation of the kind that are embodied in the present bill and they have no further changes to suggest in it. However, I am quite sure that it will be the wish of the committee to hear representatives of the Canadian life insurance officers' association as in the past and that the association will be present and represented, and will be, as it has in the past, glad to be of assistance to the committee of the house in studying insurance legislation.
I was asked several questions of a rather specific nature which perhaps can be dealt with more suitably in the committee. A question was asked about the type of deposit to be accepted. While the legislation deals with the particular types of securities that are admissible in lieu of cash for deposit purposes with the Minister of Finance or with such trust companies as he may designate for that purpose, these are not assets of the government but are simply held in trust as deposits for these companies to assure the protection of policyholders.
Mr. Speaker, I think these are the principal questions that were raised in the course of the brief discussion. The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) asked a question which, if I am not careful, might take me into the realm of dealing specifically with a particular clause of the bill which would be quite out of order. I may say, however, in general terms that the change in the definition of "British company" became necessary in the light of the evolution of the commonwealth since the present definition was first inscribed in the act. The purpose


of the change in describing the commonwealth in more up-to-date terms is to ensure that companies incorporated in countries that are within the commonwealth may be registered under the act.
Again I wish to thank hon. members for their comments in respect of the bill. I think we may look forward to a very useful review and scrutiny of this legislation in the banking and commerce committee.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, before the minister concludes the debate would he indicate to the house whether or not he thinks that some accompanying or similar legislation will be necessary to amend the trust and loan companies act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a question which has not as yet been decided, Mr. Speaker. It can perhaps be dealt with at a later date. If it is desired that I should enlarge upon the answer I gave to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) I may say that deposits for British and foreign companies, for the protection of Canadian policy holders, are in the form of Canadian government bonds, municipal bonds, corporation bonds, mortgages, stocks and real estate, being essentially the same kind of investment that Canadian companies are authorized to make.


William Moore Benidickson: I would like to ask a supplementary auestion with respect to Canadian government bonds and their acceptance. Are they recognized at par value or at market value?


Donald Methuen Fleming: At the time of deposit, of course, they will be recognized at market value.


Mr. Garland:: I would like to ask the minister a question before he resumes his seat. To the extent that this legislation will encourage additional investment in housing, I wonder if this can be taken as an indication of the government's intention to assume a more residual role in respect of National Housing Act lending as far as general policy is concerned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, there was an interruption and I was unable to catch the hon. member's question. Would he please repeat it?


John Richard Garland: To the extent, Mr. Speaker, that this present legislation encourages the investment of additional funds in housing, does that mean that the government intends to retreat to a more residual role in respect to lending for house building?


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. S-6, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act.


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

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-71, respecting the civil service of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will not need to be reminded that last session the government introduced in the house a bill entitled "Bill No. C-77, a measure respecting the civil service of Canada to amend, revise and consolidate the Civil Service Act."
At that session the measure was not carried beyond first reading. The bill was distributed and the wish was expressed in the house that more time should be afforded for study of the bill and that it should not be pressed further at that session. That view commended itself to all sections of the house and accordingly the bill was not further proceeded with at the 1960 session. It is now my honour, Mr. Speaker, to bring forward a similar measure which is intended to have precisely the same purpose, namely to amend, revise and consolidate the Civil Service Act.
I stated briefly last year the background [DOT]of the measure at pages 5128 to 5130 of Hansard of June 20. I pointed out there that the measure:
-touches all aspects of the appointment, classification, tenure, rights and responsibilities of the civil
Civil Service Act
service of Canada, and the powers and duties of the independent civil service commission charged with responsibility in relation thereto.
I made comment upon the history of our legislation in this respect. May I refer briefly to what I said in that regard, as follows:
The present Civil Service Act enacted in 1918 is a landmark in Canadian history. It was a major advance over all the legislation which preceded it, including the acts of 1868, 1882, 1885 and 1908. At a stroke it placed the recruitment, promotion, classification and organization of the civil service of Canada beyond the reach of partisan political interference, and laid the foundation of what has come to be known as "the merit system". For many years the Civil Service Act has been the bulwark of this principle.
This principle, however, has not withstood all the tests to which it has been submitted. During world war II overriding legislation was adopted which permitted both the principles and the provisions of the act to be ignored and practices and procedures to grow up at variance with the letter of the law. During the post-war period it became increasingly clear that strict adherence to the provisions of the act prevented the civil service commission from giving such service to departments of government as it was required and indeed desired to give, particularly in the fields of organization and classification. In these latter fields the expansion of the country and the enlargement of the federal government's commitments posed special problems.
Since 1918 the functions of the civil service have undergone a transformation and proliferation. Its tasks have become infinitely more diverse, more complex, more technical and more specialized in keeping with the vast extension of the public business and the activities of government. More and more it has been recognized as essential to good government that Canada should maintain a public service of the highest competence in many fields and of unchallenged integrity.
Having sketched the background of the measure in these terms I refer to something that I am sure is fresh in the minds of all hon. members, namely the undertaking by the civil service commission itself of a review of the entire field of personnel administration in the public service with a view to the revision of the Civil Service Act. This request was first made to the commission by the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent in 1957, and that request was renewed to the commission when the present government took office later in that year. The report of the commission, which has taken its name from the chairman of the commission at that time, Mr. Heeney, was presented to the government and was tabled in parliament early in 1959. It attracted the widest interest across Canada and I am sure its contents have been studied by hon. members. I take advantage of the present occasion, Mr. Speaker, as I did on June 20, 1960, to pay a warm tribute to the members of the civil service commission, Mr. Heeney, Miss Addison and Mr. Pelletier, for the monumental task they performed in the writing of that

