1962-11-19

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe)
presented the first report of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a national economic development board and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the board and for the payment of the chairman's remuneration and of certain expenses of the members thereof, to provide further that the board may engage the services of such advisers and staff as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its duties and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of National
Revenue) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an Atlantic development board and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the board and for the payment of certain expenses of the members thereof, to provide for the appointment of an executive director of the board and for the payment of his remuneration, to provide further that the board may engage the services of such advisers and staff as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its duties and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
Motion agreed to.
27507-3-1114


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to inroduce a measure to amend the National Productivity Council Act, to provide for the appointment of three additional members thereof and for the payment of certain expenses of such members, to provide further for the payment of all expenses of the council out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I find that a part of the question which was answered last week by the Department of Transport should have been answered by the Department of Defence Production. I therefore table a supplementary answer to question No. 515.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a rather informal procedure, but is it agreed that this question No. 515, which should have been made an order for return, can now have a supplementary answer to it tabled by the Minister of Defence Production?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The question and supplementary answer are as follows:]



BEDFORD BASIN, N.S.  TENDERS FOR RELOCATION OF SIDING

Mr. Stewart: 1.	What method was used in calling tenders in connection with the relocation of railway siding, Bedford basin, Nova Scotia, 600-B2-2?
2.	On what date were tenders called, and what media were used?
3.	How many tenders were received?
4.	What are the names and addresses of those who tendered and, in each case, what was the amount of the tender?
5.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. O'Hurley:: 1. Public tender call.

Questions
2.	June 29, 1962, in the following publications: (a) MacLean Building Reports Limited, (b) Daily Commercial News, (c) Chronicle-Herald and Mail-Star.
3.	Five.
4.	(i) L. E. Powell and Company Limited, 677 Quinpool road, Halifax, N.S., $78,197.
(ii)	Conniston Construction Co. Ltd., 711 Richmond road, Ottawa, Ontario, $87,700.
(iii)	Fundy Construction Co. Ltd., Isleville street, Halifax, N.S., $89,870.
(iv)	Municipal Spraying & Contracting Ltd., Bedford, N.S., $97,874.
(v)	R. A. Douglas Limited, P.O. Box 66, New Glasgow, N.S., $104,919.
5.	L. E. Powell and Company Limited.
Explanatory Note
The work covered by this contract consists of the construction of a reinforced concrete loading platform approximately 39' x 74' with metal roof cover; a 12' x 12' concrete block guard house; approximately 1,370' of fencing, and approximately 2,100' of asphalt road.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
. RED BANK INDIAN RESERVE, N.B.

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has a contract been awarded for the installation of water services on the Bed Bank reserve, Miramichi Indian agency, New Brunswick, and, if so, what are the names, with amounts, of persons submitting tenders?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded, and in what amount?
3.	Were tenders requested previous to 1962 for this project and, if so, on what dates, and what were the names, with amounts, of tenders received on each occasion?
4.	Were parties, who submitted tenders prior to 1962, informed that they would be invited to submit a tender in 1962 and, if so, if any were not invited to tender, why not?
5.	Was this project previously awarded at any time and, if so, in what amount, and why was the tender cancelled?


Mr. McGee:: 1. Yes. The following tenders were obtained: A. G. Kenny, Bartibog Bridge,
N.B., $11,000; Charles Plaxton, Lower Derby, N.B., $11,550; A. G. Roach, Chatham Head, N.B.-Tender received after closing date and not accepted.
2.	A. G. Kenny, Bartibog Bridge, N.B.,

3.	Yes. July 1961. North Shore Construction Limited, Newcastle, N.B., $5,900; McAllister Bros., Newcastle, N.B., $7,700; A. G. Kenny, Bartibog Bridge, N.B., $10,000, Forrest Construction Co. Ltd., $10,500; M. F. Esson & Sons Ltd., $14,995.

4.	The firms submitting tenders prior to 1962 were not informed that they would be invited to submit a tender in 1962. Inadvertently, requests for tenders were sent only to the firms whose names were given in the answer to part 1.
5.	A contract for this project was not let prior to 1962. Although tenders were called in July 1961, authority to purchase a tract of land outside the reserve essential to the project was not obtained until November 1961. The letting of the contract was delayed pending the receipt of this authority. When the authority was obtained the low bidder indicated he was not prepared to carry out the work at the price he had quoted because of the lateness of the season. It was then decided to carry over the project to next summer and to invite new tenders.


REASSESSMENT OF SYMES PENSION
Mr. Matheson: Has the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Canadian pension commission received a brief from the dominion council of War Amputations of Canada requesting a reassessment of the Symes pension and, if so, is consideration being given to implementing the recommendations contained therein?


Mr. Jones:: The minister received representation from the War Amputations of Canada by way of a brief submitted early in 1962. Because the representation asked that the commission introduce certain amendments to the table of disabilities affecting assessments for Symes operations, the matter was referred to the pension commission for consideration. The representation was carefully considered at a general meeting of the commission on April 17, 1962. The War Amputations of Canada were advised of the commission's decision by letter from the chairman on May 11, 1962.
While the decision at that time was adverse, this matter is to be further considered at a general meeting of the Canadian pension commission early in 1963.


SITE FOR WINTER OLYMPICS
Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne): 1.	Who Investigated the possibilities offered by Mont Tremblant, In Terrebonne county, Que., before Banff, Alta, was given priority for the coming Olympic games?
2.	Was a written report submitted and, if so, is it a public document?
3.	Why was Mont Tremblant not selected as the site for the winter Olympics?


Mrs. Casselman:: 1 and 3. On January 9, 1961, the Canadian Olympic association commissioned the Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation Limited to carry out a comparative site study of various

centres which were interested in making application for the holding of the 1968 winter Olympic games.
Prior to this the Canadian Olympic association had given notification through the newspapers that it would consider applications from sites interested in holding the games. Applications were received from the Calgary Olympic development association representing Banff, the Snow Valley Olympic winter Olympic committee representing Fernie, B.C., the Rossland-Trail Olympic committee representing Rossland, B.C., the Manning Park Olympic committee representing Manning Park, B.C., the Garibaldi Olympic development association representing Alta Lake, B.C., and the Revelstoke winter Olympic games committee representing Revelstoke, B.C. No representation was made to the Canadian Olympic association on behalf of Mont Tremblant.
As a result of this survey Banff was recommended to the Canadian Olympic association as the most suitable site. It is understood that only the locations in Canada which could meet specifications for Olympic competition in ski events are those in the Rocky mountains.
2. Yes, a report was submitted by the Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation Limited to the Canadian Olympic association. A copy is on the files of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


SABIN VACCINE PROGRAM
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	How many cases, to date, of polio have been reported in Canada following administration of Sabin vaccine?
2.	Has the Sabin vaccine program been completely cancelled in Canada and, if not, is there any indication when the Sabin vaccine program may be resumed?


Frederick Clayton Casselman: 1. As indicated in the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the House of Commons on November 14, in approximately four million persons fed Sabin vaccine in May, June and July, there were four cases of paralytic disease with a high probability of association with Sabin vaccine. Among the contacts of those fed Sabin vaccine, one case of paralytic poliomyelitis was considered by the national technical advisory committee on live poliovirus vaccines to have a high probability of association with Sabin vaccine.
2. As indicated in the minister's statement of November 14, he has accepted the recommendation of the dominion council of health that the use of Sabin vaccine be deferred no longer and that it be used according to the recommendations of the national technical
Questions
advisory committee on live poliovirus vaccines. Specific plans regarding the use of Sabin vaccine will be determined by provincial departments of health.


PENITENTIARY PLANS, BROME AND BAGOT COUNTIES, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 65 7-Mr. Dupuis:
Has the federal government invited architects to submit plans for penitentiaries in the counties of Brome and Bagot and, if so, what are the names and addresses of these architects?
Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Yes. In the county of Brome, P. Trepanier, Granby, P.Q. and in the county of Bagot, S. A. Cyr, St. Hyacinthe, P.Q.


PROTECTIVE CROSSING SIGNALS, MUIRKIRK, ONT.
Mr. Clunis: 1.	Has	the	board	of	transport	commissioners
received estimates of costs submitted by the New York Central railway for the installation of protective signals at Muirkirk, Ontario, and, if so, what is the amount of these estimates?
2.	Has	the	board	of	transport	commissioners
received the estimate of costs submitted by the Chesapeake and Ohio railway for the installation of protective signals on its railway at the same location and, if so, what is the amount of the estimate?
3.	What is the explanation of these differences in estimated costs of these respective works?


Mr. McBain:: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	Yes; approximately $28,000.
2.	Yes; approximately $14,000.
3.	County road 21 at Muirkirk, Ontario, crosses the double track main line and one siding of the New York Central railroad and also crosses the single track main line of the Chesapeake and Ohio railway. The protection to be installed at the crossing of the Chesapeake and Ohio railway will consist of two flashing lights and bell with one short arm gate; while the protection to be installed at the crossing of the New York Central railroad will consist of two flashing light signals and bell and two short arm gates. The foregoing accounts for the difference in the estimated costs of the two installations which will, due to their close proximity one with another, render protection as one complete unit for the two crossings.
(Translation):


CLOSING OF DORMITORIES, PILOTS' BUILDING, QUEBEC
Mr. Dumont: What is the name of the official of the Department of Transport who ordered the closing of the two dormitories in the pilots' building, Marche Champlain, for the district of Quebec and Montreal, and from whom did he receive his instructions?

Questions


James Alexander McBain: The order to close the dormitories in the pilots' building in Quebec city was given under a departmental administrative ruling under the authority of the Minister of Transport.
(Text):


LICENCES OF AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL
Mr. Rock: 1.	Does the Department of Transport regulate the qualifications of all personnel in Canada who sign out the aircraft log books certifying that the aircraft is airworthy before flight, after work and inspection are carried out?
2.	Has the Department of Transport decided to discontinue aircraft maintenance engineers' licences and, if so, (a) has the department decided to issue a new form of licence (b) will the department regulate all the new licences (c) will all aircraft maintenance personnel employed by the air lines operating in Canada, be required to obtain these new licences?


James Alexander McBain: 1. Yes.
2. No.


* GRANTS TO CHILDREN'S ATHLETIC PROGRAMS, TORONTO
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale): Will the government consider making provision for financial assistance, under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act, to community athletic programs for children such as those now in operation in the city of Toronto at the Regent Park North and Regent Park South housing projects, the John Innes community centre, and the Gerrard boys "K" club?


Frederick Clayton Casselman: The federal government has concluded agreements under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act with the province of Ontario. The first agreement covered a planning and organization grant of $38,898 to assist the provincial government in planning and organizing its provincial fitness and amateur sport program. The second agreement provided a similar amount of money to be expended on approved projects for the encouragement and promotion of fitness and amateur sport in the province.
It will be a matter for the province to decide what projects are submitted for use of these federal funds. The projects mentioned together with any other projects submitted by the province will, under the normal procedure for the review of such projects, receive sympathetic consideration.


SUSPENSION OF BILINGUAL FM NETWORK
Mr. Malheson: How much money is to be saved monthly by the decision to suspend the bilingual FM network linking Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal?


Mr. Halpenny:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that FM plans are not finalized. The present savings are approximately $10,000 per month.


RIVIERE DU LOUP, QUE.-U.I.C. BOARD OF REFEREES
Mr. Legare: 1.	What is the territorial jurisdiction of the board of referees of the unemployment insurance commission at Riviere du Loup?
2.	How many appeals have been heard and how many dismissed for each of the following years 1959, 1960, and 1961?


Mr. Hales:: 1. The board of referees of the unemployment insurance commission at Riviere du Loup serves the following commission offices: Riviere du Loup, Forestville, Ri-mouski, Baie Comeau, Causapscal, Matane, Sept lies.
	Appeals	Appeals dis-
Year	heard	missed1959 	
148	1391960 	
176	1671961 	
216	181
(Translation):


DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING BRANCH, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, OTTAWA
Mr. Legare: 1.	What are, for the development engineering branch of the Department of Public Works, the limits of the district of Ottawa?
2.	How many English speaking and how many French speaking persons are resident in the said district?
3.	Is the chief engineer of the said district a unilingual officer?
4.	Does the department intend to make any change in this situation?


Mr. Fulton:: 1. The development engineering branch of the Department of Public Works operates on a provincial basis rather than on a "district" basis. The Ottawa district comes under the engineer in Toronto.
2, 3 and 4. Not applicable.
(Text):


MAIL DELIVERY CONTRACT, SASKATOON
Mr. Denis: 1.	Was a Mr. Musgrove recently awarded a postal delivery contract in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, covering mail delivery between Saskatoon and certain Canadian National Railway stations and, if so, on what date?
2.	Were tenders called for such service and, if so (a) what was the date limit mentioned for the filing of tenders (b) when were such tenders opened (c) what were the names of the tenderers (d) what were the respective amounts of their tenders (e) was one Mike Lynchuck informed that he was the lowest tenderer and that steps should be taken for the carrying out of the contract?
3.	Was Mr. Lynchuck later informed that he was no longer the lowest tenderer and, if so (a) what date did the government become acquainted with Mr. Musgrove's tender (b) was this tender opened at the same time as the other tenders concerning the said contract?
4.	On what grounds was the contract awarded to Mr. Musgrove?


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1. No, case still under consideration.	[DOT]

2. Yes. (a) 3rd August 1962; (b) 3rd August 1962; (c) Mike Lynchuk, $2.43 per hour; Glen G. Peterson, $2.95 per hour; Murray Jordan, $3.93 per hour; M. L. Musgrove, $2.25 per hour-accepted by a postal official at Saskatoon on the 23rd July 1962 and presumed lost in transit to Ottawa, (d) See (c). (e) Yes.
3.	Yes. (a) 4th October 1962 at Ottawa and 23rd July 1962 at Saskatoon; (b) No.
4.	Should the contract be awarded to Musgrove, the action will be based on evidence secured by officials who conducted the investigation. This includes affidavits from several persons and statements from a bank official and postal officers. We have also had legal advice to the effect that Mr. Musgrove's tender cannot be ignored.


AIR TRAVEL PERMITS FOR MEMBERS
Mr. Roxburgh: Has the government given consideration to increasing the number of air-travel permits to members of parliament?


James Alexander McBain: Consideration has been given to this matter from time to time, and it was concluded that such action would place an unreasonable burden on T.C.A.


HEATLEY AVENUE, VANCOUVER, RAILWAY OVERPASS
Mr. Nicholson: 1.	Has the national harbours board entered into a contract or accepted a tender for the construction of an overpass across the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's tracks at or near the north end of Heatley avenue, in the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, and, if so (a) what is the name of the contractor or to whom was the tender awarded (b) what amount is involved in the undertaking covered by such contract or acceptance of tender?
2.	Has any date been fixed for commencement of the work on the overpass in question?
3.	What is the estimated date for completion of the work?


James Alexander McBain: The national harbours board advises:
1.	Yes; (a) Biely Construction Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.,	(b) Lump sum amount of

2.	November 5, 1962.
3.	June 12, 1963.


METAL AND PLASTIC POSTAL BOXES
Mr. Denis: How many (a) metal (b) plastic, postal boxes have been installed in each of the provinces since January 1, 1958?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Statistics are maintained by postal districts and the four large post offices. These are compiled and reported at the end of each fiscal year.
Questions
	Period	March 31,
	1958, to March	
	31,1962	
Postal District-	Metal	PlasticSt. John's, Nfld	136	1Halifax, N.S	70	2Saint John, N.B	37	4Quebec, P.Q	200	2Montreal, P.Q	220	3Montreal (post office)..	969	2Ottawa, Ont	149	5Toronto, Ont	251	5Toronto (post office) ..	241	4London, Ont	202	11North Bay, Ont	107	3Winnipeg, Man	71	3Winnipeg (post office).	139	2Saskatoon, Sask	69	2Calgary, Alta	125	3Edmonton, Alta	198	1Vancouver, B.C	185	1Vancouver (post office)	308	3


FEDERAL BUILDING CARETAKER, BATTLEFORD, SASK.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Prior to September 1, 1962, what were the conditions of service and salary of the caretaker in the federal building at Battleford, Saskatchewan?
2.	Have the conditions of service and salary since been changed and, if so, (a) for what reason (b) what are the present conditions of service and salary (c) have any representations been received concerning them; what is their nature and what reply, if any, has been made?


Mr. McCleave:: 1. Prior to September 1, 1962, the caretaker in the federal building at Battleford, Saskatchewan, was paid $3,420 per annum. He occupied living accommodation for which he was charged $59 per month including light, heat and water.
2. Yes; (a) A review of the work requirements in 1959, determined the need for a part time caretaker only. This was done partly because of the conversion of the heating system from coal to oil.
(b)	When the position became vacant in August, 1962, a replacement was recruited through public competition by the civil service commission at the advertised salary of $1,485 per annum for an average work week of 20 hours. The caretaker is charged $57 per month for the living accommodation, including light, heat and water.
(c)	Yes, representations have been received that the salary should be increased and the charge for living accommodation be waived. A reply to these representations is being prepared.

Questions


MINISTRY OP FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mather: Has consideration been given to the establishment of a ministry of federal-provincial affairs to deal with the many matters of inter-provincial-federal concern?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: This relates to a matter of government policy. Any announcement in connection therewith will be made in the usual way.


CANADA-CHINA TRADE
Mr. Mather: 1.	Have protests been received from Chinese trade officials regarding the balance of trade with China and, if so. what is the nature of such protests?
2.	Is the government considering a re-assessment of Canada's trading imbalance with China with a view to protecting Canadian wheat sales to that country?
3.	What is the total value of textiles imported annually into Canada, and what proportion of these come from China?


George Harris Hees: 1. In the last year two groups of Chinese traders have visited Canada with a view to promoting the sale of their products in this country. They have since indicated some dissatisfaction with the results achieved to date.
2. The Canadian goverment is, of course, not unaware of the desire on the part of the communist Chinese to increase their sales to the Canadian market with a view to achieving a better balance in their trade. The Canadian government is hopeful that ways
and means will be found of maintaining and further developing this trade to the mutual advantage of both trading partners within the framework of Canadian over-all international relations and essential Canadian interests.
3.	Imports of fibres, textiles and products from all countries in 1961 were valued at $456,943,785. Imports of fibres, textiles and products from China in 1961 were valued at $994,847, and accounted for 0.2% of the total.


SALARY INCREASES FOR R.C.M.P. OFFICERS
Mr. Mather: Was an order in council recently passed providing salary increases for a substantial number of officers of the R.C.M.P., and, if so, will the wage freeze on other government employees be removed in the near future?


Mr. Graffley:: A treasury board minute of October 25, 1962, provided certain increases to commissioned officers of the R.C.M.P. When a decision has been made regarding other government employees an announcement will be made by the government.


TAX REVENUES FROM TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Mr. Honey: 1.	What was the total revenue received by the government from levies of all types applied to tobacco products in each of the years 1951 to 1961 inclusive, and the year 1962 to date?
2.	What were the amounts of revenue received in each of the above mentioned years (broken down under various revenue headings)?


Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-Carleton):: 1 and 2.
Excise Duty	Excise Taxes	TotalFiscal year	1950-1	
$114,486,607.39	$ 85,199,343.12	$199,685,950.511951-2	
100,710,919.47	106,953,508.39	207,664,427.861952-3	
116,914,024.40	102,644,936.80	219,558,961.201953-4	
96,970,717.04	113,161,242.46	210,131,959.501954-5	
100,750,984.72	114,507,967.73	215,258,952.451955-6	.... 110,355,060.05	126,921,997.62	237,277,057.671956-7	
121,085,775.64	132,264,543.27	253,350,318.911957-8	
131,684,062.14	142,421,869.90	274,105,932.041958-9	
141,201,293.66	147,996,164.04	289,197,457.701959-60	. .. 146,175,972.28	185,502,518.99	331,678,491.271960-61	... 149,658,504.27	193,648,658.18	343,307,162.451961-62	... 160,582,654.54	207,550,498.66	368,133,153.20Six months	April to	September -	1962 ..	
82,453,716.87	109,390,095.23	191,843,812.101,573,030,292.47	1,768,163,344.39	3,341,193,636.86
Complete revenue figures are not available with respect to imports of tobacco products for this period nor are revenue figures reflecting sales tax on domestic and imported tobacco products available for the reason that they are not recorded separately.


ANGUS COMMISSION REPORT ON PUNTLEDGE RIVER, B.C.
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Has the government been provided with a copy of the report of the Angus commission in

reference to fish conservation measures on the Puntledge river and, if so, is it in a position to make public the details of this report?
2.	Has the government of British Columbia informed the government in what way and to what extent it is prepared to co-operate in implementing the findings of the Angus commission?
3.	Has the government been informed by the B.C. hydro authority of its intentions with respect to the construction of the necessary fish conservation works required as a result of its water power development of the Puntledge river?
4.	Has any date been set for beginning construction of these works?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1. An official copy of the report of the Angus commission has not been received. Officials of the Department of Fisheries have been permitted to peruse and study a commission copy.
2.	No, not to this date.
3.	No, not to this date.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


VOTING RIGHTS OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Are members of the Department of External Affairs on foreign service abroad at present given the opportunity to vote in federal general elections?
2.	If not, is consideration being given to amending the Canada Elections Act so that members of the Department of External Affairs abroad may enjoy at least the same rights as other Canadian citizens?


John George Diefenbaker: 1. No.
2. The objective is a most desirable one not only for members of the Department of External Affairs but for those serving abroad in other departments of government, but there are difficulties that have to be overcome. The question will be submitted to the committee on privileges and elections for further consideration at this session.


Mr. Roxburgh: What was the cost during 1961 of maintaining a single prisoner in a federal penal institution?


Thomas Miller Bell: This information was given in Hansard, October 24, 1962. The average cost of maintaining one inmate during the 1961-62 fiscal year was $2,563.72.


Mr. Lamoureux: Has the St. Lawrence seaway authority any plans for the beautification of the canal banks at Cornwall for the year 1963 and, if so, what are the details of the proposed work?


James Alexander McBain: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises:
Yes, details being as follows: The planting of 5,000 plants-the planting of 50 trees- the provision of park benches-rip-rapping, filling and grading any eroded portions of the
Questions
canal bank-the trimming of weeds and grass-maintenance of the two public park areas on the south side-the painting of ten authority buildings along the canal-painting of the bridge at the foot of Gloucester avenue-painting of the lock gates and machinery at locks 18 and 19.


Mr. McWilliam: As of November 1, 1962, what are the wage rates paid to each prevailing wage rate group at the naval ammunition depots at Kamloops, B.C., and Bedford, Nova Scotia?


