1962-11-20

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Aiken.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the house have followed with concern reports of the fighting now being conducted on India's northern frontiers against the communist Chinese invasion of India.
Despite determined resistance, Indian forces have had to withdraw. In the northwest frontier area, in the Ladakh district of Kashmir, the situation at the moment appears to be relatively stable though strong Chinese attacks are being directed toward the capture of an important Indian air field at Chushul. In the northeast frontier area, however, between Bhutan and Burma, the Chinese have delivered two massive attacks, moving beyond Walong near the Burmese border and pressing south of the Se La pass near the Bhutan border.
The result of this Chinese offensive has been to bring their troops to within 30 miles of the Assam plains, a part of India of great economic value and importance. In these plains flows the great Brahmaputra river, which is a vital factor in the lives of the people of northeast India, and also for the people of East Pakistan. In these grave circumstances we would all wish to assure once more the Indian people and the Indian army of our support for their determination to defeat aggression, and our sympathy for the losses they have suffered.
We have given, and intend to give, practical evidence of our support for India at this time. As I stated to the house on November 5, we have dispatched six DC-3 Dakota transport aircraft in answer to an urgent Indian request. These aircraft were flown out by R.C.A.F. aircrews and are now in India. Over the week end we received, through the Canadian high commissioner in New Delhi, more specific advice from the Indian government about their needs for further assistance in the form of aircraft, clothing for their forces
and other materials. In the light of this additional information the government is at the moment urgently considering how we can best meet the Indian government's requests and the most expeditious way by which our assistance can be sent to India.
There is one other factor in the present situation which derives from the fact that the great and populous subcontinent, part of whose borders has been penetrated, is shared by two commonwealth countries, India and Pakistan. The long standing differences between India and Pakistan over Kashmir have been a cause of regret to Canada and the other commonwealth countries for many years. We cherish a deep fraternal regard for both countries and have tried over the years to find means to reconcile their differences.
In the present circumstances, when communist Chinese aggression has forced India into a bloody conflict, the entire subcontinent, home of both India and Pakistan, is exposed to a grave threat. We would hope that this ominous situation might give new impetus to the search for a settlement between these two fellow members of the commonwealth. Such a settlement would facilitate a concentration of effort against the invading forces on the northern frontier; and I want to make this clear, that if there is anything Canada can do to further such a settlement, the Canadian government will respond wholeheartedly.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the information which the Prime Minister has been good enough to give the house makes it clear that the situation which now confronts India is a tragic one, as she faces aggression from China across her borders. It is also a strange situation in that there seems to be war in everything except the formal declaration of it. While this massive assault is being made on India, because that apparently is what it is, I gather diplomatic and trade relationships between the two countries have been maintained.
Of course this situation may change, and if it does change and India becomes not only the actual but the formal victim of aggression, then India's friends will have to reexamine their own relationships with the aggressor. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, this would be particularly true if the matter were brought before the United Nations and a decision in regard to aggression was taken there. There

Statement on Position of India may be very good reasons why this matter has not been brought before the United Nations assembly or the security council up to the present time, but I have noted, as no doubt the Prime Minister and others have noted, that tentative efforts have been made already on the part of some United Nations members to see whether it is possible to use the assembly or the security council for mediatory purposes. Perhaps that will be possible in the days ahead.
The Prime Minister mentioned-and I am glad he did, because it has a bearing on this situation-the relations between India and her neighbour and colleague in the commonwealth, Pakistan. It seems to me a very sad situation indeed when uncertainty on the oorder between these two friendly countries is such that apparently the Indian government is unable to move certain forces from that area to help repel the aggressor. If the Indian government could give an assurance to the Pakistan government that would be accepted that in moving these forces to meet the aggression, any additional equipment received would never be used against Pakistan, and if Pakistan in its turn could give an assurance that there would be no danger to India as a result of these forces being moved for the purpose of meeting the aggressor, that could be an important move toward peace on the part of these two countries and toward meeting the aggression. So I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister speak on that subject in the way he did.
(Translation):