Civil Service Act
report. It takes its place among some of the reports of leading importance in recent Canadian. history.
I do not wish to detain the house by reviewing considerations that I am sure are fresh in the minds of hon. members from the discussion which was held some eight or nine months ago in this chamber. On that occasion, as I have indicated, I referred to the history of the act of 1918, and to the circumstances surrounding the decision to have the act thoroughly revised. It was after due consideration that the decision was taken not to proceed with the bill at that session, and in the course of that consideration and the discussions that were held in the chamber it was quite clear that all parties in the house recognized the measure as one of outstanding importance.
In introducing the present measure, Bill No. C-71, which closely resembles Bill No. C-77 of the last session, I propose to do no more than recapitulate very briefly some of the leading elements in the measure for the purpose of giving continuity to the present proceedings without traversing the same ground step by step.
The report of the civil service commissioners on personnel administration in the public service, known, as I have indicated, and fittingly, as the Heeney report, contains recommendations which have by and large been carried into the present measure so far as it was considered practicable to do so. There are two principal exceptions. The recommendation that government agencies at present outside the civil service should be brought within its compass and their personnel made subject to this bill has not been considered either practicable or desirable at this time, nor indeed is it likely to be acceptable to those who would be most directly affected, at any rate without a great deal of study and consideration.
In the second place, the recommendation of the Heeney report as to the application of the veterans preference has not been incorporated in the bill. The government has considered itself bound to maintain the privileges enjoyed by veterans with overseas active service to their credit which have existed in their favour during the past 15 years, and the recommendations in the Heeney report which would have abridged the veterans preference have not been carried into this measure, nor were they carried into Bill No. C-77 which was introduced at the last session.
I shall, Mr. Speaker, make only a brief allusion to those other features of the bill upon which I commented in more or less

detail on June 20, 1960. Perhaps I need do no more than enumerate them now:
1.	The limiting of the absolute authority of the civil service commission in matters affecting the organization of departments to that of an advisory role.
2.	The provision of greater flexibility in recruiting procedures in the sole discretion of the commission.
3.	The provision of the right of transfer into the civil service and the right to compete in promotional competitions in the civil service to be conferred on the public service as a whole.
4.	The establishment of the principle that an employee is paid as a matter of right rather than of grace, as has been the statutory rule hitherto.
5.	The establishment in the bill of the right to appeal from administrative decisions of departments and in an extended number of situations to the commission itself. In this respect there were some misapprehensions evidenced in the discussion of the measure last year. I hope these misapprehensions have since been removed and that it is now clearly understood by all hon. members who participated in the discussion at the last session that the appeals are not, as one of them thought, to a body outside the commission but will be appeals to appeal boards appointed by the commission and acting under the authority of the commission.
6.	The commission is also authorized to give a preference in selection, in cases wherever in its opinion effective service to the public requires it, to those who are skilled in the use of both the English and French languages.
I have no doubt that all hon. members have familiarized themselves with the terms of the earlier bill and this earlier study will unquestionably be of benefit to the select committee to which it is proposed that the present bill shall be referred after second reading.
Perhaps I might say a word briefly about changes introduced in the present measure compared with Bill C-77. Most of the changes, and they are numerous, are minor and of administrative significance only. They were suggested in various quarters and were studied by the government during the months which have elapsed since the earlier bill was introduced in June, 1960. I shall not dwell on these minor amendments.
There are, however, two changes which are matters of policy and to which the attention of the house might well be drawn. These give a clear indication of the spirit in which the government has considered the measure and the representations which were made to the government concerning it. A good deal