Mr. Harkness:: The attached list indicates the rates of pay in effect as of November 1, 1962, at the naval ammunition depots, Kamloops, B.C. and Bedford, N.S.
Prevailing rate classifications and rates of pay at Bedford, Nova Scotia, authorized as of 1 November, 1962
Classification	Hourly rate
of pay
Ammunition worker class 1 . .$1.71 Ammunition worker	class	2	..	1.74Ammunition worker	class	3	.	.	1.86Ammunition worker	class	4	..	2.04Ammunition worker	class	5	..	2.17Carpenter	
2.08-2.13*Joiner	
2.08-2.13*Labourer	
1.68Rigger	
2.07-2.12*
Prevailing rate classifications and rates of pay at Kamloops, B.C., authorized as of 1 November, 1962
Classification	Hourly rate
of pay
Ammunition worker class	1	$1.82Ammunition worker class	2	
1.89Ammunition worker class	3	2.15Ammunition worker class	4	
2.55Ammunition worker class	5	
2.83Carpenter	
2.80Driver	
1.90Electrician	
2.82Heavy equipment mechanic	
2.35Heavy equipment operator	
2.35Labourer	
1-80Motor mechanic	
2.00Painter and glazier	
2.00Plumber and steamfitter	
2.84Sheet metal worker	
2.72Trades helper	
1.85


Mr. McNulty: 1.	What was the per capita value of the production of the fruit and vegetable growing industry in Canada in the years, 1959, 1960, and 1961 respectively?

Questions
2.	How does this per capita production compare with the per capita production of other branches of agriculture in Canada in the years 1959, 1960, and 1961 respectively?


George Harris Hees: 1 and 2.
Total Gross Value of Agricultural Production Canada 1959-61
	1959	1960	1961
		-$'000-	
Grains1 		587,415	739,636	308,792
Fruits and			
Vegetables2 ...	156,071	173,380	183,097Other field crops	246,076	275,231	259,519Livestock3	976,887	909,615 :	1,038,947Dairy products2 .	550,789	553,862	567,991Poultry products4	298,944	299,977	317,181Other livestock and	products 	27,886	28,526	31,165Total	
2,844,068 2,980,227 2,706,692
Per Capita Value of Production Canada 1959-61
1959	1960 -dollars-	1961Grains1 	
Fruits and	33.60	41.39	16.93Vegetables2 	8.93	9.70	10.04Other field crops ...	14.08	15.40	14.23Livestock3 	55.88	50.90	56.97Dairy products2 ....	31.50	30.99	31.14Poultry products4 .. Other livestock and	17.10	16.79	17.39products 	1.60	1.60	1.71Total 	162.68	166.77	148.41
1These estimates which cover wheat, oats, barley, rye and flaxseed exclude the value of those quantities used for feed and seed.
"Includes estimated value of sales and the value of those quantities retained for consumption in the farm home.
"Includes value of quantities sold, quantities consumed in the farm home and adjustments to inventories.
'Includes value of quantities sold and the value of quantities retained for consumption in the farm home. In the case of poultry it includes adjustments to inventory.
(Translation):


Mr. Cote: Has gold been used for commercial exchanges with foreign countries during the last five years through the foreign exchange fund and, if so, what is the value of the gold ingots which may have been transferred, and what are the countries with which such transfers may have been made?


William Heward Grafftey: All sales of gold by the exchange fund in the last five years were made to foreign central banks or official international agencies or governments, and

all purchases of gold by the exchange fund during that period were from the Royal Canadian Mint.
(Text):


Mr. Douglas: 1.	What policy does the national capital commission follow with regard to the hiring of tradesmen and other workmen on a permanent or casual basis?
2.	Are local prevailing rates paid?
3.	Specifically, what hourly wage is paid (a) carpenters (b) plumbers, and (c) labourers?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. Permanent workmen are employed from a list of the most satisfactory seasonal workers or through the local offices of the national employment service. Summer seasonal workers are employed from a list of former seasonal employees who have given satisfactory service or through the national employment service. Casual workers are employed through the national employment service. Married men and veterans are given preference.
2.	The national capital commission adopted the prevailing rate employees general regulations, effective 1 April, 1961. Prevailing rates presently being paid by the commission are those which were applicable on that date. A submission to treasury board has been made requesting authority to pay the existing prevailing rates recommended by the Department of Labour.
3.	(a) Carpenters

The present rate authorized for carpenter maintenance is $2.02 per hour, (b) Plumbers-There are no employees classified as plumbers in the N.C.C. (3) Labourers-seasonal-$1.45; continuous $1.51; Gatineau park area-$1.30. For labour experienced-$1.60 to $1.70.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 772*-Mr. Douglas:
Has the Minister of Transport received a letter dated October 22 from Mr. F. W. Fogwill, chairman of the joint railway unions committee of St. John's, Newfoundland, protesting the curtailment in railway passenger, way freight, and switching services in Newfoundland and requesting an inquiry and, if so, what answer has been given?
James Alexander McBain: (a) Yes. (b) In the acknowledgement to Mr. Fogwill he was advised that his additional representations had been carefully noted and that they would be taken up with the officials concerned.


Mr. Douglas: Are contracts of armed forces personnel on behalf of their dependants with Maritime Medical Care being cancelled effective December 31, 1962, and, if so, will all the dependants concerned be afforded an opportunity to enrol in the government-sponsored group surgical-medical insurance plan effective January 1, 1963, without the usual restrictions?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. All armed forces
participants in the maritime medical care plan affected by this cancellation are being accepted into the government sponsored group surgical-medical insurance plan without the usual restrictions of a waiting period or evidence of health statement, thus ensuring no break in coverage.


Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	Did the B.B.G. consider the advisability of permitting the C.B.C. to carry the Grey cup game without the associated commercials of the sponsors of the C.T.V. telecast of the game and, if so, on what grounds did the B.B.G. reject this alternative?
2.	Has the Department of Justice been requested, by the C.B.C. or any other group or individual, to consider the legality of the B.B.G. regulation compelling the C.B.C. to carry, not only the Grey cup game itself, but also the associated commercials of the sponsors of the C.T.V. telecast of the game and, if so, what decision, if any, has been made by the department concerning this particular B.B.G. regulation?


George Ernest Halpenny: 1. The board was advised that the C.B.C. was prepared to accept a clean feed of the Grey cup game from the C.T.V. network without the associated commercials but this proposal was not acceptable to the sponsors who are the owners of the television rights of the game. The board has no authority over the owners of the rights; its authority extends only to broadcasters.


Mr. Brown: Is Igor Gouzenko in receipt of a pension from the Canadian government?


Thomas Miller Bell: No.


Mr. Tucker: Has the government received a petition from the town council of Carbonear, Newfoundland, requesting the construction of a fishermen's landing and a slipway and, if so, has any decision been made in this regard?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes. The matter is now under investigation but no decision has been reached.
Questions



* UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Herridge: Has the United Nations or any agency thereof or any nation or private organization advanced proposals for the promotion of private investment in, or subscription to, a fund to be administered by the United Nations, to be used for assistance to underdeveloped nations?


John George Diefenbaker: No. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any knowledge of any formal proposals to promote the development of a specific private subscription fund to be administered by the United Nations on behalf of the less developed countries. However, it is a fact that private individuals and groups in a number of countries, including Canada, do contribute privately to the work of the United Nations.
Under the financial regulations of the United Nations, voluntary contributions from non-governmental sources may be accepted by the secretary general for purposes consistent with the policies, aims and objectives of the organization. Moneys accepted for purposes specified, or reasonably indicated, by the donor are treated as trust funds or special accounts and are used to augment the work of the organization by allocation to projects or programs in respect of which the use of extra-budgetary funds is proper. However, moneys accepted in respect of which no purpose is specified or indicated are treated as miscellaneous income which is used merely to reduce the assessments that would otherwise be payable by all member states, not solely the assessment of the donors' country.
The usual practice, and it is one which is encouraged by the United Nations, is for private donors to specify the particular program to be assisted by their contributions. Chief among these are the expanded program for technical assistance, the special fund, the fund for the Congo, the high commissioner for refugees and the international children's emergency fund, UNICEF.
It is, of course, also possible to make private contributions in a similar fashion to the work of one or other of the specialized agencies and of the international atomic agency.



RENTAL OF PREMISES FOR CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, OTTAWA

Mr. Tardif: 1.	Does the government rent a building on McArthur road for the offices and warehouse of the chief electoral officer and, if so, from whom is the building rented, and is the lessor the actual owner?
2.	What are the terms of the lease?
3.	How many square feet of space are leased in this building, and what is the rate per square foot?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. Yes. The building is rented from James G. Kelly, 336 Montreal road, Eastview. The ownership is registered

Questions
in the registry office as "James G. Kelly and wile" subject to a mortgage in favour of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
2.	The terms of the lease are as follows: A rental of $50,000 per annum payable quarterly commencing, January 15, 1961, and terminating May 31, 1966. Option to lessee to renew for a further term of 5 years on same terms and conditions. Notice of exercise of option to be given in writing by the lessee at least (90) ninety days prior to date of termination. Lessor is responsible for the provision of all services except minor repairs.
3.	20,000 square feet of space; $2.50 per square foot per annum including all services.



RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE, EASTERN NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Slewarf: 1.	Are Truro to Sydney R.P.O. trains 604 and 603 to be discontinued?
2.	If these trains are to be replaced by trucks, will mail be sorted en route and, if not, where will local mail be sorted?
3.	When will these trucks arrive at New Glasgow, Antigonish, and Mulgrave?
4.	What positive and negative effects does the Postmaster General expect this change will have on mail service in eastern Nova Scotia?
5.	Will mail be carried on any trains between Truro and Sydney?
6.	What contracts, if any, for transferring mail between post offices and railway stations in Pictou, Antigonish, and Guysborough counties will be cancelled as a consequence of the discontinuation of R.P.O. trains 604 and 603?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) These trains will be replaced by trucks but mail will not be sorted en route, (b) The points at which local mails will be sorted have not yet been decided upon.
3.	Information not yet available; awaiting report.
4.	This has yet to be determined; awaiting a final report.
5.	Yes-by trains 7 and 8.
6.	Services: Afton Station and C.N. Stn. (Bayfield Rd.), Avondale Stn. and C.N.R. Stn., Barneys River and C.N.R. Stn., Egerton and C.N.R. Stn., Eureka and Rly. Stn., Glengarry Stn. and Rly. Stn., Heatherton and C.N.R. Stn., Hopewell and Rly. Stn., James River Stn. and Rly. Stn., Lansdowne Stn. and Rly. Stn., Merigomish and C.N.R. Stn., Pomquet and C.N.R. Stn., Tracadie and C.N.R. Stn., West River Station and C.N.R. Stn.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT LOANS

Mr. Scoll: During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962, in each province (a) how many housing loans were made under the National Housing Act (b) what was the total amount of such loans (c) how many approved purchasers of houses built under the National Housing Act (i) earned between $2000 and $3000 (ii) earned between $3001 and $4000 (iii) earned between $4001 and $5000 (iv) earned between $5001 and $6000?


Robert Jardine McCleave: (a), (b) and (c).
January 1, 1961-December 31, 1961
Total Area for	NHA loans approved single family dwgs.*	No. of NHA borrowers and purchasers in selected income groups	Loans	$000 Amount	$2000- 2999	$3000- 3999	$4000- 4999	$5000- 5999Newfoundland 	. 274	3	,467	4	36	88	58Prince Edward Island ...	. 56	608	2	4	8	5Nova Scotia 	. 980	11	,959	7	63	188	211New Brunswick 	. 754	8	,453	1	69	151	127Quebec 	. 11,434	133	,097	23	696	2,522	2,554Ontario 	. 15,469	206	,719	16	569	3,821	4,468Manitoba 	. 2,238	29	,075	-	93	664	429Saskatchewan 	. 2,359	28	,354	5	184	593	531Alberta 	. 6,953	90	,200	4	331	1,555	1,538British Columbia 	. 2,629	33	,790	-	94	583	752Yukon 	. 23	319	-	-	4	5Northwest 	. 3	41	-	-	-	2Canada 	. 43,172	546,082	62	2,139	10,177	10,680
*Data do not take account of cancellations.
Note-The fiscal year of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the basis upon which the relevant statistics are maintained, is the calendar year. The above listed answer is, therefore, given for the calendar year ending December 31, 1961.



ABOLITION OP SLAVERY

Mr. Pennell: 1.	Did any communication pass between the government and the government of Saudi Arabia upon the recent announcement that slavery was abolished forthwith in that country and, if so, what was the nature of the communication?
2.	Has the government made any representations in the United Nations regarding abolition of slavery in countries where it still exists and, if so, what was the date and nature of the representations?
3.	Has the government made any representation to any particular country regarding abolition of slavery and, if so, what was the date and nature of the representation, and to what country or countries was it made?


John George Diefenbaker: 1. No.
2.	The Canadian government has consistently supported international endeavours for the complete eradication of slavery on a universal basis. Canada is a party to the protocol of December 7, 1953, amending the international slavery convention of September 25, 1926, to which Canada is a party. The 1953 protocol transfers the duties and functions of the League of Nations under the 1926 slavery convention to the United Nations. Canada participated also in the conference of plenipotentiaries convoked in Geneva in 1956 by the United Nations for the purpose of considering a convention supplementing the 1926 international slavery convention. The conference adopted the "supplementary convention on the abolition of slavery, the slave trade, and institutions and practices similar to slavery", which Canada signed on September 7, 1956.
3.	No.



* CONSULTING ENGINEERS, NATIONAL LIBRARY, OTTAWA

Mr. Olio: 1.	Has a firm of consulting engineers been retained in connection with the construction of the national library and, if so, what is the name of such firm, and is it a Canadian company?
2.	If the engineering firm is not Canadian, for what reason was a Canadian firm of consulting engineers not chosen?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. The Department of Public Works has engaged only one firm of consultants for the project. It is the architectural firm of Mathers and Haldenby, Toronto. This firm was commissioned in 1953 and is a Canadian organization. This firm may employ consulting engineers or others as it requires.
2. Not applicable.



FARM LOANS AND APPLICATIONS, BEAUHARNOIS-SALABERRY CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Laniel: 1.	How many applications for farm loans were received by the Department of Agriculture during the years 1957-58-59-60-61 from farmers of the constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry?
Questions
2.	How many loans were made for each of these years, and what was the amount of each loan?


Mr. Jorgenson:: 1. The Farm Credit Corporation advise that they do not maintain statistical records on a constituency basis. However, in the municipal county of Beau-harnois, part of Chateauguay and part of Huntingdon, which approximately coincides with the constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry, the information is as follows:
1957, nil; 1958, 6; 1959, 15; 1960, 9; 1961, 6; total, 36.
2. 1957, nil; 1958, 6 ($5,000, 15,000, 11,000, 12,250, 4,400, 3,000); 1959, 8 ($6,800, 13,950, 12,000, 8,000, 20,000, 20,000, 15,000, 10,000); 1960, 4 ($20,000, 4,500, 24,000, 24,400); 1961, 5	($10,000,	19,100,	20,000,	27,500,	8,200);
total, 23, for an amount of $314,100.



GREY CUP GAME


Mr. Smith (Calgary South): 1.	Has the C.B.C. any contract, agreement, arrangements or understandings with Carling Breweries Limited in which reference is made to the Grey cup game?
2.	In their negotiations wtih the B.B.G. and C.T.V. for televising the 1962 Grey cup game, did the C.B.C. indicate whether they were prepared to carry the program on a sustaining basis?
3.	Is the corporation in any way committed to include the commercials of Carling Breweries Limited in the Grey cup broadcast?


George Ernest Halpenny: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes. This applies to radio coverage.
2.	Yes.
3.	See No. 1.



* TORONTO


Mr. Haidasz: 1.	What representations to the federal government were made by the city of Toronto for federal aid to build bomb and fall-out shelters in the underground garage of the new city hall?
2.	What was the decision of the federal government to this request?
3.	If this request finally has been rejected, what was the reason for the rejection?


John George Diefenbaker: 1. No specific proposals have been presented to the federal government by the city of Toronto for federal aid to build bomb and fall-out shelters in the underground garage of the new city hall. In any case, such proposals would normally come through provincial channels, after consideration and approval by the provincial authorities concerned. Inquiries by officials of Toronto as to the probable attitude of the federal government on this matter, if proposals were forthcoming, have been received and answered.

Questions
2 and 3. No decision of the federal government has been taken on this subject in the absence of a formal presentation of the project. Responses to the general inquiries made were to the effect that no appropriations have been provided by parliament for such purpose.



*MOSS PARK AREA, TORONTO  ARMOURY

Mr. Haidasz: What is the decision of the federal government regarding the request of the representatives of the Toronto city council for federal aid in the construction of an armoury building in the Moss park development of downtown Toronto?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer is that this matter is still under discussion.



INFLOW OF FOREIGN CAPITAL

Mr. Scott: 1.	What was the net inflow of foreign capital into Canada during the third quarter of 1962?
2.	How much of this amount was short-term capital?
3.	How much of this amount was long-term capital?


George Harris Hees: 1, 2 and 3. Data are not available to permit answering this question at this time and will not be available for at least three weeks.



EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION, 1957-1962

Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What are the known statistics or estimates with respect to immigration to Canada, emigration from Canada, for each six months period commencing January 1, 1957, and ending June 30, 1962?
2.	How many professionals immigrated, and how many emigrated, in each of the years 1957 to 1961?


George Harris Hees: Immigration to Canada and estimated emigration from Canada, by six months periods.
Estimated Immigration Emigration
1957-Jan.-June .	. . . 182,416	32,693July-Dee. .	. . . 99,748	41,1361958-Jan.-June .	. . . 67,744	29,559July-Dee. .	... 57,107	33,1521959-Jan.-June .	.. . 57,089	28,553July-Dee. .	... 49,839	40,0941960-Jan.-June .	.. . 58,041	33,256July-Dee. .	... 46,070	41,7321961-Jan.-June .	. . . 36,782	31,865July-Dee. .	... 34,907	38,6881962-Jan.-June .	... 34,061	Not available2. Number of	'professionals'	immigratingto Canada from	all countries	and numberemigrating from	Canada to	the United
Statesi.

Calendar	Emigrants to
Year	Immigrants U.SA.2
1957	
16,040	6,3941958	
7,553	4,9251959	
6,947	5,7471960	
7,436	5,7421961	
6,696	5,4781	Not available for other countries.2	Source: immigration and naturalization service, United States department of justice.



OTTAWA-CORNWALL MAIL SERVICE

Mr. Lamoureux: Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to provide additional transportation facilities at an early date in order to improve mail services between Ottawa and Cornwall?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. We are presently exploring ways and means of augmenting existing transportation facilities to provide improved mail service to the letter carrier offices at Belleville, Kingston, Brockville, and Cornwall.



RECEPTION OF TELEVISION BROADCASTS FROM CHICOUTIMI, QUE.

Mr. Cote: Have steps been taken to ensure that broadcasts of the projected television station of Chicoutimi will be received in Riviere Eternity, Anse St. Jean and Petit Saguenay, in the county of Chicoutimi?


George Ernest Halpenny: From information filed with the board by the applicant, it would appear that Riviere Eternite, Anse St. Jean and Petit Saguenay are located within the fringe coverage area of the proposed television station at Chicoutimi. The board is not aware of any specific steps that have been taken to ensure that the Chicoutimi signal will be received in these centres since the coverage data required from applicants is a statistical prediction of coverage and is not sufficiently precise for estimating the reliability in fringe areas when the signal is received over the type of rugged terrain that exists around these centres. The precise quality of service in the three centres cannot be determined until the proposed station at Chicoutimi is in operation.



BANK INTEREST RATE

Mr. Thompson: 1.	Is the Minister of Finance in receipt of the particulars required by section 91 (3) of the Bank Act relating to rates of interest charged by chartered banks?
2.	Have these rates in any case exceeded the statutory maximum of 6 per cent per annum prescribed by section 91 (1) of the Bank Act and, if so (a) what are the particulars, and (b) has the government taken any action in this regard?

3.	What information does the government have regarding the effective rate of interest being charged by chartered banks on so-called "personal" loans?


William Heward Grafftey: 1. The reference in this question to subsection 3 of section 91 of the Bank Act appears to relate to chapter 12 of the revised statutes of 1952. The relevant provision in the current Bank Act is section 113 and all banks have made the required declaration annually.
2.	No.
3. The banks do not charge a rate of interest or discount on loans in excess of those permitted by section 91 of the Bank Act, but in some cases make an additional service charge for keeping an account, as authorized by subsection 2 of section 93 of the act.



GLASSCO REPORT


Mr. Malheson: Has the attention of the chairman of the civil service commission been drawn to page 268 of volume 1 of the Glassco commission report wherein it is stated "specifications for positions are sometimes written with the deliberate purpose of ruling it impossible for a veteran to qualify" and, if so, are steps being taken to remedy this situation?


George Ernest Halpenny: The acting chairman of the civil service commission has noted the statement contained on page 268 of volume 1 of the Glassco commission report. However, the commission is not aware of any case where specifications have been written with the deliberate purpose of making it impossible for a veteran to qualify. Specifications are usually prepared by departments and then are reviewed in the civil service commission where care is taken in order to insure that specifications reflect as accurately as possible the duties to be performed and do not prevent the application of statutory provisions. The acting chairman of the commission has asked the Glassco commission to provide information on the evidence it has gathered in its inquiry.



*GREY CUP GAME


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Was a firm offer made early in June to the C.B.C. by Mr. John Bassett or station CFTO for the right to broadcast the Grey cup game and, if so, was the offer accepted?
2.	Was the offer withdrawn after it had been accepted by the C.B.C. and, if so, by whom was it withdrawn and on what grounds?


George Ernest Halpenny: Answered.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is a starred question, Mr.'Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; it is a starred question.
Questions


George Ernest Halpenny: Order for return, tabled herewith.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege and also on a point of order in connection with the question of privilege. The hon. gentleman said "answered" in response to my question, indicating clearly that he had an answer to a very simple, brief question. Then he changed it to "order for return" notwithstanding the fact that the information is urgently desired. It seems to me that the question should be answered in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am advised that the answer was "order for return tabled herewith".


John Whitney Pickersgill: That does not seem to me to alter the case in the slightest. My question of privilege, moreover, is this. On Thursday I put to the hon. gentleman almost the identical question. He then gave an answer that if I would put the question on the order paper it would be answered. I put it on the order paper, and I see no reason why the answer should not be read out so that we will know what it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What I apprehend is going to happen, as I think does the hon. member also, is that the answer is being tabled immediately. It is not being delayed. The fact is that under the rules it is entirely up to the minister to determine what procedure will be adopted in giving a reply to the question.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not feel that it is open to the hon. member to comment on these matters at this time of day. It has been quite settled long ago that a starred question need not be replied to in that manner but may be replied to by an order for return and tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this-


George Ernest Halpenny: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it would make the hon. gentleman feel better, I shall be glad to answer the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


George Ernest Halpenny: I am informed by the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1. Yes, in a letter from the president and chairman of the board of CFTO-TV dated June 7, 1962, addressed to the chairman of the board of broadcast governors with a copy to the president of the C.B.C. The offer was accepted by the C.B.C. in a letter to the president and chairman of the board of CFTO-TV dated June 11.

Orders for Returns
2. On July 12 the offer was repudiated in a telegram to the C.B.C. from the president of the CTV network claiming that CTV had not granted the C.B.C. the rights to carry the game on an unsponsored basis.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister.


George Ernest Halpenny: The hon. member is very welcome.



H.C.A.F. GOLDEN HAWK AEROBATIC TEAM

Mr. McWilliam: Has the Department of National Defence decided to relocate the famed R.C.A.F. Golden Hawks aerial acrobatic team from the Chatham, N.B., R.C.A.F. station to another R.C.A.F. station and, if so, what are the reasons for the transfer?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, because the facilities available at the R.C.A.F. station, Chatham, N.B., are not sufficient to support all air defence activities as well as the Golden Hawks.