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are indebted to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for keeping us informed about the serious and explosive situation which now exists in India and also for asserting that Canada will do everything possible not only to help establish peace in India, now attacked by communist China, but especially to bring about unity between two member countries of the commonwealth of nations, Pakistan and India.
Such a mutual understanding is absolutely necessary if the aggressors are to be faced with a united front.
The right hon. Prime Minister assures us that Canada will spare no effort to bring about unity between those two countries. I believe that, by so doing, Canada, as one of the free nations of the world, we will help not only to settle quarrels between two friendly countries, but, above all, to offer a united front, a determined opposition to the communist aggressor, China.


We thank the right hon. Prime Minister and we all support the vigorous stand taken ragarding a situation which has become intolerable in India.
(Text):


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house and the people of Canada are deeply concerned about the setbacks which have been suffered by the Indian forces at the hands of the Chinese who have been carrying on a campaign of unprovoked aggression on the Indian border. I am sure also the country will be glad to hear the assurance given by the Prime Minister that Canada will give every possible aid to India.
I hope the Prime Minister will, if not today then on some subsequent occasion, tell the house just how tangible is this assistance. I understand that the Indian government were very anxious some time ago to get Caribou planes. Maybe it is not feasible to get these planes to them at this time. Certainly the house would like to know, and I think the people of Canada would like to know, that every available commodity and whatever military equipment which is in our possession and which is needed by the government of India will be made available to them as quickly as possible.
I think also people will be encouraged by the statement of the Prime Minister with reference to the members of the commonwealth seeking to give all the assistance they can in trying to settle the dispute between Pakistan and India. At the present time, my information is that some of the best units of the Indian army are being tied up on the border of Pakistan and that the government of Pakistan, rather than being enthusiastic about outside military aid being supplied to India, is concerned lest at some future date this military aid should be turned against her. This makes it imperative that some settlement be brought about, either by members of the commonwealth acting as mediators or by having the matter brought before the United Nations where it was before, but later dropped because of the refusal of India to agree to a plebiscite.
The other point raised concerns the position Canada should take with reference to the aggressor nation in this dispute. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, there may be good reasons why this question has not been brought before the United Nations. It may be that as long as this was simply a border dispute there were no grounds for bringing it before that body. However, if this attack is now a full scale invasion it seems to me that Canada should be pressing for the submission of this matter to the United

Nations so that if any action is to be taken it may be taken on an international basis. Canada is carrying on a considerable trade with China, and I think for Canada herself to take unilateral action would have little effect. I feel sure that the Canadian people and this House of Commons would back the government in supporting an international move toward economic sanctions if the United Nations felt this would be an effective means of deterring the aggressor.

On the orders of the day:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement the Prime Minister has just made on the situation on the Indo-Chinese border and the desirability of helping India to the maximum possible extent, can the Prime Minister tell the house in somewhat greater detail what has been done in this regard and what the government may propose to do to add to the shipments already forwarded?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, discussions are taking place among representatives of the governments of India, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States in order to determine what are the particular requirements of the Indian government at this time. To date a final determination has not been made in that regard.
However, the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to make some reference to what has already been done. I mentioned previously the Dakota aircraft. In view of the fact that these aircraft have been in the possession of the Royal Canadian Air Force for some time and can be transferred without making any material difference to the strength of the air force, Canada does not propose to ask India to pay for their value to the R.C.A.F. on any basis of their estimated market value. That estimate is from $50,000 to $75,000 for each and every one of these aircraft. India will reimburse the Canadian government for the out of pocket costs involved in preparing these aircraft for delivery and delivering them to India. It is estimated that this will not amount to more than approximately $5,000 per aircraft.
In addition there was a request from the Indian Red Cross for certain wool, and the government made arrangements to supply this knitting wool to the Indian Red Cross. The cost of furnishing this wool will be met in the first instance out of the appropriation for minor and unforeseen expenses, and it is expected that arrangements can be made
Statement on Position of India to have it flown to India from time to time as it is required, without cost to the Indian Red Cross.
Furthermore, the Indian government has placed before the Canadian government a list of various clothing items, cloth, woollens and the like, with respect to which they are asking us to give consideration to having them supplied from Canada. As I said a moment ago, these conversations and discussions are continuing, and as decisions are arrived at they will be placed before the house.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say whether or not, in view of the heavy contribution in men and arms by India to the United Nations force in the Congo, there have been any discussions between Canada and other countries designed to relieve India of that obligation so that she can more completely address herself to her own critical situation at home?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, and there is nothing definite yet with respect to whether the Indian troops will be withdrawn from the Congo.