of publicity was given to the views of the civil service staff associations concerning the terms of clause 7 of the 1960 bill, C-77. That clause established in statutory form for the first time in our history recognition of the proposition that consultation should take place between representatives of the government and the commission and representatives of the staff associations on questions of pay and conditions of work. This clause was criticized on the ground that it reserved to the Minister of Finance and the civil service commission the right to initiate such discussions and that the right to initiate these discussions was not extended to the staff associations.
I should have thought that it would be accepted that no government of Canada would deny to the representatives of the civil service staff associations the right to initiate such discussions or that it would have been considered necessary to make statutory provision that on such initiation by the representatives of the civil service staff associations the government or the civil service commission, as the case might be, would sit down and discuss these matters with them. In this regard it is well to bear in mind, I think, that in the United Kingdom the system of Whitley councils, which is frequently referred to as a model in these matters of relationship between the government as employer and civil servants as employees, rests on no legislation at all. Therefore, one may ask if it is strictly necessary to dot all the i's and cross all the t's in a situation of this kind.
However, Mr. Speaker, the present measure is intended to remove all doubts in this regard. Unity of purpose and good faith are taken for granted on the part of both parties by the government in the drafting of the present measure, and it is as an earnest of this good faith and, I believe, unity of purpose that in the present measure clear provision has been introduced to provide recognition of the right of the staff associations to initiate discussions with either the government or the commission on the subjects I have mentioned.
The other major change relates to the definition of what are known as the prevailing rates group of government employees in the manipulative trades and occupations traditionally outside the classified civil service. Here it appeared that the definition might open the door to the enlargement of this group by the process of excluding certain classes from the civil service itself, without any control being exercised by the civil service commission. Accordingly, the bill has been drawn to make it clear that this was not the intention of the government
Civil Service Act
and to make it equally clear that action in relation to prevailing rates employees cannot be taken without a recommendation to such effect proceeding in the first place from the civil service commission itself. I wish to make it quite clear that there can be no suggestion whatever of taking outside the civil service those who come within the category of prevailing rates employees unless the matter is commenced by a recommendation from the civil service commission itself.
I do not propose, nor is this the time, to enlarge further upon the contents of the bill. I thought it fitting to refer in a general way to what I said on June 20 last and to indicate briefly and in outline the points on which the present measure differs from its predecessor. It may, however, be appropriate to repeat that the general purpose of the present measure is to reaffirm the principle of the merit system, to safeguard the independence of the civil service commission and of the service itself within the compass of legislation designed to meet the many administrative problems which have arisen in the course of the life of the act of 1918, without permitting any compromise of the principles for which the act has stood and which have earned universal approbation for more than 40 years in this land and beyond our shores.
It will be recalled by hon. members that at the 1960 session a special committee was appointed by the house for the purpose, as originally intended, of studying both Bill No. C-77 and the kindred bill to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act. The committee was set up and the bill to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act was referred to it. However, Bill No. C-77 did not reach the point of second reading and consequently was not referred to that committee. May I say of that committee that it was an excellent committee and it did very useful work in relation to the superannuation act amendments.
If it were to meet with the approval of the house I would propose, at the appropriate time, to move the reappointment of a similar committee. It was not a large committee. It was a committee of very suitable size for the task that was entrusted to it. I have placed on Votes and Proceedings of the house today, a notice of motion that a special committee be appointed to consider Bill No. C-71, an act respecting the civil service, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time; 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 consist of 15 members to be designated by the house, and so on.

Civil Service Act
A committee of this size I think will be regarded by the house as appropriate for the type of intensive study that will be called for in relation to this measure. I will say no more about the importance of the measure. I think that importance was widely recognized in all parts of the house last year. Both as to its subject matter and as to the physical size of the bill, undoubtedly this measure will be a major piece of legislation and, perhaps in terms of size, the largest government measure to be before the house at this session.
It is in no perfunctory sense that I say the civil service of Canada holds a position of the highest respect, not only in the eyes of this country and this parliament but indeed its position and its prestige have been recognized in other countries as well. It is the senior element of the public service of this country that is best known in other countries. Our senior civil servants come frequently into contact with the senior civil servants of other countries, more particularly the countries of the commonwealth. One cannot attend these international meetings, particularly commonwealth meetings, without being frequently impressed with the high regard in which our civil servants are held in these other countries.
Last year I made mention of the increasing complexity of government and the burden which that increasing complexity casts upon the civil service. This has meant that our civil service, while expanding in numbers as it has over the last 20 years, has had to become infinitely more diverse, more technical and more specialized in keeping with the very great expansion of the duties cast upon it. It must be a civil service of the highest competence in order to discharge the great variety of tasks that fall upon it.
The first requisite of the civil service at all times must be unimpeachable integrity. While of course in a civil service as large as ours there will be, from time to time, derelictions I think it is a matter of very great satisfaction to all parties in this parliament that these cases are very rare indeed in relation to the very large numbers of persons involved.
It has been, I think, a matter of satisfaction to this parliament to have taken important, and may I say notable, steps to improve the conditions of the civil service. Within the past year, parliament has made it possible to provide substantial increases in salaries. Within the past year, the medical-surgical benefits have been introduced throughout the civil service. The amendments to the superannuation act which this parliament enacted at the 1960 session likewise brought very considerable benefits to the civil service and repaired situations that were calling for remedy. This present parliament also provided increases in superannuation benefits for those civil servants who had retired before the present parliament was elected. Those, Mr. Speaker, are the expressions on the part of this parliament of its due appreciation, in the name of the Canadian people, of the outstanding services rendered to this Canadian nation by the civil service of this country.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: May I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the house leader would just confirm the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow we start with the bill based on the resolution that was passed earlier dealing with the tariff board. Upon completion of that matter, we will resume the debate on the item with which we are now dealing, Bill No. C-71, an act respecting the civil service of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is quite clearly understood that we go on to the labour estimates on Thursday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought if things moved rapidly tomorrow and the debate on Bill No. C-71, respecting the civil service of Canada were close to completion, we might finish it early on Thursday. However, perhaps we might leave that to the judgment of the house tomorrow.