SONAR SYSTEM, H.M.C.S. &quot;ST. LAURENT&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 831
Mr. Maiheson:: Is H.M.C.S. St. Laurent presently equipped with a Canadian developed variable depth sonar system?


Douglas Scott Harkness: H.M.C.S. St. Laurent is presently undergoing conversion which includes the installation of Canadian developed variable depth sonar.



* INTEREST CHARGE ON WHEAT SALES TO CHINA

Mr. Argue: 1.	Who pays the interest charges on the credit that has been provided in connection with the recent sale of wheat to China?
2.	Have all payments in connection with this transaction been made on time?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: 1. The buyer.
2. Yes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
^FLIGHTS BY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT PLANE CF-DTB
["1.\tHas the government taken a decision with regard to the servicing of dependants of armed services personnel of the Atlantic provinces by Maritime Medical Care and, if so, what is the government's policy in this regard?\n2.\tHave representations been received from Maritime Medical Care requesting the status presently enjoyed by the government sponsored group medical insurance plan?\n\n3.\tHas Maritime Medical Care (a) access to bases, depots and ships for new enrolment purposes (b) pay assignment privileges for Maritime Medical Care premiums for new members (c) government participation in premium costs?\n4.\tDid the government give consideration to adopting a policy applicable to all plans in which government personnel wish to enrol and, if so, what is the government's policy in this regard?"]
James Alexander McBain: Return tabled.



Mr. Honey: 1.	What amounts of tobacco, in volume and value, have been exported from Canada in the years 1951 to 1962 inclusive, and in the year 1962 to date?
2.	To which countries was this tobacco exported in these years, in terms of volume and value for each country?

3.	What plans, if any, does the government have for increasing the foreign sales of Canadian tobacco?


George Harris Hees: Return tabled.


PAYMENTS TO MARITIME RAILWAY COMPANIES
Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	What is the total amount paid to the Sydney and Louisbourg Railway Company by the federal government under the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act from 1927 until 1961?
2.	What is the total amount paid to the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company by the federal government under the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act from 1927 to 1961?
3.	What is the total amount of rail and freight subsidies paid to the Sydney and Louisbourg Railway Company from 1935 until 1961?
4.	What is the total amount of the railway and freight subsidies paid to the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company from 1935 until 1961?
5.	What is the present percentage rate of rebate under the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act?
6.	What was the highest rate of rebate since the inception of the act?
7.	Was the Sydney and Louisbourg Railway Company on record as having a contributory retirement pension plan in effect for its employees?
8.	Is the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company on record as having a contributory retirement pension plan in effect for its employees?
9.	Does the Cumberland Railway Company receive any other financial assistance from the federal government in addition to freight rebates and rail subventions and, if so, in what form and in what amounts?


SICK LEAVE PROVISIONS, PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Knowles: 1.	(a) What are the sick leave provisions for classified civil servants (b) how many days per year may a classified civil servant be absent from work due to illness or injury without loss of pay (c) what is the provision with respect to each first day of absence due to illness or injury in the case of a classified civil servant?
2.	(a) What are the sick leave provisions for prevailing rate employees in the public service? (b) how many days per year may a prevailing rate employee be absent from work due to illness or injury without loss of pay? (c) what is the provision with respect to each first day of absence due to illness or injury in the case of a prevailing rate employee?
3.	What steps have been taken to give to prevailing rate employees the same sick leave provisions granted to classified civil servants, and, if such steps have not been taken, will the matter receive consideration?


* ARMED FORCES DEPENDANTS MEDICAL CARE, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. MacEachen: 1.	Has the government taken a decision with regard to the servicing of dependants of armed services personnel of the Atlantic provinces by Maritime Medical Care and, if so, what is the government's policy in this regard?
2.	Have representations been received from Maritime Medical Care requesting the status presently enjoyed by the government sponsored group medical insurance plan?

3.	Has Maritime Medical Care (a) access to bases, depots and ships for new enrolment purposes (b) pay assignment privileges for Maritime Medical Care premiums for new members (c) government participation in premium costs?
4.	Did the government give consideration to adopting a policy applicable to all plans in which government personnel wish to enrol and, if so, what is the government's policy in this regard?



BROADCASTING


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the need to provide parliament with full information on the current conflict between the board of broadcast governors and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which threatens to deprive the public of national coverage of the Grey cup game. Before Your Honour rules on the matter I ask that leave be given to me to argue the case, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust that the hon. member will be arguing his case as to urgency of debate, not as to the subject matter of the motion.


Lionel Chevrier: If Your Honour wishes me to deal with that question first I shall be glad to do so. As Your Honour knows under standing order 26 and the citations as laid down in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100, the manner in which standing order 26 is interpreted is set out. The first point is that the matter must involve the administrative responsibility of the government; and I do not intend to deal with that point unless Your Honour suggests that I should do so. However, the next one indicates that the matter must be pressing in the public interest; and third is the urgency of debate. Your Honour has suggested that I might address myself to that part of the citation, and I do so.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the first point. I should like to hear argument first on the basis of the urgency of debate; then we shall go into the matter of urgent importance.


Lionel Chevrier: On the question of urgency of debate may I say this. Your Honour is aware of the list of business given by the house leader on Thursday. It is quite a lengthy list, and it was repeated in part on Friday. During the whole of this week certainly there will be no opportunity to discuss a matter of this nature.
Motion for Adjournment
Then again, speaking on the merits of the case, I think in his answer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) the minister clearly indicated the urgency of the matter, which in a nutshell is this, namely that there has been a ruling by the B.B.G. ordering the C.B.C., under certain penalties, to broadcast the Grey cup game.
I have the order here, if Your Honour wishes me to refer to it. Section 16 (2) of the regulations is amended to read as follows:
AH stations shall broadcast the program referred to in subsection (1) -
And the program referred to therein is the 1962 football game.
-in its entirety and shall not omit or increase any portion of the entertainment or advertising content of the program.
Then there is the decision taken by the C.B.C. over the week end which is in violation of that order, because it says that it will broadcast the game but not including the commercials. Hence there is a complete contradiction between the regulatory body and the crown corporation for which the minister is responsible in this house. I am not saying that there is an obligation on the government to determine the issue, but I am saying that there is an obligation on the government to provide information to this house with reference to the subject matter. Under these three heads I think there is established a case for urgency of debate. There is also the matter of the administrative responsibility of the government to be considered. As I said earlier, here are two bodies, one a crown corporation and the other the regulating body.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While the hon. gentleman is addressing the Chair, I wish the Chair could hear him. There seems to be an undercurrent of comment-I do not know whether private conferences are going on-which makes it rather difficult for the Chair and the other hon. members of the house to hear what is being said.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is an administrative responsibility on the part of the government. Here are two bodies, one a crown corporation and the other a regulatory body, both of which are responsible to parliament through the minister who is the channel of communication in this case.
I say this to the minister without the slightest disrespect. Until today there has been no attempt to answer questions which have been put orally on the orders of the day or which have been placed on the order paper. Perhaps I should put it this way, that the minister

Motion for Adjournment lias been reluctant in giving information to the house under the circumstances save and except the information which was given today.
The third prerequisite has to do with the matter of immediate attention or, to use the words here, the matter "must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention". Everyone knows that the game will take place next Saturday.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lionel Chevrier: Just listen carefully to what I have said. I have made no mistake. 1 did not say "this Saturday"; I said "next Saturday".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I was interrupted by the Prime Minister who-


John George Diefenbaker: No interruption at all; not the slightest.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought he had interrupted me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is addressing the Chair on the point of urgency of debate, and I do not think it should be within this discussion to encourage intervention from other members, so if he will address himself to the Chair we will proceed.


Lionel Chevrier: To satisfy those who interrupted me a moment ago I will give the date and then there will be no difficulty. It is December 1. But meanwhile there is a cleavage, an impasse between these two bodies on the one hand, and there is an urgency to determine the issue between the two. The government seems to be doing nothing through its ordinary channel of communication, namely the minister, to dispose of the matter.
Therefore I submit to you with deference, Mr. Speaker, that under these three heads the house should be allowed to discuss the merits of the case so that we may put certain questions to the minister and be enabled to obtain from him information which the house is entitled to have under these circumstances, but which the house has been prevented from getting. Under these circumstances, sir, I believe I am entitled to proceed with the motion as submitted.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has laboured hard and most ineffectively to try to establish urgency of debate in relation to this matter. Mr. Speaker, what is it that he wishes to debate? If you will examine the motion you will see that he wishes to debate the current conflict, as he describes it, between these two bodies. He wishes to discuss a matter of urgent public importance,


namely the need to provide parliament with full information on what he calls the current conflict between two public bodies. It is not the matter of the holding of the game or the broadcasting of the game, but rather this question of conflict that he wishes to discuss.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the whole motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Even if he had been right in assuming that the game was being played on Saturday of this week instead of on December 1-and this explains, of course, a good deal of his error in regard to the matter of urgency-even if the game was being played this week there still would not be a matter here of urgency of debate at all, because it is the question of the conflict that he wishes to discuss. As the hon. member has indicated, it is not a question of broadcasting the game because he himself has said that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has said that it is willing to broadcast the game less the commercials. Therefore no question as to the public seeing the game is involved here.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there is the very clear point that here we are dealing with what is described by the hon. member as a conflict between two public bodies set up by parliament, neither of which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on all these grounds I submit that here is no urgency of debate within the established rules of the house.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the hon. member for Laurier on the urgency of having the subject matter of this motion discussed by parliament. If, as the Minister of Justice says, these two bodies are not responsible to the government, then certainly they are responsible to this parliament, and this parliament should have the opportunity to discuss the manner in which they are conducting the important affairs of broadcasting in this country.
Discussion of this conflict is urgent on three grounds. The first is that members have a right to the opportunity to discuss whether the order issued by the board of broadcast governors was valid and legal. Second, members should have the opportunity to discuss the possibility that the board of broadcast governors may take the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to court, and surely this is something which ought to be discussed quite soon. The whole country is perturbed about this conflict between two public bodies, and many people who are in favour of publicly owned and publicly sponsored broadcasting are convinced that the Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation is being undermined. I think parliament should have the opportunity to see whether or not that is true.
I point out further that since the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has indicated that it will carry the game but not the advertising, there is a distinct possibility that the private network may refuse to pass on the game to the C.B.C., and this would mean that areas in Canada which are served solely by the C.B.C. would not be able to see the game. Surely this question ought to be resolved not the day before the game, but quickly, and it cannot be resolved quickly if these two bodies cannot be brought together. Apparently the government has done nothing in this direction, and surely parliament should have the opportunity to discuss this matter and to issue an order to these bodies which in the final analysis are responsible to this House of Commons.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to note that a football game is dealt with as if it were an urgent matter. When my friend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dumont) asked that the problem of farmers be considered as an urgent matter, not one Liberal member agreed to support him.


An hon. Member:: Completely outside the question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the adjournment of the house could have been moved to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the unemployment problem. We have nothing against the fact that the house is discussing that football game, but since we shall not be playing football and handling television cameras on that day, what can we do about it?
In my opinion, the house should ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Halpenny), who answers for those two organizations, to suggest that they agree on the principles that would guide their decision concerning the broadcasting of that football game which the Canadian people would like to see on television.
That is what the house should ask the Secretary of State to do. I am of the opinion that it is not urgent to discuss this question today.
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I draw the attention of the house to a new facet of the argument. I understand that the board of broadcast governors is meeting today to deal with this very problem, and if I am correct in that information I would draw Your Honour's
Motion for Adjournment attention to Beauchesne, page 92, where it is said that the Speaker must "enforce the principle that subjects excluded by those rules cannot be brought forward thereon"- that is on such as the motion proposed this afternoon-"such as a matter under adjudication by a court of law, or matters already discussed or appointed for consideration during the current session", and so on.
The point I make is based on the analogy that the board of broadcast governors has been vested by parliament with at least quasi-judicial powers. It is seized of this very problem not at some future time but this afternoon. Therefore I suggest it would be presumptuous for us, having given that problem to the board, now to take it back for debate here at least until they have concluded their discussions.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Parliamentary Secretary io fhe Prime Minisler):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier has already referred to citation 100 in Beauchesne. I would take you forward to section 8 under that citation, on page 91, where there is the following:
What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs.
I underline the words "sudden emergency".
This dispute has been the subject of a number of questions asked in this house over the past several weeks. I refer you, for example, to November 1, when there was a question asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur concerning the dispute between the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. over the coverage of this game. The B.B.G. was not mentioned, but this dispute was. In so far as the question of urgency is concerned, I may say there was a supply motion on November 5 when the opposition had every opportunity, if they so desired, to mention this subject as a grievance. They saw fit to deal with another matter, and I submit that takes care of the question of the urgency of debate.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Rich-mond):: I wish to deal with the matter of urgency of debate, and especially the arguments presented by my hon. friends opposite relating to this point. The Minister of Justice, in his comments, failed to deal with the essential point that has been raised on previous occasions, especially by Mr. Speaker Michener who unfailingly, in dealing with a matter of this kind, asked whether the subject matter anticipated a matter previously arranged for consideration by the house. Nothing that has been said from the other side indicates that this subject can be discussed on any other occasion. There is no item listed on the order paper, and there

Motion for Adjournment is no opportunity to deal with this matter. This is the point I should like to make in respect to the argument presented by the Minister of Justice.
I felt that the argument made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works missed the point. The B.B.G. is not a court of law. The B.B.G. and the C.B.C. are public agencies operating under the parliament of Canada.
The parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister states that this particular rule No. 26 can only be used in case of a sudden emergency or a sudden development. I submit that the sudden emergency or sudden development did occur on Friday last, when the C.B.C. gave the first intimation it intended to defy the order of the B.B.G. We are raising the matter in the house at the first opportunity.
There are precedents to which I could refer, when previous Speakers have permitted a debate to be launched under similar circumstances. I should like to refer to an occasion in March, 1961, when the Minister of Labour made a statement in the house on a Thursday affecting the areas of double depreciation. On Friday the matter was raised in a motion by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Speaker permitted a debate notwithstanding the fact that it was announced by the Prime Minister that the estimates of the Department of Labour might be coming before the house within a week.
In this case we had a sudden emergency occasioned on Friday; there is no listing on the order paper or any intimation by the government than an opportunity will be given to debate this subject matter. For these reasons I suggest that the requirements of rule 26 are fully satisfied in so far as the question of urgency of debate is concerned.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say briefly just two things about the urgency of debate. The first is that the issue before us is the question of whether the board of broadcast governors has the right to compel the C.B.C. to carry the advertising that goes with the game-Mr. Speaker, do not shake your head -and that issue arose only a few days ago, so the opposition could not possibly have debated this issue on the last supply motion or on any other previous occasion.
The second point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, arises out of the remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. He draws attention to the fact that a number of questions have been asked, and that this process has been going on for a number of days. This illustrates the very point we are
[Mr. MacEachen.l

trying to make, namely the need for debate on this question. The answers we have received to those questions have made it very clear that it has not been possible for the high court of parliament, to which these two bodies are responsible, to discuss this matter. It is because parliament has had no chance to discuss it that we feel it is urgent we have an opportunity to debate this subject and discuss an issue which has arisen and which is in our view very important.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to make a brief observation on two points which have been raised. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond says there is no alternative opportunity for debate. This is only a small part of what is involved in the determination of the urgency of debate. Of course there will, at some stage, be an opportunity for debate, but this does not go to the question of urgency. What is urgent about this?
If this is the kind of public dispute that it is described as being, Mr. Speaker, then it might be going on for some time. Parliament does not settle that and remove the problem by the discussion of a motion of this kind. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam spoke of the need for this house to issue an order to the board of broadcast governors. This house has no authority to issue an order to the board of broadcast governors. It is parliament that has set up the board of broadcast governors and given it certain powers and functions. This house cannot interfere with any of the powers given to that statutory body for the discharge of these functions.
There is no urgency for discussion, therefore, of this matter at this time. There is no urgency that presents itself in that connection, because a debate would not settle anything. There is no immediate issue that presents a need for debate at this time. (Translation):


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to have such a great number of friends in the opposition to defend the 92,000 Quebec farmers who earn only $1,900 a year. Since those people will not even be able to listen to the radio broadcast of the Grey cup game, I believe that in the circumstances it is not in order to waste half an hour of the time of the house to discuss whether or not that game should be shown on television.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I have examined the motion that is before me, and I would preface my remarks in respect of it by saying it is recognized, and has been recognized over

many years, that this section 26 of our standing orders is a remedy to be used only under very extraordinary circumstances. Then the house agrees to set aside its routine business to discuss a certain matter which cannot wait.
I wish to thank hon. members for the various arguments they have addressed to me on this point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre felt that the issue was a conflict, but I cannot read the motion in that way because it says the definite matter of urgent public importance is the need to provide parliament with full information. The motion then goes on to merely identify the nature of the information.
Well, one could go into the pros and cons of the conflict, but that is not the issue today. We have two bodies which are in discussion over a particular athletic event; and whether its telecast will be carried with advertising or without advertising or with other complications or lack of complications does not enter into the question at the moment.
This house could not give any directions nor could it get any information this afternoon to assist in the resolution of the problem, and I rather fear it would only lead to an expression of individual opinions as to whether one should do this or that. According to my view that is not the burden of the motion. The burden of the motion is the need to provide information. As to the urgency of debate, I have not heard anyone suggest that there has been a refusal to supply information.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there has.


Mr. Speaker:: Whether information has been sought is one question; whether full information has been sought is another, and whether information has been sought in a proper manner is a third. It is my view that neither on the score of urgent importance nor on the score of urgency of debate does this motion meet the requirements of standing order No. 26. Therefore I cannot accept the motion for adjournment of the house on this occasion.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the promise reported to have been made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Toronto over the week end to speed up immigration to an annual figure of 1 per cent of our population, which at present would be 190,000 per year, represents government policy?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might deal with the matter and simply say to the hon. gentleman that I was dealing with what I believe to be a tolerable target or objective for the absorptive capacity of the Canadian economy over a period of years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Does that mean that the new minister has abandoned the 4 per cent goal set by the Prime Minister in 1957?


Richard Albert Bell: I do not think there is any abandonment or change involved in anything that may have been said.


Mr. Huberi Badanai (Fort William):: As a
supplementary question I would like to ask the minister, in view of his statement in Toronto recently, whether he plans to inform the house if he is going to introduce new regulations under the Immigration Act, and when can we expect the implementation of the new policy he spoke about in Toronto?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, the new regulations which my distinguished predecessor sponsored became effective as of February 1 and are working very well, and I think are not in need of any amendment. I think the house will be glad to know that for the first statistical period that is available there was an increase of 50 per cent in the number of applications, from 60,000 to 90,000. So far as the second part of the hon. gentleman's question is concerned may I only say there has been no statement of new policy, but a simple statement of what are appropriate targets and objectives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a related question. Does the minister intend, as his predecessor intended, to bring a revision of the Immigration Act before parliament?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that question earlier this session.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I apologize for the shortness of my notice to him. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from the manager and general counsel of the All Canada Insurance Federation with respect to the deferment of second reading

Inquiries of the Ministry of Bill C-80, if so, will be requested opportunity to make submissions to the Minister of Finance prior to second reading be afforded representatives of the federation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I understand a telegram of the kind the hon. gentleman referred to was received. I may say that having regard to all the circumstances and the fact that there has been ample time to make representations, there is no reason why the second reading should be deferred.



INQUIRY AS TO MEETING OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the honourable and gallant Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister inform the house when it is likely arrangements will be made for the standing committee on veterans affairs to commence its sittings?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I hope soon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West regarding the standing committee on veterans affairs. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether the Royal Canadian Legion, the army, navy and air force veterans and other veterans organizations will have an opportunity to appear this year, as in the past.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That will be determined by the committee itself, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. Rideout (Westmorland):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it true that the contract for the new C.N.R. station at Moncton has been cancelled?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have no fresh information, but I would certainly be very surprised if that were so.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport

is in a position to report anything to the house on the question I posed to him on November 15 regarding the unsatisfactory mail and express service along the northern line of the C.N.R. in British Columbia.


Léon Balcer: I have not received a report yet, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, or the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the absence of the latter, what course Canada intends to pursue as a result of the minority report of the Canadian member of the international control and supervisory commission, who has reported that he is opposed to the attitude taken by his two colleagues on the commission regarding the presence of some 3,000 Vietminh troops in Laos.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian commissioner put before the commission the question of withdrawal of all foreign troops, and the matter is now being examined by the commission. The government is in touch with the Canadian commissioner with a view to considering the most effective means necessary with regard to the removal of all foreign troops.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. It has been brought to the attention of the house this afternoon that the C.B.C. and B.B.G. are getting together to bring to a conclusion the fight over the Grey cup game. I would like to know what stand the government will take if the difficulty is not resolved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is entirely hypothetical and therefore does not meet the requirements regarding questions on orders of the day.
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to answer the question I put to him on Friday regarding this same matter. My question had to do with the opinion given by the law officer of the crown. May we assume this was

done with the concurrence of the government, and that the government shares the view that the C.B.C. cannot legally be required to carry advertisements in its telecast of the Grey cup game?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Justice): Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house on Friday morning when that question was asked.
It is one of the obligations of the Department of Justice to give advice to crown corporations, and of these the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is one. When legal advice is given by a solicitor to a client that communication is confidential. In the eyes of the law it is a privileged communication. The hon. member asked, with reference to a statement made by the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which appeared in the press on Friday morning, and was ascribed to that president, whether the government was aware in advance that that statement was to be made by him.
Let me say at once the government was not aware that any reference was to be made to the legal opinion given by the deputy attorney general of Canada to the C.B.C., so there is no question of concurrence on the part of the government in any disclosure of legal advice tendered by the deputy attorney general to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I must say that I was much surprised to see this disclosure made of a legal opinion attributed under these circumstances to the deputy attorney general without any concurrence on the part of the government or of the deputy attorney general himself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was a copy of the same legal opinion sent to the board of broadcast governors?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker. Under the statutes the Department of Justice is not the legal adviser of the board of broadcast governors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I too have a supplementary question, sir. My supplementary question to the minister is this. Is the minister not aware that there are many precedents for the C.B.C. making public opinions of the deputy minister of justice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are now getting into an argument.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO LOWER BANK INTEREST RATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In recognition of the fact that since late June, 1962 the bank rate set by the Bank of Canada has been lowered three times, and over-all from 6 per cent to 4 per cent, and that the prime lending rate of the chartered banks, which is offered only to top grade customers, was lowered only last week and only by one quarter of one per cent, what action is the government or the Bank of Canada taking to assure that lower interest conditions will prevail for others than banks borrowing from the central bank?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the government will continue to carry out its policy of expanding the economy of this country for the greater
prosperity of everybody.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we are fairly even on arguments. Both question and answer were argumentative.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the United States recently proposed to the members of NATO that NATO should establish an integrated nuclear force; and if so, what is the government's position with respect thereto?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the United States has put forward several proposals along this line for discussion. Last week at the NATO-parliamentarians meeting I believe this was put forward once more. It is a matter for NATO council as a whole to deal with, and particularly for the European countries which would be most concerned with financing the proposed missile force.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to attend the current session of the general assembly of the United Nations.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I can understand the interest of the hon. gentleman in that matter. I hope soon to be able to answer his question as to whether I will go.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. I regret that I was unable to give him notice. Is the minister aware that a large European owned fishing base may be established at Saint Pierre and Miquelon, the French owned islands off the Newfoundland coast; and if so, has his department given consideration to the effect of this development on Newfoundland fisheries?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on this matter. I have no responsibility for any development that may take place in other countries. But I will certainly look into the question and report later to the hon. gentleman if there is anything that deserves such action.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct an inquiry to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On October 17, over a month ago, the house approved my motion calling for the return of all correspondence regarding thalidomide. Could the minister take steps to see to it that the documents are brought forward at an early date, certainly before third reading of Bill No. C-3 is called?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minisier of National Healih and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the documents are prepared but we are waiting permission concerning the tabling of one or two of them.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if he will give assurances to the house that no delay will take place in the French translation of the report of the Gill committee, inquiring into the state of the unemployment insurance fund, so that parliament may have this report at the earliest possible date?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that those who are engaged in the translation are working feverishly.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government been advised from time to time of the progress of the negotiations that are presently taking place between the United Kingdom and the six European common market nations, and in particular with respect to the proposals of the six regarding the importation of newsprint by the United Kingdom from Canada?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minisier): Mr. Speaker, from time to time there is made available to the Canadian government a resume of the progress of the deliberations that are taking place.