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister given any consideration to using the CL-44 made by Canadair to transport military equipment from Canada to India?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of transporting military equipment and the like follows discussion between the two governments. No consideration has been given to the suggestion in the question.


Mr. James E. Brown (Brantford):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Is he in a position to advise the house to what actual extent this government will go in giving assistance to India against Chinese aggression?


John George Diefenbaker: I have already pointed out that the Indian government discusses these matters concerning its requirements with the three governments I mentioned and, as a result of these discussions, decisions are made.



FINANCE


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: In view of the fact that the advertisements for Canada savings bonds

Sales of Savings Bonds expired on November 15, I should like to make a short statement in connection therewith.
I am pleased to report to the house that recorded sales of Canada savings bonds up to and including Friday, November 16 were $1,350 million. A matter of special satisfaction to me is that this amount involved nearly 1,470,000 individual orders. The dollar total is 65 per cent higher than was recorded at the same time last year, and the number of orders is 28 per cent higher. Such a widespread sale is clear indication that Canada savings bonds are indeed the preferred investment by a wide margin for thrifty Canadian citizens in every walk of life.
I am equally pleased to be able to report that reported sales as of the same date through the payroll savings plan are $217 million. This is 2 per cent ahead of reported sales in this category last year, which hon. members may recall ultimately produced an alltime record of $223 million. The number of individual transactions involved totals 637,000, and the average payroll purchase amounted to over $340 as compared to the average purchase of $333 last year. I have no doubt that when final figures are available, this year's payroll savings sales will establish a new high mark by a comfortable margin.
It is appropriate that at this time I should extend my congratulations and appreciation to those who have made these splendid results possible. In particular I want to express appreciation to the thousands of voluntary payroll canvassers who enabled fellow employees to make the most of the payroll savings plan. I also extend this appreciation to the many hundreds of employers who willingly provided the necessary facilities and displayed enthusiasm and leadership in seeing that the campaign was well carried out.
Appreciation is also well merited by editors and operators of radio and T.V. stations who kept the public fully informed of the importance of the offering, of the advantages of purchase and of the progress of the campaign. Finally, 1 should also include in this appreciation the various sales agents and their employees who were responsible for the major proportion of total sales and who worked hard and efficiently to deal with the flood of orders that crossed their counters.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make about what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) just stated, but I regret that my observations will not have the same tenor as his.

The Minister of Finance is pleased with the increased sales of the Canadian government bonds. But every time he gets money from the people by selling them bonds, it means that less funds will be invested in the development of the country. He is getting money merely to add to our debt but not to invest in the future of Canada.
That is why I am not as pleased as the Minister of Finance to note such an increase in the sale of bonds.
Besides, another reason why I am not so very happy about those bond sales, is that those who buy them will have to pay taxes to repay those bonds and the interests involved. Finally, the people will have nothing to gain in the process, because they will pay taxes.
Mr. Speaker, a remarkable thing about the sale of those bonds is that businessmen are more interested in investing in the country's debt than in its assets. That is to say, they prefer to invest in the national debt rather than in the development of industry and trade.


An hon. Member:: Let us print some money. (Text):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the annual meeting of the ministerial council of the organization for economic co-operation and development will be held in Paris on November 27 and 28. It is expected that all 20 member countries will be represented by ministers and officials. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming), who is completing his second term as chairman of
O.E.C.D., will preside at the Paris meeting. Canada will be represented by the Minister of Justice and officials drawn from the departments of finance, trade and commerce and external affairs. The meeting is expected to receive reports and review plans for furthering the three principles of the organization, namely economic co-operation, the expansion of trade and the furtherance of aid programs to underdeveloped countries.