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

Since I am not familiar with the area in Alberta in which this railway spur line will be constructed, I wonder if the hon. member could relate this area to the area considered by the royal commission on the Great Slave railway. Are the areas comparable, that is the area to be served by this spur line and the area considered by the royal commission?
James Stanley Speakman: There is no relation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I should caution the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


James Stanley Speakman: There is no relationship. The only reason for presenting this bill to the house is that the proposed extension is over three miles in length and, therefore, the board of transport commissioners has no power to grant approval without reference to parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-47, to amend the Fire Losses Replacement Account Act.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, when the business of the house was interrupted at five o'clock we were discussing the proposals to amend this act. I think this is the first amendment since 1953-54, when legislation was introduced with respect to crown fire losses. I have some questions to ask that may perhaps arise more appropriately when we come to consider the first clause of the bill at the committee stage. However, I do wish to indicate certain matters which I would like clarified.
Has the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) ascertained whether any parliamentary committee has recommended that crown companies should follow the procedure generally laid down for other sections of government administration? I think this is a very desirable policy. I recall at one time being associated with the minister in a committee in
Fire Losses Replacement Account Act which this matter came up. I think the procedure in relation to crown companies should take the same form. This risk should be borne by the government on a national, overall basis, without payment to any intermediates such as agents or representatives of the normal insurance companies.
I did indicate to the minister before five o'clock that I wondered under what authority 

although I did not question that the authority existed-the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1960, contained a complete blank in so far as a dollar and cent item was concerned under this fire losses replacement account. I wonder whether the minister would answer this question and relate it to recent years.
I am sure the minister understands that I am concerned about the looseness in the estimates for individual departments which suffer fire losses. Perhaps the minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong in regard to this question. Was the $5 million fund created under this enactment for the purposes of making it possible for departments to go ahead without delay in the event of a fire loss, in the absence of authority from parliament?
It occurs to me when I see a "nil" item in the public accounts, such as there was for last year, that perhaps the estimates granted to each department are just not as tight and close as the minister boasts in so many public speeches, when he says that never before has treasury board been so strict in its administration and authority over the various departments. I know that fire losses have been incurred by a number of departments and I have available the reports of the dominion fire commissioner.
I find that this provision was legislated in 1953-54. It was enacted to provide departments with a fund so that they could go ahead, if necessary, with construction rapidly after incurring a fire loss, when parliament could not vote the sum necessary to replace that loss. If last year no department of government required assistance under this legislation from this fund, either on a temporary basis or on a basis longer than the fiscal year, I wonder whether some of these remarks of the minister are valid, that there are under this government less lapses in expenditure estimates than there have been in any other government.
I think that in fact there must yet be looseness in the departments, if during the course of the fiscal year last reported upon by the auditor general, no money was needed for this particular provision. In other words, I suggest there were lapses. There was an excess fund in every department when a fire occurred so that they either replaced
2748	HOUSE OF
Fire Losses Replacement Account Act that loss or decided that there was no immediate requirement to proceed with replacement until the next fiscal year or until parliament could provide the necessary appropriation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1.
William Moore Benidickson: May we hear from the minister as to the intention? Is it perhaps to avoid the placement of insurance with private companies by crown corporations? What is the minister's intention when he advances this bill?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The effect of this bill, when adopted, will be to make it possible to bring within the benefit of the fire losses replacement account the proprietary crown corporations listed in schedule D to the Financial Administration Act. Up to the present time, so far as the crown agency corporations are concerned, the benefit applied to those in schedule C to the Financial Administration Act. The effect of the amendments in the present bill will be to bring the proprietary crown corporations such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, within the benefit of the fund. That being the case, it will be possible for these corporations, acting on the same principle that the government follows in relation to carrying the risk of fire losses on its own property, to have recourse to the fund at any time subject to the approval of treasury board, in the event of loss through fire.
While I am on my feet I perhaps might deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River this afternoon in relation to the public accounts. He drew attention to page A-21 of the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960 and commented that the accounts showed no monetary figure against the fire losses replacement account. The answer to the hon. gentleman is that the fire losses replacement account is not an account in the ordinarily accepted sense. The fact is that no funds accrue to it. The fund has $5 million provided for it under section 8 of the Fire Losses Replacement Account Act, chapter 28 of the statutes of 1953-54. This, under section 5 of the act, is an account in the consolidated revenue fund. Therefore the answer briefly is that the $5 million is not a fund in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term. It is really a limiting authority as will be seen when regard is had to the provisions of section 8 of the main act. Thus, if an advance is made at any time during the year, it remains against


that account until it is repaid by an appropriation within the same current year, as required by the act.