ESTATE TAX ACT

George Clyde Nowlan: the second reading of Bill No. C-79, to amend the Estate Tax Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Lien for taxes.
Mr. Scoil:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could have a word of explanation from the minister as to what they are doing here in this clause. I think the clause is probably a very good one, but I am still not too clear as to exactly what they are trying to do. I wondered if we might have a word of explanation.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member and the committee know, the Minister of National Revenue has a lien on real property in connection with any unpaid balance of estate tax. Sometimes it is very, very difficult, in connection with the lien, to ascertain what are the conditions of the title from the records. Therefore this is a remedial section in order to assist people in the transfer of property. I might very briefly read the statement which I have in front of me. It is not in technical language. To help remove this difficulty in establishing clear title, the amendment in paragraph (1) restricts the present provision so that a lien will apply only where it can be ascertained

from the records of the land registry office that a deceased person had an interest in the real property that is being transferred.
In other words, unless the record office shows definitely that the deceased person had an interest in the real estate, the lien does not apply. There are cases where, as hon. members know, the records do not show this clearly. If they do not, a purchaser can take title to a property without having the impact of a lien upon him.


Reid Scott: One further question: what is the arrangement under this clause for releasing a lien claim where a province enters a contract with the dominion government?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is covered by a subclause. To go one step further in the explanation I gave a moment ago, I indicated that sometimes it was difficult to get an accurate picture by searching the records. Various provinces have different systems of registration. This clause provides that where a province agrees not to permit the transfer of real property after the death of a deceased property owner until it is satisfied that the Minister of National Revenue has been paid, there is no necessity for a lien and no obligation on a purchaser. The three provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba have in practice already adopted this procedure. If this clause is approved and an argreement with a province is made, the registrar will not transfer title until he is satisfied the Minister National Revenue has been paid. Once that payment has been recorded, the purchaser knows that the property is free from estate tax.


Reid Scott: I should like to congratulate the minister on behalf of the legal profession. This provision will go a long way toward meeting the difficulties which have arisen in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-
Mr. Matheson:: I wonder if the minister would explain the type of conversation which is likely to take place under the provisions of clause 7? Is this an indication that people who go to departmental representatives and speak frankly with them can be guided and assisted? I wonder if the minister would help us by giving the committee a little further explanation.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I understand this clause, the right to get information only applies at the moment to a person who has entered an objection or an appeal. He must be on record before he can seek this information. Under the proposed amendment this right will apply to any person who can establish that he 27507-3-112
Excise Tax Act
could, if he wished, be on the record; he does not actually have to lodge an appeal or objection. The clause is remedial.


John Ross Matheson: Do I understand that the effect of the clause as amended would be that a person in a position to appeal would be able to discuss his case with departmental representatives?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is what I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-"Corporation controlled by the deceased."
Gilles Grégoire: Would this clause have the effect of preventing double taxation in the case of somebody controlling one corporation directly and another indirectly?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is not its purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the closing of a loophole which might permit the evasion of taxation. It is not to avoid double taxation.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house.



EXCISE TAX ACT

George Clyde Nowlan: the second reading of Bill No. C-80 to amend the Excise Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.


Mr. Benson:: I wish, Mr. Chairman, to say something generally about this bill. Bill No. C-80 is intended, I believe, to close a loophole with regard to insurance premiums tax which, I presume, is not in contradiction of our tax agreements with other countries, and to make certain other technical amendments to the act.
In respect of this act, the Minister of Finance stated in this house on November 9 last, and I quote from Hansard at page 1489 of that date:
When I first became Minister of National Revenue and started to inquire about the Excise Tax Act I was told by a very distinguished and a very senior civil servant: "Don't try to understand it; it does not make any sense at all."
And I have never tried to understand it since.
This is a remarkable admission from the Minister of Finance who now comes before
17G8

Excise Tax Act
this house and asks us to make a few technical amendments to the act through Bill C-80. I have reviewed these amendments and I can assure the house that they do nothing to make the act more sensible to me as a layman.
I would like to assert that this government has been derelict in its duty to the Canadian people with respect to the Excise Tax Act. The tax implications of this act are important to every Canadian citizen in that through it the government imposed taxes which amounted to $1,413 million in 1962. The Minister of Finance has admitted that it makes no sense and yet he comes before this house asking us to continue this law subject to the few minor changes proposed in Bill C-80.
Last week the Minister of Finance indicated that the Income Tax Act has become so complicated that he cannot understand it. When my hon. friend from Davenport suggested that it be immediately rewritten the minister flatly refused to have persons undertake this important task. I am not sure of the basis of this refusal but I presume it has something to do with the fact that we have sitting a royal commission on taxation.
I maintain that this same argument is not valid in the case of the Excise Tax Act. On July 5, 1955, a sales tax committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Ken Carter, who has now been appointed chairman of the royal commission on taxation, and he reported to the then minister of finance on January 12, 1956. The committee received 38 submissions and carefully considered them before reporting. Members of the commission also went to Australia and to Washington at public expense during the course of their deliberations.
The government has had five years to consider the conclusion of this committee and to come up with an excise tax act which does make sense. They have failed to carry out this task and I maintain that their failure to do so is a flagrant neglect of their duty to Canadian taxpayers.
Before I conclude I would like to point out that one of the chief deficiencies in the Excise Tax Act to which attention was drawn by the committee was the fact that there are more than 25 references to ministerial discretion in the present act. This can result in taxation without specific approval of the House of Commons and without the right of appeal to the courts. It can lead to unfairness in the application of this tax as between taxpayers. I call on the Minister of Finance to proceed forthwith in the revision of the Excise Tax Act without waiting for five years for the royal commission on taxation to report and to have this report considered.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I made a mistake in extending the courtesy to the hon. gentleman of letting him speak after he was asleep.


William Moore Benidickson: He was up.


George Clyde Nowlan: He was not up. Nevertheless, what he said with respect to the Carter committee of 1955 was that it reported in 1956. Hence there was only one year between 1956 and 1957. You would not expect the lethargic government of that day to take any steps at all in that year. But during the intervening years steps have been taken. I have not the figure in front of me at the moment, but a number of the recommendations of the Carter committee have been implemented by the government of the day. No doubt there is opportunity for amending from time to time any statute. I am not questioning that fact. However, I say that the report of the Carter committee was considered carefully by the officers of the Department of Finance and where it was felt possible or practical under the circumstances existing from time to time the recommendations of the Carter committee have been implemented. We are now considering some recommendations, not of the Carter committee itself per se but some amendments which are essential for the efficient administration of the act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to impress upon the minister the suggestion that was inherent in the question which I asked of the Prime Minister on the orders of the day today. It refers in particular to a telegram which it is my understanding was addressed to the Prime Minister yesterday by the manager and general counsel of the All Canada Insurance Federation. In order to put the matter in full perspective I think I might read that telegram to the minister. It reads as follows:
Recognizing the potential problems which might arise in implementing paragraph 8 of the Excise Tax Act resolution All Canada Insurance Federation whose member companies write 90 per cent of the automobile casualty and fire premiums in Canada requested an interview with the Minister of Finance by letter dated August 15. On September 18 the minister replied intimating an interview would be arranged later that month. No interview has yet been granted. Bill C-80 as presented for first reading to the House of Commons does not resolve the problems which were anticipated and will result in difficulties for government and the insurance industry alike. All Canada Insurance Federation again requests an opportunity to submit its representations to the government and undertakes to co-operate in seeking a practical solution. Wtih all due respect All Canada Insurance Federation submits it is in the interest of the government as well as the public and the insurance industry that further consideration of Bill C-80 be deferred until our representations may be heard and considered.

The reply of the Prime Minister to my question was that ample opportunity had been afforded to the industry to make its representations. I think it is implicit from the telegram I have just read that, far from ample opportunity having been afforded, the government appears to have been evading any opportunity of speaking with the representatives of the industry. I would therefore submit to the minister that in all good conscience and in all good reason he should defer further action on clause 1 until he has had an opportunity of hearing the views of a very considerable portion of the Canadian insurance industry on this particular clause.


George Clyde Nowlan: In that connection, I might say that this resolution, of course, was brought in last April. Representations were made, so I am told. I am not conversant with them personally. As to that date, I am told that representations were made by various parties to the minister of the day and to the officers of the department. I also have received representations in connection with it. These representations have all been given the most careful consideration and as a result of those representations and the consideration by the government the bill is brought forward in the form in which it is now before the committee.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance this question. If some of the Carter committee recommendations have been implemented, does he still stand by his statement of last Friday, that this bill or this act-I refer to the Excise Tax Act-as such does not make sense? I should also like him to inform this committee at some time, perhaps now or before we get through third reading, just what recommendations of the Carter committee have been written into the Excise Tax Act.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not think my hon. friend carries very much weight in the house if all he has to criticize is some facetious remark of mine at one time. I am sure it is a very good bill. That is the only question. Perhaps I should have said "illogical" instead of "did not make sense". There are many illogical sections in the bill, owing to the exemptions which have come in during the years. However, that is a matter which has developed over many years. I am sure any predecessor of mine in either government could say exactly the same thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston and the reply of the minister in connection with what the hon. member for Kingston has had 27507-3-1124
Excise Tax Act
to say. I must say I was rather impressed with the statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Kingston, as indeed I have been impressed with a number of the observations and speeches he has made in this house. The hon. member for Kingston is obviously a man of considerable authority in matters having to do with taxation. We listen to what he says, recognizing that his are the words of someone who has authority in this field.
I do not believe the minister is warranted in the criticism he has made of the hon. member. In the first place, the hon. gentleman obviously could not have been asleep, as his remarks were so well put together that only a wide awake man could make them. Every one of the statements made on clause 1 of the bill was perfectly in order; they were just as much in order as they would have been if they had been made when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. The Minister of Finance need not be piqued by the observations of the hon. member. These observations were made because, as a tax expert and as professor in matters of taxation he is greatly concerned with the loose way in which this act is being formulated.


George Clyde Nowlan: By your government.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It does not matter by whom. He is greatly concerned with the way in which this act is being formulated and the way in which it continues to be administered by the present administration.
The Minister of Finance may be an estimable gentleman, and we all recognize that fact. However, he happens to be the Minister of Finance and on his shoulders reposes a responsibility which he must discharge in order not to impose needlessly on the people of this country taxes which now are heavy and which should not be imposed, if by careful formulation of legislative enactments we can avoid this added burden. That is what the hon. member for Kingston had in mind.
He pointed out that the Carter committee made its report in 1956. That report was in the hands of the former administration for less than a year. It has been in the hands of the present administration for over five years. Faced with some 25 recommendations made by this committee, the minister has simply replied to the hon. member by saying that some of these recommendations have been adopted. In spite of a second question by the hon. member for Kingston, as to which of the recommendations have been adopted, we have not had any reply from the minister.
On a matter of taxation, something that involves the imposition of heavy pecuniary obligations on the Canadian people, surely

Excise Tax Act
this House of Commons is entitled to know what particular recommendations have been accepted by the goverment. Since 1957, there has been no reference in any budget speech to the Carter committee by the former minister of finance. Consequently, now that this matter has been raised, we should have from the minister a precise statement as to which of these various 25 recommendations have been implemented. If the minister will indicate which recommendations have been carried out I think we may draw the conclusion that possibly his own knowledge of the act is much greater than that which he, in in his own modesty the other day, suggested was the case. I am giving the minister an opportunity to show that he really does know a good deal about this act by telling us precisely which recommendations have been accepted by the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am anticipating the reply that the minister will give to the hon. member for Kingston but in his initial remarks he referred in particular to the question whether or not the proposed amendment might be a violation of the Canada-United States reciprocal tax convention and the similar convention between Canada and the United Kingdom. I would refer the minister in particular to article 1 of the United States convention and articles 1 and 2 of the United Kingdom convention. The argument basically would be that, if this is a tax imposed upon premium income, then is this not a tax imposed upon profits arising outside of Canada in respect of a corporation which does not for the purpose of these profits have a permanent establishment in Canada?


George Clyde Nowlan: I hesitate to give a legal opinion. I am advised by the officials that this is not in conflict in any way at all with our statutory obligations.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are we not going to get from the minister some indication as to what his answers are to the question put by the hon. member for Kingston?


George Clyde Nowlan: Not at this moment.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, as I read clause 1 it will represent a greater burden on consumers ini Canada. What were the circumstances and the pressures that prompted this particular amendment? Can the minister indicate to us what the additional revenue is expected to be from this additional tax imposed on Canadian users of insurance, and what were the reasons? Who were the people interested in having this additional burden

imposed on Canadians generally. I think it has been the custom, certainly in years past, and I am thinking of around the year 1900, never to let tax measures go by without having a pretty clear indication from the minister as to who is to benefit, who is going to have to pay and what the reasons are for the redistribution. Is this something that is going to be of great advantage to the treasury?


George Clyde Nowlan: Which clause is the hon. member on?


John Ross Matheson: Clause 1.


William Heward Grafftey: I assume the hon. member is discussing the clause in relation to insurance premiums. As was stated by the former minister of finance during the budget speech, the purpose of the proposal is to discourage the placing of insurance with non-resident agents, in many cases in the United States, I think. What was envisaged was the placing of Canadian holdings of insurance with nonresident agents outside of Canada and it is to discourage this sort of thing that we have this provision before us. From the point of view of the actual increase in revenue, it has to be admitted that while there is an increase involved the amount of increase in revenue from the implementation of this proposal will be small. I did not quite follow the hon. member in his reference to an added burden on Canadians but maybe I am ahead of myself.


John Ross Matheson: I thank the parliamentary secretary for his assistance. I take it that what this really represents in the tax field is another element of protectionism. In other words, it is an additional wall by way of protection to the carrying on of such business in Canada against competition from outside. I am interested in the observations of the parliamentary secretary. It was my thinking that this would be more detrimental to British companies than to United States companies, but is the minister or the parliamentary secretary satisfied that this provision will not add to the cost of insurance in any material way? The parliamentary secretary says that there will be virtually no benefit to the treasury. I should like to know who will derive the benefit. Obviously we are now operating very much in the red in this country and it is hard to understand why we add taxes unless it is for the purpose of increasing the income of the treasury. If this is not so, who is going to benefit from this provision and will the effect be to bring about less competition in the insurance field than there now is?


William Heward Grafftey: Offhand I would say to the hon. member that I cannot see where anything in this provision will make the insurance field less competitive.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that I do not like about this bill. In the new section 6 under clause 1 it is provided that the superintendent or any officer of his department appointed by him may visit the office of any insurer, broker or agent and examine his books, etc. That means this is another instance of some kind of police state being brought about in Canada. An official can go into any office, take the man's books without his consent, look them over and take them away just as is done under the Income Tax Act. I believe we have too much of that already and we should take a good look at it. I do not think the officials were careful enough in drafting this bill.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the parliamentary
secretary no comment to make on the observations of the hon. member for Hull?


William Heward Grafftey: I have no particular comment to make on his remarks.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the minister?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Do you not think this is going a little too far? An agent or an insurer has a contract to deal with insurance in Canada and generally he is sworn in every year when he takes out his licence. He has to report to the insurance department of the province in which he is carrying on business if he has dealt with companies not licensed to operate in Canada. The provinces have these regulations; so why should the superintendent of insurance have the right at any time to send officials into an office and take over everything they find there as is done in police states? I do not believe that should be done in Canada.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, only one word is added to this section. The principle was approved a year ago and there is only a very minor change. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Hull concerning the police authority of the superintendent of insurance, that is not a matter on which I would want to comment at the moment. Many officials have powers of inspection which parliament in its wisdom has decided they should be endowed with. The superintendent of insurance is an official who has been occupying that position for many years and I believe that generally speaking parliament and the country have confidence in the actions he takes.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If I remember correctly, when the Conservatives were on this side of the house they were opposed to this but now they are on the other side they favour it and have increased the power.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Excise Tax Act
On clause 2-Diversion of certain articles to non-exempt use, sale, etc.
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, with regard to subsection 5 on page 8 I should like to ask the minister a question about these exemptions for municipalities. I am not sure what the situation is in other provinces, but in British Columbia we have a number of forms of local government which are not actually municipalities but local government bodies established in areas for some specific purpose. We have fire districts, water districts, hospital districts and so on and for the specific purpose they have taxing authority and have charge of public works.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I think the hon. member is on clause 3 of the bill. He referred to page 8.


Colin Cameron: Oh, pardon me; I am sorry.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-
Colin Cameron: My question, Mr. Chairman, relates to what constitutes a municipality. I have in mind, for instance, the improvement districts near where I live. They undertake quite a lot of public works in the way of water supply and sewerage installations. Under the terms of our municipal legislation in British Columbia they do not constitute municipalities, yet it seems to me they should be covered by this sort of thing.
I have also in mind a situation with which I had to deal a few years ago concerning the area in which I live. We established a fire protection district. This became a public body and a taxing authority. At that time I had some difficulty in getting the fire equipment exempted from sales tax, although eventually the then minister of national revenue did accede to the request. I was wondering whether the minister could tell me if the word "municipality" would cover such local organizations which are not regarded as municipalities in British Columbia?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would not want to give a snap opinion on that. I know very well the difficulty to which the hon. member refers, and I know the language with regard to municipal bodies varies in the different provinces. At the moment, I would not want to say anything about the situation. I recall the matter the hon. member raised with me some time ago, and it was solved satisfactorily. I do not believe there is really any difficulty now in connection with that matter.

Excise Tax Act
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the other day the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me about the excise tax on lobsters. I told him that there had been a tariff or surcharge on them. I notice we are dealing with lobsters and lobster pots under this clause, so I can tell him that the surcharge was removed. It was removed by the order which was passed the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word about that. I am very glad it was removed. I am sure the minister will not take it amiss if I express some surprise over the fact that the Minister of Finance from Nova Scotia, the Minister of National Revenue from New Brunswick and the Minister of Fisheries from Prince Edward Island, were unaware of the fact that the former minister of finance had put a surcharge on lobsters, and none of them knew anything about it. It seems to me, sir, this illustrates how unwise it was to have this hole-in-the-corner tax imposed by order in council in a great rush.
I feel it is unfortunate that even for a short time this situation should have arisen. I recognize that the surcharge does not have very great practical importance because we do not import lobsters to any extent at all for sale in Canada. However, the minister knows how sensitive the fishermen of the United States are to anything having to do with fisheries, and the Prime Minister illustrated that the other day when we were talking about the 12-mile limit. The minister knows what a lobby there is in New England all the time to put imposts on our exports. I do not have to tell the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that would not be very welcome in his constituency, any more than it would be in mine.
The reason this matter came to my attention in the first place was a reference to the fact the lobster fishermen in Maine were already using the existence of this surcharge as an argument in Washington for having imposts put on Canadian lobsters. I think it is unfortunate that even for a short time the surcharge should have been imposed.
There is one practical aspect of it. I understand a certain number of lobsters are imported into New Brunswick-I do not know whether this applies to Nova Scotia-while their shells are still soft. They are kept in pounds until the shells harden and then they are exported. I have been told that there have been applications for drawbacks of this surcharge that was paid during the period when it was inadvertently being imposed. I wonder if the minister could give us an assurance that those who paid the surcharge

during that period will, if they later exported the lobsters, get a drawback as I believe they properly should? I do feel it would be simple justice to these taxpayers who are really trying to maintain an industry which is another dollar earner, which the minister would appreciate in his personal capacity. Can the minister give us an assurance that in any case where this surcharge was paid on lobsters exported the drawback will be provided?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the Department of National Revenue is already processing applications which have been received for drawbacks on lobsters which were brought into Canada and exported to the United States. On proof of their exportation, there will be no difficulty in obtaining the drawback whatever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad to hear that.


Mr. Crouse:: I am sure we all heard with some satisfaction that the surcharge had been removed on lobsters. While we are on this point, I should like to ask the minister if he can advise the committee, either now or at a later date, if the surcharge has been removed from steel hoops that are brought in for barrels? In my constituency, we have a large industry in which local people are engaged in the manufacture of barrels. They are in competition with cardboard cartons and other types of packaging. The present surcharge has created some difficulty for these manufacturers. These steel hoops are imported from the United Kingdom. I would appreciate receiving word from the minister that the surcharge has been dropped, or will be dropped in the near future.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not recall this surcharge in particular. If the hoops are being used and then exported, a drawback can be obtained. If that is not the case, I do not recall that the surcharge was removed. I am quite sure it was not in the list which we brought down the other day and which was entirely foodstuffs, except for bath tubs and fixtures of that kind. As the Prime Minister has said, the surcharges will be removed as expeditiously as possible and I will pay particular attention to this matter to which my hon. friend has directed my attention.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is an important one. I am sure the minister will appreciate further elaboration on the point. The minister is given the power under the act to make regulations, and it is under the power to make regulations that he is given the discretion of determining whether a particular area or authority constitutes itself into a municipality. In other

words the minister is given the power under regulation 1112, circular ET 7535, to determine whether a particular body can quality for the kind of assistance provided for in the proposed amended section 2(5). It would, of course, be unjust if the situation were otherwise.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have no further comments to make on the matter, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Honey:: I should like to refer particularly to baling twine which I assume is covered by subclause 2 of clause 3. If I am not correct, I know the minister will advise me. Under subclause 2 baling twine is deleted and the explanatory note to subsection 4 indicates that the-
-addition of the words "baler twine and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture thereof" implements paragraph 3 of the Excise Tax Act resolution-
And it goes on to set out paragraph 3. I would like the minister to give an indication how he or his department will define, or in practice apply the words "baler twine". Specifically, does the term include binder twine used in wheat harvesting and allied operations? Does it include twine used in the tobacco industry in the tying of tobacco before it is put in the kilns?