DIVORCE


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-82, authorizing the Senate of Canada to dissolve or annul marriages.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be the father of this bill, although I am happy to sponsor it in the House of Commons. The proposed measure, sir-and I will be brief in my explanatory remarks of the bill- is a co-operative effort of Senator Roebuck, the chairman of the divorce committee in the Senate, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), who was chairman of the committee on miscellaneous private bills, and Mr. Hopkins and Dr. Ollivier, parliamentary counsel of the Senate and of the house respectively. Its purpose is to provide that the Senate may, on petition, by a resolution declare that a marriage is dissolved or annulled, as the case may be.
The advantage of this proposal is that it would avoid introducing a separate legislative measure for each and every divorce petition. As far as the House of Commons is concerned it would free this chamber from the burden of having those bills go through three readings and, more especially, through the miscellaneous private bills committee stage. Provision is made in the present bill for the passage of an act annulling or modifying such resolution under certain conditions, such as within a certain period of time, for the protection of respondents and co-respondents.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: May I take advantage of citation 175, Mr. Speaker, which permits one private member to ask another a question with which the second hon. member is directly connected, only on orders of the day. The hon. member for Marquette, in his explanatory note of the bill he introduced today, referred to the hon. member for Halifax. Having regard to the fact that I hope later today to move a bill to incorporate the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada, will he clarify the fact that the co-author of the bill he sponsors is the taller member for Halifax and not the shorter?
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer). Is the policy of the Department of Transport and of this government in agreement with this morning's statement by the chairman of the C.N.R., Mr. 27507-3-115
Inquiries of the Ministry Donald Gordon, that there is no French speaking Canadian citizen on the C.N.R. board of directors, which is composed of 28 members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At this stage, questions relating to evidence given before committees of the house cannot be allowed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not want
any comments on-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow any question relating to comments, speeches or evidence heard during a sitting of a committee of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not intend to make any comments nor to ask the minister for his personal opinion. All I want is to know whether the policy set out by the C.N.R. chairman this morning-not his comments-is in accord with the policy of the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is simply another way of putting the same question. The question is therefore out of order.
(Text):



INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSALS FOR CAPITAL REVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Can he tell us whether he now has before him proposals of the Canadian National Railways relating to a capital revision of its debt structure, and if so is consideration being given to introducing legislation relating to this matter during this session of parliament?


George Clyde Nowlan: Discussions have taken place between the Department of Finance, my predecessor and myself and officials of Canadian National Railways, but no definite decisions have been reached in respect of some of the matters which have been discussed. When decisions are reached they will be brought forward to the house.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell us whether he intends to insist on the appointment of a French speaking vice chairman on the board of transport commissioners?



Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think we just heard a similar question. It would be against the rule to answer such a question on the orders of the day.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny). Can the minister tell the house whether the proposed site in Pointe St. Charles, Montreal, has been accepted as the official site for the 1967 World's Fair?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: My reply to the hon. member for St. Ann must be a reiteration of what I have already stated in this house, that the site has not yet been definitely selected.



POLICY RESPECTING WHEAT SALES TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Cook (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the statement he made in this house a little while ago about the situation in India, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether his government intends to change its policy in relation to the sale of wheat to China?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: I would simply point out this fact to the hon. gentleman; that in spite of the bloodshed as between India and red China, no declaration of war has been made, as was stated a few minutes ago by the Leader of the Opposition, and diplomatic relations are still continuing between these countries as well as trade.