William Moore Benidickson: I thank the minister for his answer to my inquiry contained in his last remarks. There was a nil report in the year ended March 31, 1960. However, in the previous year, for example, I think there was referred to an item of $186,000. To me it was a somewhat unusual and, I admit, somewhat ununderstandable situation in that it had a minus item of $186,000 related to this fund as compared with the most recent year which had no figure whatsoever and to which the minister has kindly referred.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The explanation of that $186,000 item, which of course I have not had the opportunity to check, would be this. There had been a charge to the fund in that amount which had not been repaid at March 31 for some reason or another. In that event, the charge would go over to the following fiscal year and would be repaid. That would be the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959. From the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960, it is evident that this advance was repaid.


William Moore Benidickson: I believe that crown fire losses are reported by the dominion fire commissioner. Is that right?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: I know that he is not an officer that reports to the Minister of Finance. I think he reports to the Minister of Public Works.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct.


William Moore Benidickson: When I inquired, I found the last report of crown fire losses referred, I believe, to fire losses in the fiscal year ended in 1959. I know the Minister of Finance is one who is greatly interested in saving anything that has dollar value to the crown. Has he inquired as to whether or not the dominion commissioner for fire losses is late in reporting, having regard to the fact that the last available report refers to the year ended March 31, 1959. I do not expect the minister or his advisers would know about this matter at the moment, but will he inquire as we proceed before later steps in this legislation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I speak now only from memory in saying that, according to my recollection, the commissioner reports by the calendar year. That would account for the fact that the report for the year 1960 is not yet available. I am told that the compilation of his report is an extremely complicated matter. This would be a reason that it is not yet available for the year 1960.

Fire Losses Replacement Account Act
The Depuly Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Moore Benidickson: No, Mr. Chairman. May I say this in connection with the proposed amendments. I think we are advancing in a proper course. However, in his remarks the minister indicated that everything was only permissive. In the remarks he has made so far I saw nothing that might indicate that even he, let alone the government, might have some influence in the course of events with respect to crown companies. Perhaps he would indicate to the committee that he and his colleagues have given this matter some thought. Perhaps he would also indicate whether or not he thinks the government might intimate a will or a desire to assure that crown companies in the future are not going to deal with private insurance companies with respect to fire losses.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Included among the proprietary crown corporations under schedule D to the Financial Administration Act are two that are commercial corporations that do not operate in close relationship with any government department. For instance, in this list are Polymer Corporation Limited and Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is obvious that in this regard those corporations operate in very much the same manner as do corporations that are under private ownership. But in the case of corporations that have some relationship to the government in the matter of appropriations such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the intention would be to bring them within the scope of this principle and within the benefit of the account.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister of Finance inform us who were the agents for insuring the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am informed that they were not insured last year but carried their own risk.


Leon David Crestohl: Could the minister inform the committee whether it would be theoretically possible for a crown corporation to sustain a loss that might not be considered adequately covered by insurance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: To what kind of a crown corporation does the hon. member refer?


Leon David Crestohl: I am referring to any one of the crown corporations falling under this act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member is begging the question by giving that answer. The agency corporations listed in schedule C of the Financial Administration Act are now within the benefit of the Fire Losses Replacement Account Act. The
purpose of the present amendment is to make the benefits of the account available to proprietary corporations under schedule D, so it would be necessary for the hon. member to indicate to me a particular corporation or at least under which schedule the corporation he has in mind falls.


Leon David Crestohl: I was not referring to any particular corporation. I referred to the quantum of loss. Assuming there is a catastrophe and a tremendous loss results would it be theoretically possible for the loss to have been so great that it would not adequately be covered by this fund, or is the protection limitless?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member must be talking about a corporation that is outside the benefit of the Fire Losses Replacement Account Act. He is speaking, I take it, of some crown corporation that has been carrying its own fire insurance, and that is in a realm outside this bill entirely. We are dealing here with government departments and those crown corporations which are governed in relation to fire risks by the principle on which the government operates, namely they carry their own risk. If the hon. member is asking about a crown corporation that lies outside the scope of this bill and outside the benefit of the fire losses replacement account it remains in each case a matter for the advisers of the crown corporation to advise the corporation as to what is considered to be an adequate amount of fire insurance to carry. I think that in a matter of this kind the hon. gentleman would have to be more precise in indicating to me the particular corporation to which he refers because I have just given an instance of one of the proprietary crown corporations which falls under schedule D of the Financial Administration Act which, even before the enactment of the present amending bill, has already been operating on this principle of carrying its own risk.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister will be willing to place on the record in connection with this debate those crown corporations that would be referred to hitherto in Hansard as falling under schedules C and D of the Financial Administration Act. I do not think they are referred to in this amending bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, schedule C of the Financial Administration Act reads as follows:
Canadian Arsenals Limited, Canadian Commercial Corporation, Canadian Patents and Development Limited, Canadian Sugar Stabilization Corporation Ltd., Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Ltd., Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, Defence