William Heward Grafftey: To be very precise here, this paragraph of the resolution removes the existing statutory requirement that baler twine must be sold for baling farm products if it is to qualify for sales tax exemption. I should like to go a little further with the explanation. It has been found administratively difficult to distinguish between baler twine used for farm produce and baler twine used for other purposes. The same baler twine can be used for many purposes, and the proposed amendment puts baler twine in the same class as binder twine, which is presently exempted from sales tax.


Russell Clayton Honey: Would it be expected it would also include twine used in the tobacco operation, which is similar to binder twine?


William Heward Grafftey: Offhand I would think so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the parliamentary secretary find out, on hand, from one of the officials so that we could have some precise information on it?


William Moore Benidickson: In this clause we are dealing with tax advantages extended in a rather minor way to those engaged in agriculture. Annually the minister receives representations from the farm organizations of Canada, and I refer in particular to the national organizations. Last year I believe they thought the most important advantage to them which the minister could introduce in
Excise Tax Act
his budget for 1962 would be to exempt farmers' fencing from sales tax. Has the minister given consideration to that?
Six months after the introduction of the 1962 budget we do not think we should simply have a repetition of that budget without any amendment, because a lot of good ideas should have developed in the interval. Has the minister received representations from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture since appointment to his present office and has he given consideration to exempting farmers' fencing from sales tax?


George Clyde Nowlan: This minister has not received any representations with respect to that matter, but I know of the representations that have been made from time to time as I have read the briefs that were submitted. As my hon. friend knows, we are dealing with a budget introduced last spring and any further exemption will have to await another budget.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-
Edgar John Benson: Just before we complete carrying the bill may I have an assurance from the minister that the questions that have been raised will be answered before third reading or at the time of the third reading?


George Clyde Nowlan: In answer to that question, a question was asked with respect to the Carter committee and the recommendations that have been implemented but, Mr. Chairman, I presume we will treat this bill the same as the previous one. We will not proceed with third reading until a later date and on third reading I will give the answers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister at the same time give a definite answer to the question asked by my hon. friend from Durham about the twine for tobacco?


Neil Alexander Matheson: I am wondering what is the difference between "books, printed and bound" and "printed books." Is this again a tightening up operation?


George Clyde Nowlan: A matter of interpretation.


John Ross Matheson: With respect to the question raised by my hon. friend for Kenora-Rainy River, is it possible to construe the benefits accorded to wire to include fencing? This is an extremely important matter. I speak on behalf of a constituency where there are many farmers who cannot afford to fence. The Minister of Agriculture has stressed the importance of grazing cattle on marginal lands. In many areas there are farmers who do not find it economically feasible to put wire back on posts which will last for only a few years. This has been of real concern to many farmers

Excise Tax Act
who are farming 200 or 300 acres and who would like to increase their holdings to 500 or 600 acres and participate in schemes under ARDA, such as tree farming. One of the prerequisites however is fencing, and I would like the minister to say whether this very important item could not be considered.


George Clyde Nowlan: Consideration will be given to all these representations.


William Moore Benidickson: One of the items up for revision in clause 4 includes "goods for use as part of sewerage and drainage systems." Although the minister has not been in his present office very long, he was formerly minister of national revenue and as such, if past practice was adhered to, doubtless he often sat with the then minister of finance in meeting delegations presenting suggestions for changes in the budget.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce made what I think is a very reasonable suggestion with regard to sales tax and I am rather disappointed the government did not see fit to act upon it. They said it seemed inconsistent to them that, if we want to modernize our municipalities, goods for use in sewerage and drainage systems should be exempted from sales tax while the same kind of goods used by municipalities in water distribution systems bore tax. I refer to page 38 of the brief which states:
The executive council recommends that Schedule III of the Excise Tax Act be amended to provide for the exemption of goods used in water distribution systems when these are purchased by or on behalf of municipalities.
That seems to be a reasonable request, and seems to be in line with the amendment we have here. However, even though it was submitted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in February, 1962 it does not form part of the sales tax amendments which we are considering today. It seems to be a proper thing to do for the municipalities, particularly when the government, after a great deal of urging, has not seen fit to activate the statute with respect to low interest loans to municipalities. The least they could do is not take from the municipalities an 11 per cent sales tax with respect to the very expensive items that go into a water distribution system.
Clause 4 agreed to.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

George Clyde Nowlan: the second reading of Bill No. C-81, to amend the Customs Tariff.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us to amend the Customs Tariff is of course an annual bill, because usually after the presentation of a budget several financial statutes of the country require amendment. This is one of them. The particular bill which is before us would not appear to be very important this year. It brings back, six months after the presentation of the budget, the exact amendments of the former minister of finance with respect to the Customs Tariff. The new minister does not propose any amendment, despite the serious situation that has developed between April and now, and indeed which developed between April and June 24, after the election. Despite this, no further ideas are presented in this bill. I say that therefore this bill, on the face of it, may not appear too important to hon. members. But I say we must look beyond the bill, because something very important has occurred since the budget was presented on April 20.
The executive, by order in council after the election, took steps with respect to the statute we are now considering, the Customs Tariff, of very great consequence not only to parliament, having regard to parliament's rights, but to the Canadian people as a whole, because the Prime Minister, in a press release after the austerity measures were announced to the Canadian people, made it known that under the statute which is now before us the executive proposed to tax the Canadian people on a full year basis to the extent of $200 million; and there is no suggestion yet on the part of this administration that they want ratification and approval by parliament of that imposition of taxation.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Shameful, too.


William Moore Benidickson: Two hundred million dollars were involved by this executive act of June 24 by order in council. Orders in council were condemned year in and year out by some of the present ministry when they sat in opposition. We have always thought it fundamental that the House of Commons had to be taken into consideration when there was a question of the imposition of taxation.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Revolutions have been fought over that.


William Moore Benidickson: We have been here eight weeks. Many months went by during this so-called cooling off period after the election before the calling of parliament on September 27. But there has been no suggestion

whatever that in connection with this imposition of taxes to the extent of $200 million parliament is going to be asked this session to approve the action taken, or indeed that we are to be given any opportunity even to discuss it. I said that the schedule attached to this bill in this particular year does not appear impressive. The former minister of finance, when he introduced the resolutions in April, indicated that each of the tariff changes proposed was to reduce tariffs; there were no increases involved in the schedule attached to this bill. That may have been valid in April. But, ignoring parliament, in the meantime by executive action through order in council we have substantial increases in tariffs. Surely the house is concerned with this question.
I want to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think any hon. member of this house could read the two basic statutes upon which the June 24 order in council was based without coming to the conclusion that the executive, the cabinet, stretched to the limit and beyond the limit any powers parliament might have had in contemplation when the relevant sections were made the law of the land. I am not going into detail at this time with respect to them, but I wish to say to the house that, first of all, the cabinet took upon themselves the right to cancel or change every concession that had been made over the years.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could refer Your Honour to the fact that this particular aspect of the debate which is engaging the attention of the hon. member has been the subject of discussion and decided upon in connection with an amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) on October 5 with regard to this issue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman read the motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The motion was:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that the failure of Your Excellency's advisers to place before this house at the earliest opportunity a measure to approve the collection of taxes which have been imposed by order in council, as part of the austerity program, denies to this house the exclusive constitutional right to approve the imposition of additional taxation which is the foundation of our system of responsible government.
It does seem that this particular aspect of the issue is the one which is engaging the attention of the hon. member.


William Moore Benidickson: May I speak to the point of order? This subject is not before the House of Commons today through the initiative of 27507-3-113
Customs Tariff
the opposition. It is before us by reason of an amending bill initiated by the government to the Customs Tariff Act. In the schedule attached to the bill Your Honour will find items which, I say, may have been valid in April, and realistic in so far as they apply to tariff rates applicable to the items under discussion; but today I say this house cannot pass either the bill or the schedule attached to it without recognizing the fact that in the meantime some of these items have been subjected to a surcharge imposed by order in council on June 24.
I submit that the normal rule preventing us from discussing the same subject twice in the same session does not apply when we have a bill designed to amend a statute, a bill which has been introduced by the government and one which is in its present form unrealistic because the rates in the schedule are now subject to certain surcharges imposed subsequent to the budget last April.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word about the point of order and about what was said by the parliamentary secretary. The hon. gentleman referred to a motion which had been moved expressing a lack of confidence in the government because it had imposed surcharges in certain circumstances. That question was dealt with, and I agree that as a subject for an expression of want of confidence in the government the house has made a decision-a decision which cannot be further discussed at this time. But what my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) is presenting to the house are arguments with respect to the bill which is before us, and it is with respect to this bill that he is referring to certain things which were done by the government. He is not directing his argument to whether or not the government deserves confidence because of those things. He is talking about the government's actions in relation to this particular bill.
In addition, we had a categorical undertaking which was given by the minister to my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River in committee on November 12, and I draw Your Honour's attention to page 1521 of Hansard where the minister is reported as saying, when my hon. friend sought to discuss the surcharges at that time:
I anticipated that the hon. member would raise this point, and I am glad to see that he is not in a panic in any way. I would suggest that when we get into the bill I would then be better prepared to answer these questions, which he knows are rather difficult to answer at this stage of the debate and on this day.
That was a day when there was a statutory holiday and when there were none of the

Customs Tariff
officials present. In order to make clear that there was no misunderstanding, I got up and said:
I think the position taken by the minister, in all the circumstances, is a most reasonable one, and I take it that if we forgo any lengthy discussion today we shall not be faced with any entanglement of points of order and things of that sort at a later stage.
The minister nodded his head in approval at that point.


Mr. Speaker:: Are we still speaking on the point of order in which it is suggested that this is something new, without repetition? I think, in considering this point of order, it must be borne in mind that we cannot repeat a discussion under any guise whatsoever; we cannot bring in some principle under a new guise; we definitely have a rule against repetition and, certainly, debate on one matter cannot resurrect debate which existed on the same matter in other circumstances.
I do not think, though, that the hon. member is precluded from adverting to the surcharges. However, I think he would be precluded from discussing at length the legality or illegality of those charges, or matters related to the surcharges themselves. That is not an issue here. The hon. member's point is that this bill purports to deal with certain items in the Customs Tariff although those particular items have been changed since the month of April. As long as the hon. member does not revive argument as to the legality of the surcharges, because he cannot do that, I think it is all right for him to go ahead. But I put it to hon. members that we cannot repeat the debate which took place on a supply motion a short time ago, and the Chair will be very strict in that regard.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to say, in this connection, that the motion to which the hon. member for Peace River drew our attention was a motion made at the time of the debate on the address. I should like to point out to Your Honour that since then this house decided that whatever might be said as to the legality or illegality of the surcharges they should not be removed at this time. That represents another decision of the house made on the supply motion the other night. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) put forward a motion dealing with that, among other things. So whether the charges are legal, or whether they apply or not, the house has decided that they are not to be removed at this time.
It is true I told the hon. member the other day in reply to a question that I would be glad to deal with the matter. The only way I can do that is in committee, where I could tell

him to which, if any, of these items, the surcharges apply. I am prepared to do that when we get into committee, without raising points of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I listened with interest to what Your Honour had to say. With respect, I think there is some confusion as to the procedural point involved. The question, which was before the house on another occasion, and which is now held up as an obstacle to proceeding along the lines which my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River was pursuing was an amendment moved by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) having to do with what was alleged to be a violation of constitutional practice. The legality of the surcharges was another point altogether which had nothing to do with the amendment. It is true that on that amendment I did discuss the legality of the surcharges as well as the substance of the amendment, contending that the failure of the government to take parliament into its confidence was a violation of constitutional practice. But the legality of the surcharges is a matter which has not yet been determined in this house pursuant to any amendment.
There is at the present time a motion before the house asking for the production of papers which touches the legality of the surcharges. That, too, is a motion involving a different matter from the subject matter which led to the remarks made by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River.


Mr. Speaker:: I said I was not closing down the hon. member in any way, except that I say we cannot revive the arguments in the debate which took place on the supply motion. We are definitely discussing the principle of a bill, and on second reading, as we realize, there are certain limitations. When we resume the debate, the hon. member will continue and we shall see what he has to say.
However, since it is now five o'clock the business of the house will be interrupted for a consideration of those items listed under private members' business. Today we shall deal with notices of motions.



FLAGS OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members' notices of motions:
September 12-No. 9-Mr. Olson
That this house is of the opinion that the government should agree within one year to a design for a suitable distinctive national flag and introduce legislation in this house for the adoption of this emblem.
Mr. Speaker:: The first item is No. 9. It
has been agreed that this item shall stand in the absence of the hon. member concerned, who is away on government business. This was referred to on Wednesday, November 14, 1962. Is the request that it shall stand again?


Mr. Patterson:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: At the request of the government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought it was not at the request of the government on the notice of motion but that it was by unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house leader is correct on that point. It is by unanimous consent that this motion shall stand, the hon. member being away on government business. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members' notices of motions:
September 27-Nov. 11-Mr. Lewis
That, in the opinion of this house, consideration be given to the advisability of introducing a measure providing (a) that specified expenditures in respect of television, radio, travel within his constituency, the printing and mailing of some literature about himself and his or his party's program incurred by or on behalf of a candidate representing a federal party In a federal election be paid out of the general revenues of Canada; (b) that any additional expenditures by a candidate or by any person or organization on his behalf be limited to a specified amount calculated on the basis of voting population; and (c) that every candidate, constituency organization or federal party and any person or organization acting for or on behalf of any one or all of them shall make full and accurate disclosure of all moneys received and of all expenditures incurred by them in respect of a federal election.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the request of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it now at the request of the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the first time of asking, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Is the hon. member calling the banns?


Mr. Speaker:: At the request of the government.
Order stands.
27507-3-1131
Proposed Maritime Industrial Development INDUSTRY



ATLANTIC PROVINCES


Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the concrete implementation of a long range, positive and comprehensive program of economic development for the Atlantic provinces of Canada, and to provide, in particular, for the following short range and long-term measures:
(1)	To assure that existing employment in the basic iron, coal and steel industry be fully protected until alternative employment opportunities can be developed in the region;
(2)	To launch a major program of public capital construction in co-operation with the provincial governments; and,
(3)	To establish a department of Atlantic development, responsible for the overall co-ordination of efforts by all federal departments and agencies in the formulation of positive, long range and comprehensive measures designed to promote the economic rehabilitation of the Atlantic region, and for the administering of a large scale development fund for financing the creation of essential industrial capital.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention this evening to go into this particular resolution in any great detail. As a result of the opportunity which was mine to participate in the throne speech debate I have already outlined some of the history and the present factors associated with the economic problems of the Atlantic provinces.
The purpose of this particular resolution is to provide for the planned, co-ordinated and directed long range economic development of that part of Canada which has not shared in the general economic development we have experienced in Canada, in general, from the days of confederation. In this connection, the government have indicated their intention to establish an Atlantic development board. I am sure that all of the people in this part of Canada welcome this announcement by the government, at least in so far as it represents an indication on the part of the government that they are aware of the situation in the Atlantic provinces. But, Mr. Speaker, as I have already suggested during the throne speech debate, if it is the intention of the government simply to set up another body to conduct research and various programs of study and to make suggestions, then I suggest to you that this procedure is going to take altogether too much time and that it is not really going to get at the root of the matter. Therefore, in this resolution I am suggesting that, while most certainly we desire a program of economic development, such a program should be under the direction and within the scope of the responsibility of a
1778	HOUSE OF
Proposed Maritime Industrial Development particular minister of the crown. The Atlantic development board could then, I suggest, very efficiently, logically and acceptably work with this minister as they attempt to take action to implement the program of economic development in co-operation with the provincial governments of these four provinces.
There are some people who suggest that the Atlantic provinces of Canada are not the only sections of the country which experience particularly depressing economic conditions. This of course is a fact. However, we can say in general that wherever we find depressed pockets in other parts of Canada, it is generally within the midst of industries which are operating successfully to some extent. I suggest to the members of the house that only in the Atlantic provinces do we have a unique situation where the entire region is so greatly depressed that when industries such as coal and steel are declining there is no opportunity for the people who have been employed in those industries over the years to seek alternative employment in the same area. This problem is, of course, expanded in a situation such as that which we have in Canada today. When these people are forced to leave the Atlantic provinces, in view of the unemployment situation in the country at large, it is extremely difficult for them to find alternative employment even in other parts of the country.
We in the Atlantic provinces of Canada are not pessimists. We believe that our part of Canada can come into its own. Many of our people see a tremendous economic future for the Atlantic area. For a long time the Atlantic provinces have been awaiting the hand of development. We have much in the way of untapped and underdeveloped resources. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the industrial concerns of the country that, in view of the new trading patterns being established around the world, the Atlantic provinces are once again, as they were prior to confederation, going to be in the forefront of future economic developments in Canada.
There are some who suggest that we in this part of Canada should be able to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps. However, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that we have done everything it is possible for us to do by ourselves. Various research projects have been conducted very successfully and very informatively by the Atlantic provinces economic council. We have self-help economic development organizations such as Industrial Estates Ltd. in Nova Scotia. However, I suggest to you that, in view of all these efforts


of the people of the Atlantic area to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps, it has now finally and irrevocably been established that federal government assistance is required.
We are not asking for very much. We are asking simply for equality of opportunity for our people in that part of the nation. We are asking equal wages for equal work. For example, we are asking equal wages for the teachers in the Atlantic provinces as compared with those of teachers in the wealthier parts of Canada. We desire equality in wages for the marine workers, the steel workers and so on. In brief, we are asking that the people in the Atlantic provinces be permitted to share in the benefits of confederation. We are asking that we be permitted to develop economically, so that we can provide a decent standard of living for our people and so that we can provide them with equal municipal services with an equal burden of taxation.
In suggesting that there is a tremendous economic future for the Atlantic provinces we are saying that, with the aid of the federal government, new industries can be attracted into that area and that those new industries can be developed. In line with the research of the Atlantic provinces economic council and in line with the program of the New Democratic party-and we have been saying this now since our founding-I suggest to you that, in developing the economy of the Atlantic provinces, it is essential that we establish certain cornerstone industries which will allow us to develop a stable economy and which in turn will attract other minor and secondary manufacturing establishments. Keeping in mind this principle of key cornerstone industries-and this is absolutely essential to any future economic development- I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, as is outlined in this particular resolution, that we cannot be successful unless we protect the existing basic industries in the area. I am from a particular part of Nova Scotia. There are other members here from other parts of the Atlantic provinces who can expand on some of the other industries. However, I am here referring particularly to the basic industries of coal and steel. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot neglect these most important potential cornerstone industries in any long range economic program.
We were very happy to see the federal government announce, in April of this year, a special subsidy on coal of 30 cents per ton because, from the point of view of competitive advantage, this provided to our coal industry an opportunity to compete with imported foreign oil. We would suggest that the federal government should keep this special subsidy under review and expand it

Proposed Maritime Industrial Development
as necessary so as to ensure that the tremendous potential existing tor coal in the thermal power field, certainly within the Atlantic provinces, will be exploited in order that our generation of thermal power will be based on coal.
There are many people in Canada who suggest that, apart from new potential uses for coal, some of the traditional markets may well be restored to the coal industry. I should like to paraphrase here a statement that was made recently at the Canadian coal conference. Many economists see coal regaining some of the industrial markets it has been losing to gas and oil simply because both gas and oil are becoming scarcer in North America. The unit price is rising and in future it can go nowhere but up.
So, Mr. Speaker, we suggest first that the coal industry in Canada, certainly in the eastern part of Canada, is not dead. There is a tremendous future for coal. Coal is one of our important basic resources and it has a future even within the framework of the traditional markets and traditional uses for coal. But I would suggest to you that what is even more important and even more encouraging to us in the Atlantic provinces is the tremendous possibilities that are held out for coal in the thermal power field. We are told, for example, that by 1980, in the not too distant future, the market for coal for use by Ontario hydro alone will be in the neighbourhood of 26 million tons.
An experiment is at present being conducted in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, under the auspices of the national research council to investigate the competitive price situation of coal used in the generation of thermal power to supply domestic home heating as opposed to other forms of electricity. We are going to be very interested in the results of this study because, on the basis of present and existing information, limited as it is, there is a very strong indication that there is a tremendous opportunity for coal in the industrial, commercial and domestic home heating fields.
There are other aspects I certainly do not have time to go into in the few minutes allotted to -me today. There are many other related factors that could very well provide the necessary impetus for the Atlantic provinces if we receive the necessary backing from the federal government in the field of thermal power development. For example, the Du Pont Company of Canada is now studying the possibility of establishing a heavy water plant somewhere in Canada. We are informed that, apart from other requirements for such an industry, which we know are being looked into in the province of Nova Scotia at the present time, such as 50,000
gallons of water per minute, there is a tremendous possibility that the by-product steam from a thermal generating plant could be used to supply the cheap power needed for such a heavy water plant. This is one of the possible related economic developments that could come about in the Atlantic provinces, if we take the necessary initiative in the whole field of thermal power.
Finally, with respect to coal, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to read into the record a statement by Mr. Berkovitz of the research council of Alberta when he was speaking about coal at the recent Canadian coal conference. He said:
In a world that has become conscious of the need to wisely use its natural endowments, it is simply no longer considered permissible to neglect a resource completely, merely because one of its major traditional uses has become obsolete.
In short, Mr. Speaker, as far as the coal industry is concerned we in the Atlantic provinces are very optimistic. There is a great future for coal if the federal government provides the proper type of assistance.
The second basic industry to which I refer in this resolution is the steel industry. I am not going to say very much about this industry, except to call attention to my earlier reference to the new trading patterns that are developing around the world. It seems to many of us in the Atlantic provinces that the steel industry of Nova Scotia is in a particularly ideal position in relation to the new expanding export market that is going to be ours in Canada.
We are all aware, of course, of the assistance that has been provided this industry under the terms of the Export Credits Insurance Act, and other possible arrangements are being negotiated at the present time. But we are very concerned about the steel industry in this part of Canada. There has been some suggestion that certain parts of the industry would be relocated in other areas of Canada. Once again, Mr. Speaker, within the framework of the necessary federal assistance that must be given we suggest, as envisaged in this resolution, that it would be a worth-while endeavour for the federal government to call a conference at which representatives of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia and the major steel companies in Canada would be present to discuss the entire steel industry in Canada. I bring this forward for this reason. If six individual nations in the old iron and steel community of Europe could sit down to discuss and plan the future economic development of their coal and steel industries, surely it is not too much to expect that within the boundaries of this single nation of Canada we can sit down and discuss the development
1780	HOUSE OF
Proposed Maritime Industrial Development of the steel industry to the benefit of all parts of Canada, keeping in mind the particular economic problems of the Atlantic provinces.
The second factor involved in the resolution is that we must have a long range program. It simply is no longer acceptable to go from year to year, from mine closure to mine closure, from lay-off to lay-off, from one industry shut-down to another industry shutdown, on a lackadaisical, haphazard basis with no over-all policy. I suggest in this resolution that the Atlantic development board proposed by the federal government can be a form of economic salvation for the Atlantic provinces if it is placed under the control of a minister of the crown and if those concerned will sit down and develop a long range program that will project into the future.
In this connection I suggest that what we need in this frame of reference is an economic development fund of $100 million to be administered by the minister in charge of this program, working with an Atlantic development board. If the government will take this type of initiative I am quite convinced that a sound, economic base can be developed in the Atlantic provinces, that a decent standard of living can be developed for our citizens, that underemployment can be wiped out, that unemployment can be brought down to what we would hope would be a national average, in the neighbourhood of 1 per cent, representing frictional unemployment, and so on. In this way the Atlantic provinces will be enabled to share in the general benefits that have accrued to the rest of the nation as a result of confederation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Cape Breton South for providing this opportunity to talk generally about the economic development of the Atlantic provinces. The opening words of the resolution ring a familiar bell because these words, "a planned and comprehensive program of economic development for the Atlantic provinces", were used in the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. I think it is essential to insist upon a planned and comprehensive approach to our problem, in contrast with sporadic reaction to sudden difficulties, in contrast with ad hoc expedients and the introduction of a sudden policy to quell a sudden clamour in one or several parts of the Atlantic provinces.
I think it is essential also to emphasize the importance of long range policies. The Atlantic provinces economic council, for example, has attempted to set a target for job creation in the Atlantic provinces. I feel it is necessary to set a long range target over the next ten


years, say, and our objective ought to be the creation of 200,000 new jobs. All this would do, Mr. Speaker, would be to reduce the level of unemployment in our area to tolerable national levels and remove underemployment; so really it is a modest, necessary and realistic target.
The words of the resolution proposed by my hon. friend have been used in other motions introduced in this house over the years by members from all sides of the house, depending on their location in the house at the particular time. I believe it is a good thing to bring forward the general problems of the Atlantic provinces. However, I should like to make two points in this connection. In the Atlantic provinces as a whole there are certain areas that are doing relatively well. I participated in a program in Halifax not so long ago with one of the hon. members for Halifax, in which one of the prominent citizens of that city told us that conditions were good there. Certainly, I would be the last person to ask that they be bad in order to justify any particular argument I was making at the time.
I believe this underlines the necessity of knowing that even in an area like the Atlantic provinces there are good areas but also that there are areas that are suffering from persistent, chronic unemployment, and that this prevails regardless of the general prosperity of the country. Within the Atlantic provinces themselves, there is necessity for pinpointing a program of development to deal with particularly hard hit areas. I would go further and say that in talking about the general problem of regional or area development, we ought to bear in mind that there are other communities in Canada as well, in addition to the Atlantic provinces, that have been hard it. What we really need is a national policy that would apply to areas of chronic unemployment, regardless of their location in the Atlantic provinces or in other parts of Canada. A truly national policy would receive, I believe, general support from the people of Canada as a whole and would certainly receive general support from this parliament.
I am interested in the terms of the resolution, and just before discussing the terms in detail I should like to comment briefly on the proposed Atlantic development board, a subject which will come before the house later during the discussion of another resolution. All I want to say is that the creation of this board will not, of necessity ensure that the kind of economic development proposed by my hon. friend will be carried out.