ST. JOHN'S WEST, NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Triniiy-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister when the government intends to take the steps necessary to complete the general election by holding a by-election in the constituency of St. John's West, Newfoundland, which is not now represented in this house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after the results in


St. John's are looked at I should think the hon. gentleman would be the last to want an election at this time.
(Translation):



REPORTED DECREASE IN EXPENDITURES BY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Could the minister tell us if it is true that, on account of the austerity program the government intends to put at the disposal of the national advisory council on fitness and sports an amount of $1 million for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1963, when $5 million had been provided for and announced publicly?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree that he is asking the minister a debatable question. I am very sorry but it is out of order.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, in order to get an answer to the question I asked earlier, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the house what amount of money his department intends to make available to the national council on fitness and sports, this year?
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the advisory council on fitness and amateur sport met in Ottawa during the latter part of last week. At that time I intimated to them that the demands that have thus far been presented to the department would indicate there would probably be about $2 million spent in the next fiscal year.
(Translation):


Georges-C. Lachance: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why is it only $2 million instead of $5 million?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that he may not ask a supplementary question, because he is seeking a reasoned answer, which is completely out of order.
(Text):



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eugene F. Whelan (Essex South):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would

the minister tell the house what is being done to obtain the release of Douglas Buchanan, a Canadian citizen and a constituent of mine, who is being held prisoner by the Cuban authorities.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian ambassador to Cuba has been making representations to the Cuban government. So far he has not been able to obtain the release of Mr. Buchanan, but the efforts will be continued. I might add that it is a rather difficult case.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received any recent request from the government of British Columbia for any co-operational assistance in respect of an investigation as to the possibility of the migration of the Sons of Freedom to Brazil?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



PEACE RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF DAM NEAR HUDSON HOPE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the government of the province of British Columbia, or any other agency, applied for a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for permission to construct a major hydroelectric development on the Peace river near Hudson Hope in British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that is a question that should be put on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the announcement in the newspaper this morning by the C.B.C. that Rear Admiral J. V. Brock, vice chief of the naval staff, will appear on a television broadcast to assess Canada's anti-submarine program, can the 27507-3-115i
Inquiries of the Ministry minister tell us whether he has approved of this, and if so does this mean the abandonment of the policy by which to date officers of the armed forces have been prohibited from discussing in public military matters which have political implications?
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have approved of this. Admiral Brock is appearing on this program in order to give factual information at the request of the people putting on the program, so that some misinformation which was given on the program last week or the week before might be corrected.
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Was the Minister of National Defence unable to give that information himself, as the political head of the department?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, following the program on which there was considerable mention of the navy and its anti-submarine capabilities, I wrote a letter to the man putting on the program, Mr. Davidson Dunton, pointing out there were a number of factual errors in this presentation and requesting him on a subsequent program to correct the mistakes which had been made. Following that, representatives of the C.B.C. requested the navy to put on an officer in order to give the correct picture in regard to these matters. The request was referred to me, and I gave permission to Admiral Brock to go ahead and do so.
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Will the government announce the unfreezing of the federal civil servants' salaries before the freeze-up on the St. Lawrence?
(Text):


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. When the minister meets the representatives of the civil service organizations in the next week or so to discuss the unfreezing of the pay freeze, will he also discuss with them the question of collective bargaining for the civil service?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am glad the hon. member is so able to plot my movements for next week and, since he has told me what I am going to do, I presume I should accept his advice as to what I should say.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Rinfret (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell the house what his department intends to do in order to open Montreal harbour to winter navigation this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, one in which all members of the house are concerned as well as members of the staff. Is the Prime Minister in a position to make any comment in respect of the time and duration of the coming Christmas recess?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is still quite a lot of work on the order paper, and the extent to which this work is translated and this program becomes legislation will be a large determinant in the date of the adjournment as well as the date of the return in the new year.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he inform the house if it is a fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has already constructed the spur line into the potash mine at Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, the construction of which was authorized by a private bill passed a short time ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that is a question of detail which should be asked on the order paper.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister which relates to the correspondence with the provincial premiers regarding the proposed amendment to the British North America Act, placed on [Mr. Nowlan.l
Hansard of February 6 and November 16 of this year. Will the Prime Minister check to see if there is a second letter from the premier of Manitoba? The reason I ask is that so far there seems to be only a letter of acknowledgement, and no letter has yet been placed on the record indicating the position taken by the premier or government of Manitoba. This is requested just to have the record complete.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the latest announcement of the board of broadcast governors subsequent to their meeting yesterday, which indicates they will not rescind their regulation compelling the C.B.C. to carry C.T.V. advertising, does the government intend to replace the present members of the board, since their actions seem to contravene several sections of the Broadcasting Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, in his last phrase, blotted his copy book. He is expressing opinions and his interpretation of certain statutes, and that is quite out of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then may I simply ask the Secretary of State whether he will request the Department of Justice to investigate this question and see whether the board has actually contravened certain sections of the Broadcasting Act. I would refer him particularly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot ask a minister to interpret a statute.