Canadian and British Insurance Act Construction (1951) Limited, Federal District Commission, National Battlefields Commission, National Harbours Board, Park Steamship Company Limited.
In relation to the second last corporation mentioned, I made a comment this afternoon that the national harbours board has its own fund.
There are a dozen corporations listed under schedule D of the Financial Administration Act. Schedule D reads as follows:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Farm Loan Board

That board has of course been superseded by the Farm Credit Corporation. I continue:
Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited-
That corporation is in the course of being wound up. To go on with the list:
-Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited, Export Credits Insurance Corporation, National Railways as defined in the Canadian National-Cana-dian Pacific Act, Northern Transportation Company (1947) Limited, Northwest Territories Power Commission, Polymer Corporation Limited, Trans-Canada Air Lines.
As I indicated earlier, the corporation in this list which we have immediately in mind to bring within the account is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. S-5, an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-5, an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act is in a sense associated with the bill which is next to follow according to the announcement made last night by the leader of the house, namely Bill No. S-6, an act to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act. While we of course do not attempt to discuss two measures at the same time or in the same debate, I think it may be said and understood by all hon. members that while the first of the two bills covers a wider area than the second, the points that are raised for discussion are similar.


At the conclusion of the debate on second reading, if it pleases the house to give the bill second reading, I shall propose that the same course be followed with respect to both bills, namely that they be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. The superintendent of insurance, Mr. Kenneth MacGregor, will be available to that committee to offer such testimony concerning the details of both measures as the members of the committee may desire.
These bills, I may point out, have already been passed by the other place and were carefully reviewed there particularly at the committee stage. There is, of course, much in both bills that is highly technical. Our insurance legislation has not been comprehensively revised at regular intervals. The last major revision of our insurance legislation took place in 1950 but, as I shall point out later in my remarks, there have been three amendments since that time. The revision embodied in the bill now under debate is one that has been sought by the insurance companies themselves which are governed by it. There are important changes proposed to the insurance legislation in these bills. Perhaps the most important consists of the provisions for enlarging and broadening the powers of investment of the companies. Indeed, it may be said that the purpose of the measure in this regard is to enlarge the freedom and flexibility of the insurance companies in relation to their investing powers. An important new provision is introduced in relation to variable annuities or contracts. So much by way of introduction.
There are very few persons in Canada whose lives or property are not affected, directly or indirectly, by insurance. The protection afforded by insurance is interwoven throughout the fabric of our modern mode of living and our economic structure. Insurance eliminates or reduces risks that would otherwise cause great distress or disaster. Insurance provides a bulwark against the hazards of accident, sickness, old age, death, fire and a multitude of other contingencies. It also stimulates savings, and some forms of insurance, especially life insurance, give rise to the accumulation of very large funds for investment. Consequently, the manner in which insurers carry on business in Canada and their investment policies, their stability and their solvency are of vital importance and concern to the entire Canadian public.
At present, there are 410 companies and 50 societies within the description of Canadian, British and foreign insurance companies and fraternal benefit societies registered under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act or the Foreign Insurance Companies Act to transact business under the supervision of

Canadian and British Insurance Act underlying this measure of freedom of investment was first adopted in 1948. It has since proved to be of great value in permitting companies to invest in new types of securities and experience has shown that this freedom has been carefully exercised.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the minister permit a question? For the record, will he outline the type of assets that he is now referring to, namely those in the so-called basket?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will be evident, I think, as we proceed. We are speaking now of the investments which are permitted under the so-called "basket clause".
At the present time no company is using the existing freedom to the full extent permitted, but from time to time some companies have approached the present limit. It is now proposed to increase this limit to 5 per cent of a company's total assets.
Considering Canadian companies as a whole, since their total assets exceed $9 billion this means that such companies can make investments in real estate for the production of income, or in any kind of bonds not in default, or in stocks regardless of their dividend record, subject only to the wisdom of the companies themselves, up to a maximum amount of approximately $450 million. It is believed that the additional margin is justified on the grounds that the present freedom has been responsibly used and that the higher limit will permit a desirable participation by companies in new types of investments without the necessity of frequent amendments to the act to change the specific kinds of investment authorized and will permit the making of sound investments even though they do not meet the specific requirements of the various prescribed classes set forth in the act.
Changes are proposed in the provisions relating to real estate purchased for the production of income and leased back to a corporation that has a dividend record up to a prescribed standard, under a lease meeting certain minimum requirements. The act at present limits any particular investment of this type to half of 1 per cent of the book value of the total ledger assets of the company. It is proposed to increase this limit on any one parcel to 1 per cent of the company's total assets.
Furthermore, the act in its present form also limits the aggregate investments of a company in real estate for the production of income, whether of the particular kind just mentioned or any other kind, to 5 per cent of the book value of the total ledger assets of the company. It is proposed to raise this limit to 10 per cent of the company's total