The first proposal in this resolution is that measures be taken to assure that existing employment in the basic iron, coal and steel industries be fully protected until alternative employment opportunities can be developed in the region. I note the words, that employment in coal and steel be protected until alternative employment can be provided elsewhere. This may be the policy of the New Democratic party, but it is certainly not Liberal. It is a defeatist conclusion to accept the gradual decline of the coal and steel industries and the necessity of replacing those lost opportunities by the creation of alternative jobs in other industries. I believe that the coal industry, for example, has declined to the minimum tolerable level at the present time. It has been the hardest hit industry in Canada. Since 1955 it has lost about one fifth its work force, and since this government came into office it has lost about a million and a half tons of its production. It has been a hard hit industry and has brought dislocation to several important counties in Nova Scotia including Cape Breton, Pictou, Cumberland and Inverness. A further decline in the coal industry is certainly not tolerable.
I do believe, along with my hon. friend for Cape Breton South, it will be possible in the future to maintain, if not to expand, coal production in the Nova Scotia fields. The notion of replacing declining job opportunities by new industries is deficient on another ground; it fails to take into account the needs of communities like Springhill, which has lost most of its coal mines. It does not take into account the needs of communities like Inverness, which has lost every coal mine it had and where today there is no industry. This is a town in which there were 700 men employed not too many years ago in the production of coal. Surely-and this is something about which I feel very strongly-this country cannot really be satisfied to tolerate languishing communities like Springhill and Inverness where there are no jobs at all or where there are very few jobs. What happens in such communities is clear. Municipal services are weakened. Community spirit is dying. Educational institutions are losing their strength and there is a general atmosphere of despair.
In the United Kingdom it was possible to breathe new life into the hard pressed coal areas, and one of the first things President Kennedy did, after his accession to office in the United States, was to establish an area re-development agency which had as its first task to try to do something about the hard pressed coal communities in Pennsylvania.
Proposed Maritime Industrial Development
We shall make a great mistake in this country if we fail to realize the absolute necessity of doing something not only to maintain current employment but to put new life and vitality into communities that have lost everything because of changed technology, changed consumer tastes and progress in general. I shall not pursue the coal question further because surely at an early date it will be possible for hon. members from Nova Scotia to debate the coal industry fully on the estimates for the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I may add it is surprising that we have not had a statement on coal policy from the government since the session opened. In fact none was made during the last session. It is long overdue and we hope to debate that policy at the earliest possible opportunity.
With reference to the iron and steel industry in Nova Scotia it seems to me the goal here certainly ought not to be stabilization. It ought to be expansion. The greatest prospect for industrial development in the area of Cape Breton county is through the expansion of the steel industry, and it ought to be regarded as the strongest cornerstone of any program in that area. That industry has several thousand employees and it ought to be encouraged, with the right form of government assistance, to diversify its operations and expand its work force. That should be one of the main objectives of a program of development in the Atlantic provinces, and in Nova Scotia in particular.
The second part of this motion asks the government "to launch a major program of public capital construction in co-operation with the provincial governments." This brings to mind the well recognized role of capital expenditures in the public sector of the economy. There is no necessity to argue with anybody in the house on the creative role in economic development that can be played by carefully selected public projects, projects that will ultimately put more into the economy than will be taken out of it.
The Canso causeway was a project that had been urged for many decades upon the federal authorities. It was ultimately undertaken at an expenditure of $15 million, and some people said it was really in response to provincial political pressure. That may have been so, but it was something more than that. It was a creative public project that improved the transportation system between Nova Scotia and Cape Breton and also led to large scale private investment in the causeway area owing to the creation of an ice-free natural harbour.
It may never be possible to estimate fully the economic impact of such public projects,
1782	HOUSE OF
Proposed Maritime Industrial Development but certainly we ought to move on the side of daring rather than on that of caution, because what happened in the Canso area demonstrated that daring in this public sector of construction has led to development and will lead to greater development, and the public treasury will receive more out of that than it put into it in the form of the initial grant.
Why has action not been taken by the government to establish a capital fund for development? The proposal was made in the royal commission on economic prospects that a capital projects commission be established to administer, in co-operation with the provinces, essential public projects in the Atlantic provinces. My hon. friends on the other side of the house in their momentous and highly successful conclave in Moncton, prior to the 1957 election, listed the establishment of a capital projects commission as one of their main objectives. It was regarded as one of the great points of what was then believed to be "the Atlantic charter." Some five and a half years have gone by and, even though in the last parliament they had the greatest number of supporters any government ever had, no action was taken on the creation of the capital projects commission. Every party in the house supports that proposal. We know it is essential; but now we are getting a development board, a board without money. It is a board which will have no capital at its disposal, such as is called for by this motion.
What is even more surprising than the government's inaction on the capital development fund is the inexplicable action in its austerity program in reducing capital construction in the Atlantic provinces. Surely one of the things we have learned from development programs in other countries is that where there is high, chronic unemployment, persisting over a period of time, capital expenditure must be undertaken. Here was an opportunity for the government to give recognition to that policy and say "If general reduction in capital spending is required, it will not be undertaken in areas of chronic unemployment where capital spending is needed more than in any other part of Canada."
We ought to move quickly to set up a capital fund that would be available to finance sound public projects and possibly participate in the financing of sound private projects that will lead to the development of greater opportunities in these provinces.
The third item dealt with in the motion is the setting up of a separate ministry, a separate department of government, to be responsible for the administration of an over-all program of development in the Atlantic


provinces. That proposal has been made by others, including the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), and the idea has been suggested, if not fully approved, by the leader of the Liberal party.
I want to give my impression of the value of a separate ministry of Atlantic affairs. Every time I think of a separate ministry for the Atlantic provinces I think of what happened to Scotland when they put the affairs of Scotland under a separate ministry. It meant that the affairs of Scotland were moved away from the centre of government and put out on the fringe of affairs of the government in the United Kingdom.
I would like to ask hon. members of the house to consider the effect of having a separate ministry to deal with the affairs of four provinces of Canada. Would it not mean that the departments of finance, trade and commerce and others would say, "Well, the Atlantic provinces have a department of their own. Let them look after that themselves, in that department"? The experience, I am told-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the most appropriate day possible to debate this resolution in the house, for today the government has introduced two notices of motion indicating that both the long range policies asked for by the hon. member for Inverness-Riehmond (Mr. MacEachen) and those suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Mac-Innis) are being undertaken and have been considered during the period this government has been in office. Although this resolution has in it many things that will commend it to all hon. members from the Atlantic provinces, I am sure that upon a careful perusal they will also realize there are some things in it that are just not palatable to them.
Certainly the matter the hon. member for Inverness-Riehmond was speaking about when he resumed his seat, the establishment of a department of Atlantic development, is one that I could not, as a member from any area of Canada, accept under any circumstances. Far be it from me to discuss what they do in other countries of the world. Certainly no two countries of the world have similar types of government. There is a situation in Canada, with our British North America Act, that makes it impossible for us to consider ourselves in the same light as the British government would consider some area of their country. Further than that, because I and other hon. members of this house come from the maritime provinces, an area of

Canada that probably did more to make confederation a reality than any other area of Canada-and I personally coming from a constituency that saw four fathers of confederation come to Ottawa and make confederation a reality; among those being Sir Charles Tupper, a former prime minister of Canada-under no circumstances could I go along with the establishment of a separate department to handle the affairs of the four provinces of Canada which have made as outstanding a contribution to Canada as any other four provinces.
Although I am a maritimer, and I appreciate that we have special problems, I am also Canadian and I believe the only type of policies that are going to be of benefit to this country, either in the maritimes or in British Columbia, are national policies. There is no better example of the special attention this government gives to the Atlantic provinces, and has given ever since it was elected on June 10, 1957, than the fact that we have not only introduced a national economic development board but we have also introduced and will set up an Atlantic provinces development board.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members have had a great deal to say about coal and steel. The hon. member for Cape Breton South made the statement that coal was not dead. Well, if coal is not dead there is no one who can be thanked more for that fact than the Conservative government which has been in power in this country since 1957. Further than that, we heard the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond mention the town of Springhill, which is in my constituency. He mentioned the county of Pictou. Well he may mention the county of Pictou, because if there was ever a county that lie almost dead when the Liberals were thrown out in 1957, it was the county of Pictou. They did nothing but cut down and close down coal mines, one after another. Did they ever do anything to try and build up the county? They did nothing. The people had to send the present member here to get things done, and he has got things done.
The hon. member referred to the town of Springhill, and well he may, for I can well understand what the future of the town of Springhill would have been if the Liberal government had been re-elected in 1957. He said that the hon. member for Davenport had mentioned the establishment of a department of Atlantic development. No doubt he would be the man to look after all the one-way tickets passed out to the people of the Atlantic provinces as they were thrown out of work. It may be that-
Proposed Maritime Industrial Development


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question?


Robert Carman Coates: Yes.


John B. Stewart: I merely want to ask the hon. gentleman if he does not think the purpose of this debate, which is to improve conditions for the people of the Atlantic provinces, would be better achieved if it were conducted in a somewhat less partisan way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Pugh:: Who started it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Carman Coates: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, I have disturbed the delicate sensitivities of the new hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough. However, as he sits in his seat and listens I am sure he will realize that he does not have to worry about the Atlantic provinces not getting the attention they deserve,, because they will get it from this government as long as we are sitting here; and we will be sitting here a long time yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we could come back to the motion. I would again caution hon. members against speaking from their seats. I hope I would not be facetious if I said that some of the remarks seemed to me as though they were coming from their seats.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might say a few things about the town of Springhill since the hon. member for Invemess-Rich-mond made reference to it and the fact that we have had problems there, real problems. Probably no town in, Canada has had greater problems to face than has the town and people of Springhill. They have had two coal mine disasters one after another, two years apart, which not only took 39 and 75 miners to their death but also eliminated every possible industry available to the people of the town from an employment point of view. We look at that town today and we listen to hon. members of the opposition talking about the fact that this government has no long range plans, that it is not able to look after the problems we have in the Atlantic area. I think there is no better example than the town of Springhill of what governments can do, both provincially and federally, when they get together and try to assist an area and put it back on its feet.
Certainly if the type of concern had been shown and planning had been carried out in the Pictou area before 1957 that was carried out in Springhill from 1956 and 1958 onward, we would be a great deal better off in the Atlantic provinces than we are today,
1784	HOUSE OF
Proposed Maritime Industrial Development trying to right all the things that went wrong in the 22 years the Liberals were in power in this country. In Springhill in 1958 we were left without an industry of any kind, shape or definition. There was nothing there except people. The government of Premier Robert Stanfield and this government in Ottawa had to try to do something to get the town back on its feet.
In the years that have gone by since then, we have seen the establishment of four industries, we have seen the construction of a new million dollar hospital, we have seen the construction of a new federal building, we have seen a new minimum security penal institution established and we are now awaiting the establishment of a $4 million medium security penal institution which will probably provide employment for 175 men and provide a payroll for the area of close to $1 million a year. This is the type of planning which has taken Springhill from the brink of becoming a ghost town to what will be, in the near future, a thriving community. This is the type of attention we have received in specific areas. But the problem we face is much broader than this, so much broader that it should not be considered from the viewpoint of any particular area. We must look at the over-all picture in the Atlantic provinces and try to determine the best way of attacking the problems we face day by day and year after year. There is no better way to face them in my opinion than by the establishment of an Atlantic development board, more especially so-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I definitely must caution him that we cannot anticipate debate on another motion which is on the order paper. For this reason, reference to an Atlantic development board must be incidental and argument must not be directed toward it at all.


Robert Carman Coates: I appreciate the fact that there is a resolution dealing with it on the order paper now and that the subject will be debated in the near future. However, I find it difficult, when dealing with this resolution, to ignore completely the fact that action has already been taken by this government on the lines hon. members opposite talk about.
All hon. members would agree that we must find solutions to the problems which face the coal and steel industries in our area, in addition to agriculture which is an important basic industry in the Atlantic provinces. I may say in this regard that Premier Stanfield has recently announced in Nova Scotia that a significant meeting will be held to consider this basic aspect of our economy. Premier Stanfield has set up a productivity council in the Atlantic provinces


to co-ordinate the activities of the provinces in endeavouring to lift themselves up, and these activities will acquire further incentive from the actions of the national development board.
Although the two hon. members who preceded me did not mention agriculture, they did spend a great deal of time dealing with coal and steel. I may say that in my estimation agriculture is as important as either of the other two. I might also say that coal and steel have received constant and dedicated attention from the ministers from the Atlantic provinces, and from the members. Certainly, as I have pointed out, the fact that coal is not dead today is mainly due to the increased subventions which have been made available to this end. I may also say we do not have to be told about the potential of Ontario hydro. This government has been well aware of the potential market Ontario hydro has for the coal industry in the Atlantic provinces. We saw to it that Ontario hydro and the Dominion Steel and Coal Company got together and that Nova Scotia coal is now going to the Ontario hydro commission. It is our hope that far more substantial markets will be made available through Ontario hydro as a result of the type of incentives which this government has provided at all times in looking at the subvention picture and trying to make our coal available, thereby keeping our miners employed.
I think it would be right to point to the closing of two mines recently in Cape Breton and to the fact that federal and provincial governments work together in a very efficient manner, and that these closings indicated a degree of planning which has probably brought less misfortune upon those involved than was ever before the case. Before 1957 we just heard an announcement that a mine was closed, and that was it; the mine was closed and the workers were left to do the best they could. They got the added incentive from the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) by being told that his solution to the problem was a one-way ticket out.


An hon. Member:: Deportation.


Robert Carman Coates: Deportation is right.
The Liberal party of that day were not talking about importation so much as about deportation, and it was the maritimers who were being deported.
I think the recent annual report of Dosco indicating that their coal mining operations are again earning a profit shows there is a future for the coal industry. Although it may not be a particularly bright one, it is certainly not so sad a story as was told a few years ago. The main reason for this is

that the company has at all times had the full co-operation of the government here, of the government of Nova Scotia and, I may say, of the miners themselves in endeavours to bring about a solution which would provide a future for the industry and those who were left to work in it.
I think an aspect which we must look at is the power potential in the Atlantic area. We must in some way provide power at a cheaper rate than is now available if we are to attract industry.
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. Nowlan for the second reading of Bill No. C-81, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was interrupted at five o'clock I was pointing out that I could not remember any other time in our history when a cabinet had decided to impose taxation to the extent of $200 million in their own figuring and had not offered that taxation to parliament for ratification. I wish to inform all hon. members that in taking this action the cabinet decided that it had the right to do so by virtue of two statutes already passed by parliament. They took authority from the Customs Tariff Act and from the Financial Administration Act. In order to show how ridiculous or how far fetched was their grasping for authority I wish to refer particularly to the Financial Administration Act. The order in council of June 24-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but in looking at the bill as it reads, I find I need some assistance from the hon. member as to how he relates what he is saying to the second reading of this particular bill, which has to do with the budget brought down very early in this year. He seems to be discussing matters which are much more topical in terms of the full year and which I thought had been disposed of in other debates. If he would assist me in this regard I should be very grateful.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, if you will look at clause 1 of the bill, you will see that we are asked here to deal with rates of
Customs Tariff
duty set opposite certain items in the schedule to the bill. Before five o'clock I had pointed out that the schedule attached to the bill was not necessarily important to us now in consideration of these items, because there had been superimposed, since April 10, certain surcharges which made ineffective the rates of duty, including the British preferential tariff rate, the most favoured nation rate or the general tariff rate, as outlined in the schedule to the bill. New duty rates have been imposed by order in council of June 24. They make inoperative and nullify certain free entry with respect to such items as, for example, item 440m, item 440n respecting aircraft and some others in the schedule.
My point is that the House of Commons traditionally should be in charge of decisions with respect to taxation. A duty is a tax. This bill is not realistic unless we look upon the surcharges that have been imposed upon the items in the schedule by reason of the executive action which was taken in June and which has not yet been ratified by parliament.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I learned long since that it does not pay to get involved in discussions of points of order. If hon. gentlemen are interested in points of order, it is easier to discuss the matter and get on with the merits rather than to raise points of order. But I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. gentleman that there are only two items subject to surcharge. I promised that when in committee I would refer to any items that were surcharged. There are only two items subject to surcharge, namely aircraft and aircraft engines. The purport of this bill is to remove the tariff charge which otherwise would be imposed on those two items. They are the only two items which are affected by the surcharge. If the hon. gentleman wishes to discuss the constitutional validity, something which has been determined twice by this House of Commons, I am not going to intervene since I know that the more time he spends on it, the more time he wastes. I say that subject to Your Honour's ruling.
However, I would suggest those are the only matters to which he can possibly make reference, and those are the two items which are covered by the surcharge, namely aircraft and aircraft engines. If this bill does not pass, then the tariff item which has been suspended for some years and which this bill proposes to suspend for another year will come into effect. The situation with respect to aircraft and aircraft engines will then be that they not only will be subject to the surcharge but also to a tariff of 15 per cent. They are the only items in the bill, which

Customs Tariff
after all is a relatively minor one with the smallest number of changes in my recollection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word on the point of order since Your Honour has raised it, and it is this. What we are discussing on the second reading of the bill is whether or not the bill should be given second reading. That is the question before the house and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in his line of argument is seeking to show, not just that one or two of the items in the schedule to the bill are affected by surcharges, which is a relatively minor point on which I agree with the Minister of Finance, but whether this parliament should be asked to give second reading to what the minister himself called a relatively minor bill, which makes a few small changes in the Customs Tariff that were forecast last April, while at the same time utterly ignoring the vast changes that have been made in the tariff by order in council and never brought before this house.
The fact that the house did not see fit to withdraw its confidence from the government because it had not brought these matters forward does not mean that it is not a good argument, I submit to Your Honour, to say that we should not proceed with the second reading of this bill until we have all the tariff changes before us.
In other words, the house should not be asked to deal with a few little raindrops when there is a whole bucket of water that we are not allowed to touch, if I may make a rather crude analogy. What the hon. member is saying, and surely this is a proper subject for debate on second reading, is that the government should not have brought in this little bill at all but should have brought in a big bill incorporating all of the changes that have been made in the Customs Tariff since the budget last April. That is what my hon. friend is arguing and it seems to me that is a perfectly proper line of argument with respect to whether or not we should give second reading to the bill.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not going to deal with this point of order at any length, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say on this matter that we had a motion with respect to the surcharges at the beginning of the session and you will remember that there was a vote of confidence. Then on the first motion to go into supply my hon. friend's leader and hon. gentlemen opposite all voted for the abolition of these surcharges; but the House of Commons in its wisdom decided that the surcharges should not be abolished at this time. Therefore, whatever the philosophical argument may be, I suggest that the house has 
decided on this matter. It has decided that it would be improper to remove the surcharges at this time and therefore the matter is not now subject to discussion at this stage on the second reading of this particular bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would agree with the Minister of Finance if we were arguing that the surcharges should be removed. I would say that matter was settled by the house last week and it would be quite wrong to argue it. But the hon. member is not arguing that they should be removed. He is arguing that instead of this little bill, and the minister calls it a little bill, we should have a big bill so that parliament would validate all the Customs Tariff changes. We are not asking to have them removed. We accept the decision of the house made by hon. gentlemen opposite sdded by the Social Credit party that these surcharges should be retained. We accept that position. What we are saying is that this bill is not good enough by itself. We should have the whole gamut of these changes before us.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, for the moment I will deal only with the point of order as related to my own remarks. Under clause 1 of this bill, which we can deal with again, of course, in committee, we are dealing with the rates of duty set opposite each commodity item in the schedule. I am saying that these rates of duty have been materially affected by virtue of the cabinet action last June when by order in council certain surcharges were imposed. I want to say in addition that when we are amending the Customs Tariff I as a member of parliament am concerned about the basic act.
The government decided that they could do these certain things. They decided they could impose surcharges on $3 billion of imports at rates of 5, 10 or 15 per cent by executive action. They also decided last June that parliament should not be consulted about the matter and that it was none of parliament's business, even though in the revised budget estimates $200 million of taxation is involved.
With respect to the question of legality, I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the Financial Administration Act, section 22, which refers to opportunities to remit taxes. Parliament, under its authority with respect to taxation, decided some time ago that remission of taxes over a certain amount should be brought to the attention of all members of parliament and the way that is done is to draw attention to it in the public accounts.
We have a funny position imposed upon us by the executive, who say that they can do this in this way. The cabinet say that they can

remit taxes from the general tariff rate and to do this they rely on section 22 of the Financial Administration Act. It is provided in subsection 8 of section 22 of the Financial Administration Act that any remission of tax or duty that is given must be reported to parliament if the remission is in excess of $1,000. Under this fanciful order in council of June 24, when all remissions were to be scaled down from a general tariff rate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again and I accept responsibility for interrupting him before, but it seems to me we have had several opportunities to discuss the matters he is now bringing to the attention of the house in the past and it is quite conceivable in my mind that opportunities will arise again in the future. In all fairness, I find it very difficult to honour the rule of relevancy in my own mind, based on what the hon. member is discussing at the present time. I am thinking primarily of other members who probably wish to speak on second reading and how unfair it would be if I had to interrupt them in the same way.
I am loath to make a ruling because I know the hon. member is an experienced member of this house and I just ask for his co-operation with the Chair on the point of relevancy in respect of second reading.