Malcolm MacInnis: I was not asking the Secretary of State to interpret it. I was asking him to seek an interpretation from the Department of Justice, with particular reference to section 3 (2) and section 10 of the Broadcasting Act.



ESTATE TAX ACT

George Clyde Nowlan: the third reading of Bill No. C-79, to amend the Estate Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Excise Tax Act



EXCISE TAX ACT

George Clyde Nowlan: the third reading of Bill No. C-80, to amend the Excise Tax Act.
He said: Last night in committee I promised the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Benson) that I would give certain information with respect to the implementation of the Carter commission report.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Couldn't you move the third reading first?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair would
respectfully request the house to moderate its post-orders of the day conferences so that all of us can hear the minister and any other hon. member who wishes to make representations. In addition, the Chair would ask the co-operation of the house to prevent the repetition of an incident which occurred quite inadvertently yesterday, and which sometimes arises out of the practice of some hon. members of standing up and moving around in the house when the Speaker is standing and about to leave the chair. Yesterday this resulted in the Chair not noticing an hon. member who wished to speak. I hate to be at all pedagogic in this regard, but it does make it a little difficult to recognize hon. members who have a legitimate interest in wishing to speak, especially when other hon. members are circulating around while the Chair is addressing the house.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yesterday in the committee I told-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, what business are we on?


George Clyde Nowlan: We are giving third reading to the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has it been moved?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has been moved and has been put, and the minister indicated he wished to give some information to the hon. member for Kingston.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The motion has not been put, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Churchill:: Bill C-81 has not been put, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Finance.


George Clyde Nowlan: My understanding was that the motion was put. What I am trying to do is fulfil a pledge I made last night to the hon. member for Kingston that I would give some information with respect to the implementation of the Carter commission report. I would
point out to the hon. member that there have been many minor adoptions of the report of the Carter commission which was received in 1956, and dealt with by my predecessor in the former government, Hon. Walter Harris; but in his budget speech of March 14, 1957, he did not accept any major changes in order to implement that report. Instead he announced that he did not propose to move any change in basing the tax on the retailers' purchase price and, as hon. members who are conversant with the matter know, this was a major recommendation in the Carter commission report. If that had been implemented the foundation on which the tax was based would have been radically changed. Mr. Harris, speaking for the government of that day, said they did not propose to implement such a change, and that position has been maintained by my predecessor and myself up to the present time.
However, I have said, Mr. Speaker, there have been various minor changes made in carrying out the recommendations of the Carter commission. They recommended that building materials should be released and on June 17, 1958 my predecessor dealt with that, and also included woodwork and latch sets. There was a large list of other exemptions suggested by the commission, and in the budget of 1959 my predecessor permitted some of these, pursuant to the recommendations of the Carter report.
Material for use in the construction of ships was another matter which was dealt with in the budgets of 1956 and 1960 so, generally speaking, many minor recommendations have been adopted both by the former government and the present one.


Mr. E. J. Benson (Kingston):: I gather that one of the major recommendations of the Carter commission was the abolition of the great number of instances in the act where ministerial discretion is mentioned. Am I correct in assuming there has been nothing done with the act in this regard?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would not say the hon. member is right on that. All I know is that when I was minister of national revenue I did not find many discretions I could exercise in matters that came before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a few fairly brief observations to make on the motion of the minister for the third reading of this bill. As was indicated in the committee last evening, we on this side of the house regret very much that this small bill, or to use the minister's own phraseology this relatively small measure, has

Customs Tariff
been brought before us without having incorporated in it the very much wider and more important changes in the Customs Tariff.