assets. This type of investment, first authorized in 1948, has proved to be sound and profitable and particularly popular in a few companies that are approaching the present limit. A substantial degree of experience has been gained and it now appears that a higher limit can be adopted without weakening the general quality of the asset portfolios of the companies.
Another change relates to so-called equipment trust certificates. At present, companies may invest in equipment trust certificates issued by a trustee to finance the purchase of transportation equipment for a railway company incorporated in Canada or the United States and secured by such equipment. It is proposed to extend this provision to include transportation equipment for use on public highways. Equipment trust certificates have generally proved to be of high quality in both Canada and the United States.


William Moore Benidickson: Would that include air transport?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I said transportation equipment for use on public highways.
It is proposed to authorize, as a new specific class of investment, the guaranteed investment certificates issued by Canadian trust companies, either federal or provincial, where such companies have a dividend record as good as the dividend record required to make the debentures of any other kind of company qualify as eligible investments.
Several other minor changes respecting investments are dealt with in the bills but their purposes are, I think, apparent from the explanatory notes printed in the bills.
Leaving the subject of investment powers, may I now touch upon a matter relating to the corporate powers of insurance companies in the pension and annuity field as well as the investment of funds arising under certain kinds of pension and annuity schemes.
Life insurance companies transacting business in Canada have expressed the desire, through representations made by the Canadian life insurance officers association, to make group contracts for the financing of employer-employee pension plans in such terms as to result in the contract holder receiving the full benefit or burden of investment gains or losses. Under such contracts, there would be no guarantee of investment return and the obligations of the insurance company would, in general, rise or fall with a rise or fall in the market value of the securities earmarked for contracts of this kind. For such contracts also, the companies wish to have greater freedom of investment than is now permitted under the

present legislation. It is well known that many employers prefer to see their pension funds invested in common stocks to a greater extent than the 15 per cent limit applicable to insurance funds as a whole and have set up trust funds for this purpose.
At present, Canadian life insurance companies have the corporate power to issue "annuities of all kinds", and to make contracts of "insurance providing for the establishment, accumulation and payment of sinking, redemption, accumulation, renewal or endowment funds". These companies thus have the corporate power to make such contracts provided there is some element of insurance in them but the act is not clear how such contracts should be dealt with in the accounts of the company. It is also doubtful whether this type of contract could be used to any appreciable extent within the present limitations on investments in common stocks applying to the life insurance funds of the company generally. So-called variable annuities, involving annuity payments varying from time to time in accordance with the investment results of a fund invested substantially or wholly in common stocks, fall in this same general category and since companies have the power to issue annuities of all kinds, they have the power to issue variable annuities, although few companies have yet expressed much interest in them.
If companies begin to issue contracts of the general kind to which I have just referred, under which the obligations to the policyholder vary with the market value of the investments held for the benefit of such contracts, it is of the utmost importance that such contracts should be dealt with in a manner completely separate from the normal life insurance business of the company.
It is therefore proposed to amend section 81 of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act so that if any such contracts are made by Canadian companies-and this would include so-called variable annuities- they shall be dealt with in a separate fund Dr funds and the assets belonging to any such fund or funds shall be segregated from the other assets of the company. Similar proposals respecting British insurance companies will be found in this bill and in the other bill. It is also proposed that the investments in any such separate fund be relieved from the existing limitations on the proportion that may be invested in common stocks or in real estate for the production of income. Investments would not, however, be relieved from the usual requirements with respect to kind and quality.
In this connection, I might mention that there is not complete unanimity amongst
Canadian and British Insurance Act the companies concerning the desirability of offering contracts of this general kind. Views have been expressed to the effect that life insurance companies should refrain from issuing any type of policy which does not provide benefits of guaranteed amount, lest unfavourable variations resulting from a fall in the value of the investments might detract from the public confidence now placed in the life insurance companies, a confidence that has been built up on the strength of guaranteed benefits.
To give effect to this view would require a narrowing of corporate powers at present enjoyed by Canadian life insurance companies. This would scarcely seem appropriate having regard to the fact that this view is seemingly held in a very few companies only, that provincially incorporated companies are already transacting this kind of business, that British companies apparently have the necessary power to do so, and that many United States companies are acquiring powers of this kind.
Instead, as I have already mentioned, the course proposed is to require separate funds and separate assets with, of course, separate accounting for such business in order to keep it quite separate from the regular life insurance and annuity business of the company. If life insurance companies are careful to explain the different nature of this kind of contract when it is made, the possibility of misunderstanding should be reduced, if not eliminated; and the availability of this kind of contract will enable the companies to meet a strong demand from various segments of the public to have funds arising under pension plans invested to a greater degree in equities than is otherwise permitted. Although no specific requirement is proposed at this time concerning the proportion of any such fund that should be invested in Canadian securities, it is taken for granted that where the fund is held for the benefit of policyholders in Canada it will be invested mainly, if not wholly, in Canadian securities, including Canadian equities.
I turn now to another field in which life insurance companies have for many years been quite active. I refer to personal accident and sickness insurance.
At present, a Canadian life insurance company is permitted to transact classes of insurance other than life insurance if it has the charter power to do so or acquires the necessary power in accordance with the provisions of the act. It is required, however, to maintain the funds, accounts and securities held in respect of its life insurance business in a manner completely separate and distinct from the funds, accounts and securities for