William Moore Benidickson: I appreciate your predicament; but with respect I would suggest to you, in view of the fact you come from western Canada where air transportation on the cheapest possible basis is important, that you look at the schedule to this bill and appreciate the fact that the surcharge relates to items 440m and 440n. The point I am making is this, Mr. Speaker, that parliament passed the Financial Administration Act in which it is stated that under exceptional circumstances it would be possible for the cabinet to remit a tax or a duty and, for the protection of the members of this house, if there was a remission of consequence-one which involved something over $1,000-it would be reported to all of us in this assembly by an item in the public accounts.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, who was formerly the minister of national revenue, having regard to the item for remission in that order in council of June 24, is account being kept of the value of any remission of duty under the general tariff of $1,000 or more? I am informed that if one goes through the customs entry system he fills out a B-l entry form and there is no reference whatever to a remission from the unrealistic general tariff rate. Having regard to the order in council, I want to know whether the minister can assure this house
Customs Tariff
that in every instance if the value of the discount under the order in council is beyond $1,000, it will be reported to parliament in the public accounts. I hope the minister will also inform this house, during the debate on second reading of this bill, concerning the progress in tariff board considerations and what his predecessor said was the streamlining intended in respect to the Customs Tariff as a whole. I hope he will later refer to that.
I do not believe there is any member in this house, lawyer or layman, who reads the Financial Administration Act along with the order in council of June 24, who will say that tariff surcharges were justified, having regard to subsection 8 of section 22 which says that each remission of $1,000 or more granted under this section shall be reported to the House of Commons in the public accounts. All we have to do in that respect is to read the order in council of June 24. I challenge the minister to tell me that every customs entry point across this country has been keeping a record of all advantages given under the wording of the June 24 order in council that has a value beyond $1,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussions that have taken place on one or two points of order, I will make my remarks at this point brief. If I may say so, I was a little disturbed when the suggestion was being made from the Chair that because there had been previous discussions of the legality or otherwise of the surcharge order, we could not discuss that order again. I appreciate the refinement that I think you, sir, have now made in that respect. You have suggested that it might be possible to discuss that order on some other occasion but you prefer that the discussion do not take place now because you believe it is not particularly relevant to second reading of this bill.
I am doing what is sometimes done from the Chair: I am entering a caveat; I am staking out a right sometime later in this session, if it is not done while this bill is before us, to have a discussion on the legality of the surcharge order. In making that caveat and staking out that claim, I think I should point out that I differ from the Minister of Finance when he says that this matter has been decided. There have been the two votes in this house to which the Minister of Finance referred; one had to do with what the member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) called the constitutional position of the House of Commons in relation to the executive. The other had to do with whether or not the surcharges should be discontinued

Customs Tariff
forthwith. There have been votes on these two points expressing the opinion of the house, but there has been no vote on the question of whether or not the surcharge order is legally valid. I suggest that some time during this session, perhaps on the estimates of the Department of National Revenue or those of the privy council, we might have a discussion of this question if it is not settled in some other way. We are getting pretty close to it in the debate we are having on the motion for the tabling of the opinion of the law officer of the crown on the point.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I for one appreciate the refinement you have made in the ruling in asking us to confine our discussion to this bill, reserving our right to discuss this matter on a later occasion. In that vein, I simply wish to say now that I think the government has a good deal of gall to come before parliament at this time with a bill to amend the Customs Tariff Act, and to put in it so little. This, of course, is a bill implementing what was proposed in the budget resolutions of last April, in the last session of another parliament. But in the meantime, these other changes have been made in the customs tariff situation. I think it is the height of gall for the government to come now with the same bill that was prepared last April, just as if there had been no other changes in the meantime. The fact that these two changes to impinge one upon the other is highlighted by the fact that there are at least two items-perhaps only two-that are in the bill and also in one of the schedules to the surcharge on imports orders. Surely that has led the Minister of Finance and the departments administering this into quite a kettle of fish.
What is the situation with respect to these items? The tariff on them said one thing prior to last April. Then in April changes were proposed and in June surcharges were imposed on them. Which is the rate of taxation? Is it the rate prior to last April or the rate as proposed by this bill now before us?
There will be the further complications to which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has referred when the Department of National Revenue seeks to carry out subsection 8 of section 22 of the Financial Administration Act in terms of reporting all of this.
I think that at some stage of the bill, perhaps when we get into committee of the whole, the Minister of Finance should try to straighten this matter out for us and tell us what is happening with regard to taxation collected under items 440m and 440n of the Customs Tariff.
The main point which I am sure concerns all of us in this house, certainly all of us in

the opposition parties at this time, is that there is a provision before us, a bill dealing with so little change in the Customs Tariff at a time when we have another document, that has not been presented to us for discussion in any way, which makes many more changes.
I think it was an affront to the rights of parliament to pass the surcharge on imports order and the government, by bringing in this bill, gives us no opportunity to deal with all of the changes made in the Customs Tariff in the past few months. Therefore we hope that somewhere during the debate on this bill the minister will tell us where we stand, tell us what rates the surcharges have been imposed on, and so on. We hope that at sometime in this session of parliament, if it lasts long enough, we will have an opportunity to discuss the question as to whether or not the surcharge on imports order was itself a legal and valid order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Schedule A amended.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Minister of Finance, who was formerly minister of national revenue and the collector of taxes, will just indicate to the committee to what extent the records of the department, since June 24, comply in every respect where there has been a remission respecting an import worth more than $1,000 abatement which should be reported to parliament in the public accounts, as outlined in section 22 of the Financial Administration Act.


George Clyde Nowlan: All I can say in reply to that question is that I am no longer minister of national revenue, but I am quite certain I do not have to assure the committee that the provisions of the Financial Administration Act are being complied with by the Department of National Revenue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say while he was minister of national revenue for quite a long time after June 24-and I am sure he intended to do his duty with his customary assiduity-that every remission that was worth more than $1,000 to the taxpayer was recorded separately for report to parliament as requested under the law?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, did I hear my hon. friend say "customary ambiguity"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I said assiduity.


George Clyde Nowlan: Oh. I thought perhaps I should raise a question of privilege. I did not keep

a detailed record of every entry made during the time I was minister of national revenue, but I have no doubt whatever that the provisions of the act were being met with while I was the minister, and are now while my successor is minister, in accordance with the law.


William Moore Benidickson: The order in council of June 24 refers to what I call abatements or discounts under the general tariff. In debate last week I pointed out that the general tariff is scarcely ever used in this country. It is the third column of the schedule in the bill before us but I do not think, even with respect to trade with Russia, that we have used the general tariff. However in this devious device of the cabinet in June, when they thought they could bypass parliament, they said they would use the Financial Administration Act to discount or to rebate certain duties normally paid.
I want to ask the minister if he looked at this carefully when he was minister of national revenue? Now he is Minister of Finance. Can he assure the House of Commons that all customs entries involving a discount under the general tariff which amount to something beyond $1,000, are being kept in the records of the Department of National Revenue and will be duly reported to parliament in accordance with the statute, in the public accounts in subsequent years.


George Clyde Nowlan: It would appear to me that obviously my hon. friend has a pipe line somewhere which correctly or incorrectly informed him that this has not been done. Otherwise he would not be pressing the question as he is. These are not remissions in the ordinary sense of the word. As my hon. friend knows, under order in council we imposed surcharges, some to the extent of 5 per cent, some to the extent of 10 per cent and some to the extent of 15 per cent. Presumably there are thousands of entries going through various ports in the country month in and month out, and I am not in the position to say that this could be done. I fact, I doubt very much if it has to be done, that there has to be a record kept of each entry showing whether it is $999.99 or whether it should be $1001. I doubt very much that that has to be done but I cannot assure the committee whether it is or is not being done.
There are no remissions under this bill whatsoever. The only two items to which the surcharge applies are aircraft and aircraft engines, and all we are asking to do in this bill is to postpone the application of the tariff. If we do not pass the bill these two items will incur a tariff charge of 15 per cent. That tariff has been suspended year in
Customs Tariff
and year out. The suspension would expire and we are seeking to extend it for another year. Those are the only items to which the surcharge applies. Other than that there is nothing in the bill except some medicines, some special preparations, et cetera, which are being made tariff free.
To get the answers to the questions my hon. friend is raising at the moment I suggest the proper place for him to raise them is on the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue or of the Minister of Finance, if he so desires, when I can answer him in detail. But I am not at the moment prepared to go any further than I did just now because, as I said, this has a very narrow application; we only have the two items which are subject to surcharge at all.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, usually the minister and I debate fairly cordially, but I must say I rise with some protest when he refers to anything in the nature of a pipe line. He knows that I have been on the opposition side of the house for five years while he has been minister, and he knows that I have bent backwards-


An hon. Member:: You are there because of a pipe line.


William Moore Benidickson: I have bent backwards socially, officially and in every other way to never discuss matters of this kind with his officials. I think that on reflection he will consider that to be true. I want to say that my information with respect to a technical matter such as the filling out of a B-l form comes from the business street; it does not come from government officials. I have, perhaps more than anybody in opposition in this house, tried to stay away from embarrassing the minister's officials or anybody associated with government in so far as information is concerned.
I say to the minister the act says that any remission beyond $1,000 entails an obligation on the part of the government to report to parliament. My information comes solely from a non-government source, an agency that deals constantly with the import of articles because of the commercial activities of the individuals concerned. I am told that there is nothing on the B-l import form to indicate the discount from general tariff down to the real and effective tariff which would relate to the obligation on the part of ministers of the crown, under parliamentary statute, to report a forsaking of duty beyond $1,000. I hope the minister will take my word for no consultation with his officials.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will.

Customs Tariff


William Moore Benidickson: I knew he would; and it is true. I have followed this practice for many years-


George Clyde Nowlan: I will take the hon. member's word for it.


William Moore Benidickson: -and I hope the minister will soon be on this opposition side of the house, when I would expect from him the same consideration with respect to officials of the crown.


Gilles Grégoire: You won't be there; you will be here.


William Moore Benidickson: I say-and I challenge the minister to deal with this-that the cabinet has abused this statute. They had no right to use the Financial Administration Act for the purposes for which they used it. This question is important because it involves $200 million in tax money. Parliament surely has charge of tax revenues and tax imposition. I challenge the minister-and he will not put me off-to deal with this question. I say that the administration has been careless. First of all, they should not have used this section. No lawyer would properly have told them it was appropriate generally across this land to import this way goods which might be worth, in remission of duty, more than $3,000 billions. I would imagine there would be dozens of such transactions a day, and these should be reported in the public accounts.
I say the executive went beyond what any layman without any legalistic attitudes would have said was proper when they used the Financial Administration Act and said that a general tariff act of this country, which had never been used in this way previously, would be the basis for this cabinet order. This is executive action going away beyond, during the parliamentary recess and particularly after the electorate had given them a very poor result, the power given under the statute. They have not brought this matter before parliament. I want to know whether or not all customs entries involving more than $1,000 in remission of duty, as contemplated by this section, are being recorded in the Department of National Revenue.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before it carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if he knows of any commodities other than lobsters on which the government inadvertently put a surcharge on June 24; and if so, will he come clean and tell us what they are.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the clause carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked a question, and surely I will be given an answer.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I did not think my hon. friend wanted an answer to a ribald question like that. I do not admit for a minute that it was done inadvertently. I told him the other night that I did not know whether or not the surcharge applied; but that does not mean it was done inadvertently; because there are several thousand items and I am sure that even with the mutual respect the hon. member and I have for each other he would not expect me to have several thousand items in mind. I said that at the moment I did not know whether or not the surcharge applied. I certainly did not admit that it was done inadvertently. In any event, the surcharge has now been removed, and further than that the witness cannot go at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if the minister did not do it inadvertently, he did it advertently, which is a great deal worse. That means that this minister from Nova Scotia, who was the minister of national revenue when these surcharges were put on, put a surtax on lobsters deliberately. He either did it inadvertently or deliberately. I was letting him off easily by saying he had done it inadvertently, but now we have been told that a Minister of National Revenue from Nova Scotia, a Minister of Forestry from New Brunswick and a Minister of Fisheries from Prince Edward Island were deliberately led by the ex-minister of finance to put a duty on lobsters. That is what the minister said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what the minister said. But it does illustrate, as I said earlier on second reading, that this hole-in-the-corner method of making tariffs in the secret of the cabinet is no way to legislate and no way to tax. All taxes should be brought before this house. When they are brought before this house and subject to public scrutiny, this kind of inadvertence, or deliberateness, or whatever it may be, is not likely to happen.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend wants to play games we can talk about this from now till ten o'clock. He speaks about what my colleague the former minister of finance did to me. He has also lectured this house very, very often on the doctrine of cabinet solidarity. Therefore, whether I knew about it or whether I did not could not matter less, because I am a member of the cabinet which imposed this surcharge and I accept full responsibility for that. There can be no question on that score whatsoever. My hon. friend has talked about various things which we should and should not do. I realize

this is a terrible thing, really, to impose taxes in this way; what we should do is make a speech on the radio.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what you did.


George Clyde Nowlan: We should tell the people overnight what the taxes are. If my hon. friend wants to debate this matter from now till ten o'clock, he can go ahead and debate it. But I just want to go back to the point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing with clause 1-and I am not so sure that it has not carried-and that applies to certain tariff items. Whether or not surcharges are in effect, whether or not they are imposed properly, whether the Financial Administration Act was properly passed by the former government-because we had nothing to do with that act: we are simply dealing with sections brought forward by the government prior to 1957, and if it is unjust, if it is illegal, if it is improper, then we are acting under a statute which we found on the books-is not the matter under discussion. I suggest this is absolutely irrelevant. Now that we are in committee and have had this general discussion- about which some question could be raised, but I did not raise it-I suggest that we follow the relevant words of the clause. There is no application of the Financial Administration Act to this clause, and we are dealing only with the particular items before us.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad to acknowledge the good nature of the minister. These are, indeed, very technical and detailed matters, and as we have, here, in one volume-it is a large one-the individual items of the Customs Tariff, perhaps we could depend upon the minister and his continued good nature if we wish to refer these matters in the future either to the public accounts committee, which is concerned about the $1,000 cash remission, or to the banking and commerce committee-I am thinking of the details of these items. The minister is assenting-


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot assent on behalf of the committee. The committee is master of its own fate in these matters. If it wishes to inquire further into this subject I shall, of course, co-operate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two questions I should like to ask with regard to items 440m and 440n. Would you like to deal with them now, Mr. Chairman, on clause 1, or would you like to deal with them on the schedule?


George Clyde Nowlan: Deal with them, now, I think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These are items which are referred to in both the documents which have been mentioned.
Customs Tariff


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am going to interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I can see how the schedule ties in with clause 1, but I am wondering if it would not be more relevant if we were to discuss this when the schedule is under consideration. I think the hon. member himself suggested this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I gave you the opportunity.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On the schedule-
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister, with his capacity for explaining things, his good nature, and all the rest of it, will tell us how things now stand with respect to duties upon the items which come under 440m and 440n? What rate of duty is being collected at the present time on these items?


George Clyde Nowlan: The notes I have in front of me show there was a tariff imposed, I forget how many years ago, on aircraft and aircraft engines. Parliament in its wisdom has seen fit from time to time since then to suspend the application of this tariff. As a matter of fact, I see this suspension was first brought in in 1952. It has been brought forward every year-it would have expired on July 1, 1962-but the tariff has not been applied. My predecessor announced in his budget speech last April a resolution to extend the suspension for one more year. My understanding is that in view of the fact that he made such a statement on the night of the budget it was treated by the officials of the Department of National Revenue as an indication of what the law might be, and that duties have not been imposed on these goods since then. I am not absolutely certain about that, but I will make further inquiries and tell the hon. member definitely when we come to third reading. My understanding is that no duties have been imposed following the statement of my colleague. The budget resolutions indicated the changes which would become applicable, and I assume that the charges have not been made since then.


William Moore Benidickson: The surcharges?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, the tariff items themselves. This deals only with the tariffs. If this item was not included, the tariff would be effective as of now. We are asking the committee and the house to extend this exemption to July 1, 1963, that is, to continue it for another year. However, a surcharge of 5 per cent is applicable under the order in council to which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River referred a while ago.

Customs Tariff
The surcharge is applicable, it is being imposed and it is being collected. If the committee and the house do not approve this provision then, of course, there will be a tariff charge imposed as well as the surcharge.
I may say that this extension has been asked for by the aircraft industry and by everyone representative of it. The imposition which this tariff would have imposed on the air carriers would have been substantial. As an indication of the amounts involved, let me say that imports in 1961 amounted to $98,100,000 in respect of aircraft and $44 million in respect of aircraft engines. I do not want to anticipate possible arguments, but it might be said: if you impose tariff duties you might safeguard Canadian industry and, in particular, one or two companies which, we read in the papers, are experiencing difficulty at this moment.
I can assure this committee that these companies themselves do not want this duty imposed. They have been operating under a system whereby a duty has never been imposed since 1952 and they have no desire to see one imposed now. All we are asking is that the imposition of duty should be postponed until July, 1963.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
George Clyde Nowlan: If the hon. member would look at 440m he would see the words "of types or sizes not made in Canada on and after July 1, 1963". These would be free under the British preferential tariff and subject to 15 per cent under the most favoured nation tariff after that date. Those are the governing words-"on and after July 1, 1963". Until the time this provision is approved by parliament it would read "on and after July 1, 1962". This provision is intended to postpone the imposition of this duty until July 1, 1963.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that explains it in part. It explains it in the case of those types

or sizes not made in Canada. But it does not do so with respect to types and sizes made in Canada.


George Clyde Nowlan: There would be a duty in any case on those types and sizes made in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My other question is this: if no duty is being collected under the Customs Tariff at the present time, how is it possible to collect this 5 per cent? As I read the surcharge on imports order, the 5 per cent is arrived at by applying the general tariff and then using the Financial Administration Act to reduce it to 5 per cent. Can the minister answer that one?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not wish to get involved in a philosophical legal argument which might have to be used before the Supreme Court of Canada. However, there is a difference between a tax being applicable and a tax being collected. The general tariff is applicable but under the order in council passed last spring, it was suspended, with the exception of 5 per cent. That is why we are collecting 5 per cent surcharge at this time. Tariffs are raised to the level of the general tariff, and then a percentage is exempted. As I say, it is a philosophical legal argument around which I am sure my hon. friend and I could revolve in our own rooms late at night or in a discussion before a court; but that is really the premise upon which it is based.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is hard to figure it out.


William Moore Benidickson: As I understand it, any exemption or privilege expired on July 1, 1962. We have not in Canada the type of thing which I understand is in effect in Great Britain. They have a statute, namely the provisional imposition of taxes act, something that binds some of the suggestions of the administration between the time they are announced at budget time and the time at which it is possible for parliament to adopt them. This privilege of free entry apparently expires in July. How does the minister rationalize a free entry on anything that occurred, shall we say from July 1, 1962, to the time that we pass it, the Senate passes it and it is approved by His Excellency?


George Clyde Nowlan: As I told the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think that it has been the practice, that tariff resolutions become effective when the budget speech comes down. It is true that we have not the act to which my hon. friend referred but it has been a matter of practice and convention in this parliament for many years. In any event the practice which is being followed now with respect to it is exactly the same as that which has been followed throughout the

years. I shall be able to clear up any difficulty with that matter when we come to third reading tomorrow, or whenever it may be.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I direct the minister's attention to item 237a and ask him for some information on this item, one part of which deals with uranium in the form of pigs, ingots, billets or bars. Under this item I know

and I believe this is no change in the situation-that under the most favoured nation tariff the entry of these commodities or these minerals is free. What I should like to ascertain of the minister is the free entry of a commodity of this kind when we produce so much more of it in Canada than we can consume and where uranium communities are, in an economic sense, languishing. Perhaps he could tell me how much has been imported under this free entry clause in the last year for which figures are available.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am advised that this item was brought into the tariff in 1954 and has been in the tariff since then. As my hon. friend points out, the purpose of this matter at the moment is to extend this until July 1, 1964. I do not profess to be an expert in this field or to know as much about it as does my hon. friend who has the problem in his own constituency, and who is more conversant with this matter than I am. However, I am told that this is because we were dealing with uranium metal and we are dealing with heavy water which is required by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and it is essential for the type of nuclear power stations developed in Canada. Uranium metal is also used as a fuel for our research reactors. It is because of these two matters that this is being extended. It has been in the tariff since 1954 and we are now asking for an extension to 1964. The imports under this item for the year 1952 will be approximately $125,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate the minister's explanation. I, of course, can understand why, in the years 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957 an item of this kind of free entry would cause no concern at all because at that time the problem was not the consumption of uranium but rather the production of uranium. The minister says now that the imports of this commodity are explained because it is a kind of uranium ingot and bar which is not manufactured, I take it, in this country and that therefore, in the development of nuclear power, it is required because it is not made in Canada. I take it that is the explanation, and that it cannot be made in Canada.
Customs Tariff


George Clyde Nowlan: That is as I understand it, coupled with heavy water.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, heavy water is the other part of it. The minister also has said that the amount of imports involved is comparatively small, namely about $125,000.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is about $125,000 for both items.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the schedule carry?


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On the title-
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the title carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. Before you call the schedule-


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate wishes to speak on the schedule? Is that what I am to understand?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid that I cannot hear the Chairman.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I was asking the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate if he was still on the schedule?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. Before you call the title I should like to make a motion.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I just want it understood that the schedule has carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is so.


Gordon Campbell Chown: My understanding is that the schedule had carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has carried, has it not?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to move:
That the following clause be inserted after clause 2:-
In the ordinary course of drafting it would come before the schedule. It reads as follows:
-3. The provisions of the order in council P.C. 1962-902 of June 24, 1962, and any amendment thereto made under authority of section 4 of the Customs Tariff shall cease to have effect after January 31, 1963, unless the validity of such provisions has been specifically continued by a resolution of the House of Commons.