Canadian and British Insurance Act any other class of business. Up to date, the only other class of business of any importance is personal accident and sickness insurance.
If a Canadian life insurance company wishes to engage in personal accident and sickness insurance, it must establish a separate fund for that purpose and the act permits the transfer from the life insurance funds of an amount not exceeding 25 per cent of the surplus of the company or $100,000, whichever is less, in order to create any such fund. However, having regard for the size of the large life insurance companies and the enormous growth in personal accident and sickness business, particularly with respect to group insurance, the amounts so available are no longer considered adequate. Furthermore, the act now permits a transfer only for the creation of the separate fund. There are no means whereby further transfers can be made from the life insurance funds to the accident and sickness fund even if such transfers should be necessary to maintain the solvency of the latter fund.
It is therefore proposed that the present limitation on transfers be changed to permit transfers either to establish or maintain the fund and, in addition, that the limit on the amount of transfers be increased for the larger companies to 10 per cent of the surplus. This will still retain the advantages of a clear separation between these two kinds of business but at the same time will afford some degree of flexibility in sustaining the accident and sickness fund, if necessary, in times of adversity.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is desirable to revise and rearrange several sections of the present legislation for greater clarity, to adapt their provisions better to meet current conditions and to remove minor defects or anomalies. Also, there are a few provisions which have become obsolete and should be repealed. The changes proposed in these respects are indicated in the bills themselves, and can be further discussed in the committee on banking and commerce. I say nothing concerning the other bill to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, except to indicate that the amendments are, in general, virtually identical.
The house has had the benefit, through its banking and commerce committee in times past, of opportunities for studying insurance legislation with the very competent and highly valued assistance of Mr. Kenneth MacGregor, the superintendent of insurance. I have no doubt that the review of our existing legislation offered by the two present measures will be of very great benefit to our legislative efforts in parliament.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I know the house will be grateful for the thorough, and properly thorough, statement the minister has made with respect to two bills before us. I believe his remarks would apply not only to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act amendment bill but to the Foreign Insurance Companies Act amendment as well. We can regard them as companion bills.
I believe this house will regard it as fortunate that those in the Senate received these particular bills before we did. There are many in that place who are experienced in the insurance business and the trust and loan business, so these bills did receive already very careful consideration, not only in the chamber of the other place but in their banking and commerce committee as well. I think quite a number of the hon. members of this house will have read the evidence that was presented on these occasions. I will not refer to this; indeed, perhaps I am not permitted to refer to it.
While those in the other place did receive evidence from the much admired superintendent of insurance, Mr. MacGregor, to whom the minister has referred, my reading of what has taken place in the other place would indicate that although a number of representatives of the insurance industry were in attendance there they did not give evidence before the banking and commerce committee of the other place. I do not mean to imply that the hon. members of the other place denied any member of the public an opportunity to make representations.
However, I would hope that if the hon. member for York North (Mr. Cathers) president of our banking and commerce committee is present he will regard this as a very important operation in so far as this House of Commons committee is concerned. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has indicated, this legislation relates to some $9 billion worth of assets. We all know that those assets are, for all practical purposes, assets that do not belong to the managers of the companies. Those are assets that have been accumulated by the people of Canada at large and, to that extent, I think there is a greater than usual obligation on our commons to consider these amendments which involve such an important element of capital in our country.
I would hope that the chairman of the banking and commerce committee would not be in haste to deal with this legislation, but that he and the clerk of the committee would give adequate notice to the public that these revisions are proposed. In this way, in due course we could have a discussion in the committee that would be satisfactory in every