Gordon Campbell Chown: At first glance I have some difficulty in connection with relevancy of this amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I say a word on it.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I desire to have some argument on it from the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be very happy to say a few words on relevancy. We have before us a bill which is described as an act

Customs Tariff
to amend the Customs Tariff. As indicated in the explanatory note the purpose of this bill is to implement the budget resolution relating to the Customs Tariff. Of course, that is not a quite accurate explanatory note as we have had no budget in this parliament. This note referred to something having to do with another parliament. The bill is to deal with a resolution without a budget. It seeks to make certain changes to the Customs Tariff. There have been other and much more substantial changes to the Customs Tariff by an order in council which is referred to in the amendment. What I am suggesting is that parliament in amending an act to amend the Customs Tariff should do a thorough job, and put in a provision that unless parliament has an opportunity before January 31, to continue or unless this house has an opportunity to continue this order in council by a resolution, the order in council should cease to have effect with all the orders made in amendment thereof.
By this amendment I am not seeking to reopen the decision made by the house last week that these surcharges should be stopped now. I am admitting that they exist. I am not in the amendment questioning their legal validity. I am not raising any point except that if they are continued up until January 31, they shall not continue beyond that date unless this parliament or this house has an opportunity to continue this order in council by resolution. I am not saying that the government is obliged to come with an act of parliament. After all, this House of Commons is supposed to have the right to tax. I am saying that the government should bring a resolution into this house and get the approval of the house for the continuance of such orders as may by that time be effective.
Since the bill is a bill to amend the Customs Tariff and since my proposed amendment relates to section 4 of the Customs Tariff and to measures which unquestionably do affect the application of the Customs Tariff, I suggest that it is completely within the ambit of the bill before us, and therefore is completely in order. It cannot be argued, of course, that this provision would in any way affect the balance of ways and means because it does not seek to amend anything that was ever done by any parliament. The balance of ways and means can only be established, as the minister well knows, in the House of Commons and anything done outside the House of Commons could not possibly be construed as affecting the balance of ways and means as presented to parliament. Therefore, on the basis of the only two grounds about which there might conceivably be the slightest question, that is, 
whether the amendment is relevant to the bill, the first one which I think is the more important and the second one that it does not disturb the balance of ways and means as presented in the previous parliament and never amended, it seems to me that the amendment is completely in order.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say that in the committee stage section 4 cited by the hon. member is not before the committee. He also says that the amendment does not affect the balance of ways and means. At first glance it seems to me that he is definitely imposing a limitation and therefore indirectly affecting the balance of ways and means by introducing this date provision. I should also like to submit that the very question that has been brought up was disposed of on a supply motion. Not long ago the house voted on a supply motion and decided to keep the surcharges. Subsequently some have been removed. It is not within the power of any hon. member in the committee stage to place the limitations incorporated in a vote of the house on a supply motion not long ago.
I should also like to argue very briefly by analogy. I think what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said applies equally to something put forward in the committee stage not very long ago by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River when he said that simply because the executive effected an order in council that practically throws out the legislation that we have before us this evening. If this is applicable to the particular question we are discussing tonight, it would be applicable to any piece of legislation which was affected by order in council during a recess. I think I am arguing quite validly by analogy here. Just because the order in council in June, to which hon. members have referred tonight, affects this particular piece of what is to them dramatic legislation, does not make their argument any more valid.
Briefly, the four grounds I have cited are first that the balance of ways and means is being affected indirectly by the amendment the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has put before us. Second, the whole question was disposed of on a vote on a supply motion. Third, section 4 of the act cited by the hon. member is not before the committee at the present time. Fourth, there is the very general question which I argued by analogy, though I readily admit not too clearly. On these four grounds I would suggest that the amendment cannot be upheld.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to say something on two of the points raised by my parliamentary secretary. I suggest that this amendment affects the balance of ways and means very directly because if it should be carried then, as has been pointed out with dire prophecies of doom by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, a very substantial amount of money would be involved. To say in one breath that we are doing something which is illegal in taxing people to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars, and then for another hon. member to say in the next breath that this does not affect the balance of ways and means at all, is certainly an exercise in semantics of which even I did not think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate was capable. That is the first point.
Second, and perhaps even more pertinent, is the fact that the proposed amendment deals with section 4. We are in committee, Mr. Chairman, and the doctrine of relevancy applies exactly. I suggest to you with all deference that section 4 is not before the committee and therefore section 4 is not before the committee for amendment.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we from this side of the house do not wish to endorse, as is implied in the amendment now before us, what has been done in the past by this government.
To support this amendment would be in fact like admitting that what has been done in the past is all right, and that it should continue until January 31, 1963, and even beyond that date should the house approve it.
Now, we do not wish to be responsible for what the government has done in the past, nor a party to what it has done since June 24, 1962.
By their amendment, the Liberals confirm what we have always thought of them, that they are not better, but worse than the government now in power.
Mr. Chairman, we absolutely refuse to be a party to the austerity program the government adopted on the 24th of June. We also refuse to become the accomplices of the Liberal party when they want to accept and endorse this austerity program, for this amendment shows that they are willing to accept it until January 31, 1963.
For those reasons, we do not support the amendment.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to say something.
Customs Tariff


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for yielding the floor. He probably was wiser than he realized for he may want to say something after I have finished. I think everyone in the house knows of our deep concern in this party about order in council P.C. 1962-902. I think everyone knows that we feel that order was invalid, and this would seem to put us on the side of any motion or argument that tries to attack it in any way.
But I must say I am scandalized by the wording of the amendment that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has put forward and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that he will presently save you the trouble of ruling on it and will withdraw it. If he does not, I hope you will rule it out of order for the reasons I am going to suggest to you.
I am concerned now, not just about the substance of the austerity program, which the hon. member for Lapointe has raised. I am concerned about putting on our statute books what I think would be some pretty bad law. If this amendment were adopted it would declare that the order in council in question was valid up until now and, in fact, that it would be valid from now until January 31 next. The wording is that the validity be continued. I could not vote for a motion that implied that the order in council had any validity at all and I do not see how you can put such a motion to the house.
I am also scandalized by the suggestion that it would be in order to overcome an illegal action on the part of the executive, in order to overcome something that the executive did that it should not have done without recourse to parliament, by a resolution of one house of parliament.
I am curious as to how this was drafted. I am with my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate in his concern in trying to bring out the action of the Conservative government in imposing this tax by order in council, but this motion does not do that. This motion asks that the house now assume that there was validity to an order in council most of us in this house do not believe was valid. Somewhere in Beauchesne-I have it right here, page 167, citation 199 states:
Any irregularity of any portion of a motion shall render the whole motion irregular.
I suggest the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has committed a gross irregularity in advancing a motion that validates an order in council as to the validity of which we are complaining and therefore this motion is irregular and should be so ruled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am really amazed, Mr. Chairman, to find members of the treasury benches applauding a statement that their

Customs Tariff
order in council is so completely invalid it should not have been put to the house. I suggest to hon. members that they should sometimes listen to the arguments they are applauding before they start applauding them. I am, of course, shocked that I should have scandalized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; this shocks me and pains me, sir, but it does not alter my opinion. My opinion is that, by the votes of certain other members of the house not in the official opposition, a decision of this house was made only last week that this order in council should be treated as valid and continued. If the other members of the majority of the house had voted with the Liberal party, this order in council would not be there to complain about. We have no blame for the fact that is still there.
As Your Honour pointed out, and as the Minister of Finance pointed out, this order in council is in fact being used to collect these imposts. We have maintained, and the house would not give us a verdict, that it was unconstitutional. This was not our fault, either. They would not give a verdict that it should be stopped, and that certainly was not our fault. We say, therefore, that at the earliest possible moment parliament should be allowed to decide whether or not this order would continue. If my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is right that the majority do not want it to continue, I cannot see what he would be worried about because the moment this resolution would come before parliament, parliament would rule out as illegal this order in council and it would disappear. I agree with him completely that this order is unconstitutional.
It is my opinion, although I am not a judge of the supreme court yet, and therefore I cannot give a ruling-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -it is my opinion that it is also illegal. However, the attorney general of Canada says it is legal.


An hon. Member:: How do we know?


John Whitney Pickersgill: How do we know? We do not know. But we do know that taxes are being collected by the order in council without any approval of this house. I have sought to use the only remaining device that seemed to be open to get some opportunity for parliament, before too long, to pass upon this order. I would far rather put in a clause that the order in council be cancelled forthwith. I could not have done that because of the votes of hon. gentlemen at the far end of the chamber last week. They are the ones that prevented that. So, I was doing the next best thing. This order in council is in effect

and I want to see it before parliament as soon as we can get it before parliament. I thought this government, which was going to restore the rights of parliament, would be so anxious to get it before parliament they would have seized upon this amendment of mine as a sort of attempt at any rate to give a cloak of respectability to their contract.
Perhaps I might now be allowed to deal with the point made by the parliamentary secretary with which I am astonished the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with that delicate sense of propriety he has, did not deal. The notion expressed by the parliamentary secretary-I notice not repeated by the minister who is perhaps a little wiser-that the order in council could affect the balance of ways and means is, I think, almost more outrageous than the original order in council. To suggest this amendment would be out of order because it would affect the $200 million that we say is being collected unconstitutionally and that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says is being collected illegally, could possibly affect any balance of ways and means ever presented to parliament-I might say, sir, that is what Charles I lost his head about.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate seeks to amend the bill by adding the following clause after clause 2.
The provisions of order in council P.C. 1962-902 of June 24,	1962 and any amendment thereto
made under authority of section 4 of the Customs Tariff shall cease to have effect after January 31, 1963, unless the validity of such provisions has been specifically continued by a resolution of the House of Commons.
In my view, this is a substantive motion which would require the usual notice and has to do with an addition to the bill rather than an amendment to an existing clause. The hon. member seeks the addition of a completely new clause, possibly outside of the scope or extending the scope of the bill. This is obvious by reason of the wording. I am looking at May's sixteenth edition, page 554 where subsection (1) reads as follows:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration. Amendments which are irrelevant to the clause under consideration should, as a general rule, if they are within the scope of the bill, be moved as new clauses.
Then, subsection (3) reads as follows:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee-
I find the hon. member's amendment, to some extent, falls in that category.
-nor must it be inconsistent with a decision of the committee upon a former amendment.

For these reasons, I do not feel the amendment falls within the rules I have cited from May, in that it does tend to exceed the scope of the bill, I have to find that the amendment is out of order.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Monteith for the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Paul in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-National council of welfare.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister could indicate the categories from which the ten persons to be appointed to the national council of welfare outside of government circles would be drawn?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As the hon. member is aware, the deputy ministers of the provinces will be appointed to the council as representing the public sector of welfare circles. There is a great deal of voluntary effort in the welfare field and I anticipate that several members will be chosen from it. I also anticipate there will be a representative from labour, agriculture and the business community. That I think pretty well covers the ten members, apart from those representing the public welfare field.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house. FARM CREDIT ACT



PROVISION FOR INCREASE IN LENDING CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act- Mr. Hamilton-Mr. Chown in the chair.
Farm Credit Act
On clause 3-
Gordon Campbell Chown: When the committee rose on the last occasion we had an amendment to clause 3 under consideration, which was placed before the committee by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Argue:: I had presented the motion to the committee but I do not think Your Honour had formally placed it before the committee, and I would request you to do so now. A question came up as to whether or not it was in order and I believe Your Honour has been giving consideration to that question.
I do not think I need read the amendment again tonight. It was read into the record on the last occasion and I would ask Your Honour to put the motion formally before the committee at this time.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Mr. Argue moves:
That clause (3) of Bill No. C-71 be amended by substituting a comma for the period after the words "and of appraisals" in line 16 and adding thereto the following words: "provided such appraisal charges shall not exceed (a) $10 in the event that an application for a loan is rejected, (b) half of one per cent of the amount of the loan where a loan is made."


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, before discussion ended on the last occasion the bill was before the committee I raised a twofold question. First, I was not quite clear as to the eligibility of this amendment, and second, I was not very clear whether or not the amendment was going to improve the lot of the farmer's borrowing. Since then we have had a chance to analyse the amendment offered by the hon. member for Assiniboia and I am going to drop my suggestion that there is any question about its legality on the usual premise that an opposition member or ordinary hon. member has not the right to move an amendment where treasury money is involved. The reason why I drop this is that his suggestion would cost the treasury less and the farmer more.


Hazen Robert Argue: The reason is that the chairman ruled it in order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The second question deals with the actual suitability of the amendment and, without going into a great deal of detail, I think we can move an amendment slightly different from that of the hon. member which achieves the same ends he had in mind, and is also workable. I shall read it slowly and, if he agrees with it, I shall get one of my colleagues to move it. My officials tell me that this amendment will get around a certain difficulty which exists in the amendment offered by the hon. member.

Farm Credit Act
The following amendment is suggested by my officials:
That Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be amended by striking out line 16 on page 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"other documents, and the charges, not exceeding
(i)	in the case of each application for a loan under this act, $10, and
(ii)	in the case of each loan made under this act, one half of one per cent of the amount of the loan,
that may be made for the expenses of appraisals".
The difference is very simple, Mr. Chairman. In the amendment as suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia, if a man made an application and was refused, he paid the $10; but if a man received a loan for, say $1,000, he would pay less than the man who was refused. It is a very simple type of discrimination which would be put into effect, but I think my hon. friend will accept it to make this clause more workable.


Hazen Robert Argue: Certainly.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Farm Credit Corporation assures me that because this amendment uses the words "not exceeding" this makes it a more workable amendment and we can make the necessary adjustments so that the plans we have in mind for the Farm Credit Corporation to institute a new system of appraisal fees can be put into effect.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to accept the slightly amended proposition put forward by the Minister of Agriculture. He is right; his is different. He is also right in saying that it would remove an anomaly, because the last year this act was in operation there was one farmer who got a loan in an amount of less than $2,000. It is true that in one case this would give him a somewhat better arrangement. So for the sake of even one applicant out of 6,000, in order that this may be corrected I would be very happy to ask in a few minutes, before I sit down, that the committee allow me to withdraw my amendment.
However, in asking the committee to allow me to do that, I want to point out that although when we had this matter under discussion last day, the minister said it was a terrible amendment, it was going to cost the farmers a lot of money, and he thought the hon. member for Assiniboia was mistaken in putting it forward. These two propositions are almost identical. The minister asks that Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be amended by striking out line 16 on page 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
-other documents, and the charges, not exceeding-

I think this language is very good:
(i)	in the case of each application for a loan under this act, $10-
That is getting back to the $10 that was in the farm loan board administration, which was a Liberal administration about which this government complained so much-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and they increased the appraisal fee to $50. Now this evening they admit their mistake publicly. They are going to go back to $10 as the basic fee, and that is certainly welcome. Then they say that either the $10 will apply or:
(ii)	in the case of each loan made under this act, one half of one per cent of the amount of the loan-*
I think that is a reasonable proposition. As the minister says, it may not cost the Farm Credit Corporation-not the treasury-anything, but it does say that those farmers who receive the large loans shall pay an amount for appraisal higher than a farmer who receives a small loan. I think that is logical and sensible and we on this side of the chamber are very pleased that the minister has brought forward this proposition this evening. As I say, it is almost identical with the one that I had the pleasure of moving a few days ago, with the exception that in the case of loans of less than $2,000-and there was only one last year-it does remove an anomaly that was contained in my first proposition. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if the committee would care to give me unanimous consent I would ask that the motion I had moved be withdrawn, after which, of course, we shall be very pleased to accept the motion which the minister has already read to us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, before consent is granted to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment I should like to see a copy of the amendment which is proposed to take its place. The reason I want to see it is that I would like to know if this half of 1 per cent which the farmer will pay when he is granted a loan will be in addition to the $10 which he paid with his application, or will the $10 be applied against the appraisal charges which will have to be paid by the farmer who receives a loan? I wonder if the minister could clear up that point.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is quite right.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will the committee, then, give its unanimous consent to the withdrawal of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I was asking the minister to clear up that point.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I said, Mr. Chairman, that this $10 is, as the amendment says, a $10 fee, and up to one half of one per cent is left to the discretion of the Farm Credit Corporation. They can put on up to that percentage, whether it be one quarter of one per cent, one third of one per cent or one half of one per cent. But the $10 is a basic fee now and there is this percentage point which the Farm Credit Corporation may decide to impose in addition to the $10.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, before the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is allowed to withdraw his amendment, may I point out that the member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) had also suggested that an amount of $10 be required for farm loans of $5,000 and less, and that farmers be asked to pay $50 for loans over that amount. We therefore should reach an agreement on providing farmers with farm credit until we can provide them with Social Credit.
We, therefore, wish to support this amendment, and we hope that all together we can legislate, once and for all, for the happiness and greater prosperity of the farmers.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Unless the hon. member for Kootenay West is speaking to the proposed amendment I think we should have the previous amendment withdrawn, with the consent of the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to speak to the proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give its unanimous consent, then, to the withdrawal of the amendment proposed by tne hon. member for Assiniboia? Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Perhaps the minister would put his motion, and then the hon. member for Kootenay West could have the floor.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour:
That Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be amended by striking out line 16 on page 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"other documents, and the charges, not exceeding
(i)	in the case of each application for a loan under this act, $10, and
(ii)	in the case of each loan made under this act, one half of one per cent of the amount of the loan,
that may be made for the expenses of appraisals".


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, before making the few brief remarks I wish to make 27507-3-114
Farm Credit Act
on this amendment, I want to bring to the attention of the committee that we have here a demonstration of the value of an opposition in parliament. This matter was brought to the attention of the house originally by the hon. member for Assiniboia and by members of the party to which I belong and the matter was discussed. Although it appears on the surface to be not a large matter, it has been proved to be an important matter. I want to say that I am sure hon. members of all opposition parties are very pleased that the minister, on considering this amendment, has in principle accepted it, because he has introduced an amendment which covers in principle the points put forward by the members of opposition parties. As far as I, personally, am concerned, I think this raises a question which will require consideration by the Farm Credit Corporation. Everyone knows that I give the corporation full credit for what has been done in recent years since the act became effective.
I do not know how counsel are appointed, but there are unnecessary costs involved in the appointment of counsel who are located in unsuitable places. I shall illustrate it in this way. The counsel for the corporation in the Kootenays resides in Creston and the land registry office is in Nelson, a good many miles away. Farmers who are borrowing live possibly 150 miles to the north or northwest of Nelson. They write to Creston, and counsel in turn writes to the registry office. They write back to him and there is a delay. I am not putting all the blame on the counsel or on the lawyers involved, but I know from personal experience, having been concerned with some of these applications for loans, that delays do occur. I think that in order to speed up the service as much as possible, as well as to lower the costs of legal fees, a review of this aspect of the administration should be undertaken to make sure that counsel are appointed in the most suitable places. I gather that legal fees have been somewhat excessive in relation to the total amount of loans granted-somewhere over half a million dollars, if I heard correctly. As I say, various occasions upon which there has been delay have come to my notice and I judge the same situation exists in other parts of the country. I urge the minister to have this matter looked into because I think we could improve the service and lower the costs in this respect.


Mr. Leboe:: We appreciate very much the amendment which has been brought in subsequent to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The hon. member for Red Deer, as reported on page 603 of Hansard, did say we would like to see the fee

Farm Credit Act
eliminated. One of the reasons for asking that this be done is because we feel certain information is gathered as a result of the appraisals which is helpful to the Department of Agriculture. If this is worth anything at all to the department, surely it is worth that $10. As I say, we felt the fee should be eliminated entirely, but we are certainly thankful that the minister has been, I was about to say, thick enough of skin to come along and do this job for us. It must have taken a little bit of sand to come back here and make this reform, because the minister did not have to do so. We would like to thank him.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am glad to have this expression of appreciation on the part of hon. members. I think it would be useful if we were to have on record the financial difference between the various proposals which have been made. The hon. member for Cariboo would then understand that this was not such a difficult decision, after all, for me to make.
The estimated revenue from the present fee for 1961-62 is $295,950. Under the proposal we had in mind as put forward by the Farm Credit Corporation, revenue from this source would amount to $285,000. Under the proposal of the hon. member for Assini-boia this would have cost the farmer $329,000. The proposal just made would yield $325,000. So the difference between his proposal and mine is $4,000 less for the farmers. So it was not too big a decision to have made. I should like to thank the committee for the consideration they have given to this question. I like to get good ideas, and when I get them I use them as far as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 4-Volunteered security.
Mr. Rapp:: On clause 4, the minister will recall that at the resolution stage I asked whether it would be possible for a group insurance plan to be taken out. Could the minister inform us whether under the revisions he proposes it would be possible for farmers to take advantage of such a scheme?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is one of the matters we have under discussion at the present time with the Farm Credit Corporation. Insurance policies have been available to borrowers under part III. We have been extending them to part II, but this amendment makes it clear we have the legal right to do so. The point the hon. member raises is under consideration and a decision will be made on it in a year or two.


Reynold Rapp: This would apply not only to farmers taking out loans but to those who already have loans; it would apply to them, also?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to urge the minister to give some consideration to the suggestion which has been made. A number of agencies, particularly co-operative agencies, are now setting up group insurance plans to insure a farmer's life for the amount which he is borrowing, or the amount outstanding at any given time. This means that in the event of his death before the loan has been repaid, his beneficiary will get the amount of the loan still outstanding by way of insurance to wipe out the indebtedness. This affords very good protection and if it were done in respect of a large group such as the one which comes under this legislation it could be provided at a very low cost. Even some of the smaller co-operatives have been able to do this at a cost of less than 1 per cent added to the charges. When a group as large as the Farm Credit Corporation is involved, even that cost could be reduced considerably. The plan could be optional or it might be mandatory. I see no reason why there could not be an optional provision so that any farmer would be able to pay a fraction of 1 per cent extra each year to insure himself so that in the event of his death his family would not be left with a burden of debt, but would get the land free of any encumbrance as far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-
Mr. Peters:: Would the minister care to explain why this has been changed, and why it has been left to the discretion of the corporation rather than a maximum and a minimum being laid down?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This, as in clause 3, is a question of housekeeping. It is setting up the act in a tidy form.


William Arnold Peters: As I understand it, clause 3 deals with the original appraisal which sets the value of the farm for the original loan. What clause 7 has to do with is the supervision fee charged annually for supervising the loan. It is not an appraisal in terms of getting a loan, but the operation of it in respect of people on supervised farm credit.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the original clause we have noticed that the appraisal fee of 2 per cent of the amount of the loan, or $100, is

now being removed. Under the regulation what we have done is to put in an appraisal fee of $25, or rather a supervisory fee. We charge $25 for the supervision he gets under this loan.


William Arnold Peters: Why does it not say that?


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister might explain the matter when we meet again. If we are going to have an appraisal fee or a supervisory fee, it seems to me that it would be better to have the supervisory fee put in the legislation rather than to leave it to be done by regulation. He tells us at the present time it is $25. At the time we come back again next year it may be $100.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 7 carry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No. I should like to get this point cleared up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.
Clause 7 stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the house will do tomorrow and Wednesday as well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we shall take third reading of Bill C-81 on the Customs Tariff. The next item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice, No. 25 on today's order paper, amending the
Business of the House
Judges Act. Then we shall take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice which is No. 26 on today's order paper, dealing with the Admiralty Act. Both of these are small and non-controversial matters. The third item would be No. 30 on today's order paper, dealing with a manpower consultation service and other matters. The fourth item would be No. 13 on the order paper, namely Bill No. C-70, in the name of the Minister of Labour dealing with the safety of persons employed in federal works, et cetera.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister not going to take third reading of the other bills as well tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member means the other tax bills.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if the minister is going to take the legislation we have just been discussing, namely an act to amend the Farm Credit Act?


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us get it through.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has an agricultural ministers conference on tomorrow and this precludes our doing so, although we could bring it in, as he mentions, tomorrow evening if the house would revert to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is fine.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
27507-3-114 J
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 20, 1962