Mr. Benidickson:: Are we not dealing with excise?


George Clyde Nowlan: We are on excise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg your pardon.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: The Speaker never put the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect, I rather suspect it was because of the sort of mumbling that was going on in the house that hon. members did not hear me, but I very definitely put the motion. We will make sure that the record is correct in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I inadvertently said anything that was at all inappropriate, I apologize to the Chair. I thought the Chair said the bill was carried.


Mr. Speaker:: No, very definitely not. May I again indicate that we are not in the committee stage, and there cannot be any exchange of questions and answers. In fact the minister is precluded from speaking on third reading. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not wish to speak, I do. As I said a moment ago, when I did not appreciate what was before the house, I should like to repeat in the house what was said in committee last evening. That is, that we on this side of the house feel it is unfortunate that this bill should include only the relatively-I used the word "relatively" advisedly-unimportant changes in the tariff that were proposed by the exminister of finance in his budget last April, and that it does not include the very much more sweeping changes in the Customs Tariff made by order in council on June 24.
Now, sir, in order to avoid, if I can, any misunderstanding about the scope of what I have to say, I want to point out to Your Honour at once that I am not going to argue at all, in the few observations I have to make, the proposition that was settled by the house on the supply motion. I have no intention of

opening that question again, nor have I any intention whatsoever of opening the question of constitutionality, which was determined by the house on October 9 by a vote in which some of us did not concur. All I am doing is expressing regret that this bill is the limited kind of bill that it is; that it does not, as I think would have been desirable and preferable, incorporate all those changes in the Customs Tariff that in fact are being enforced upon the taxpayers at the present time. It does seem to me that merely for the convenience of the taxpayers, if one were considering no other principle at all, it would be desirable to have these far reaching changes in the law passed by parliament; and merely for the convenience of the taxpayers it would be desirable for them to know, surely, that the taxes they were being asked to pay had been reviewed carefully by their representatives in parliament.
We did have-and I do not like to keep coming back to the lobsters which made the face of the Minister of Finance rather red- evidence that some of these things that were done on June 24 were rather inadvertent, or accidental, or were not quite what the government really intended. If the representatives of the people were given the opportunity -as I submit, sir, would be desirable-in considering this bill to review all the changes in the Customs Tariff, that would have been less likely to happen. I do not say that parliament does not occasionally overlook some things even in bills, but it is less likely to happen if there is such a review. I say this with experience of about the same length as the Minister of Finance in the cabinet. I say there are angles that are seen from this side of the house-and I have also had some experience over here, although not as long as that of the Minister of Finance-that are not seen inside the council chamber and which seem very clear to some of us on the outside.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has always been the case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As my hon. friend from Essex East has pointed out, that has always been the case. That is why we have oppositions in our parliaments, why we think oppositions are important, and why we are not even too much worried once in a while when there is a slight increase in oppositions in certain legislative bodies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ricard:: Are you referring to yesterday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
William Moore Benidickson: The right to tax.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have listened very carefully to what the hon. member has said and, while I agree that the question of surcharges does loom largely in the matter of the Customs Tariff, I fail to see any reference to that question in this bill. As the hon. member very well knows, there is a rule of relevancy which we must observe. So far I have not observed too much relevancy on the question of this particular bill; there has been rather more discussion on the matter of the surcharges. Perhaps the hon. member would conform to the rules of relevancy a little more.
Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am assisted vastly in that by what the Minister of Finance said last night in committee when Your Honour was unavoidably absent. He pointed out then that several items in this bill were directly affected by the surcharges. It would therefore appear to me that the surcharges are directly relevant to this bill.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was in answer to a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. It seems to me that since it is the traditional, fundamental and, indeed, the original purpose of this House of Commons to grant aid to Her Majesty, and since this is the very foundation of our liberties and of our self-government, we in this house should have an opportunity to make a decision on this question. Therefore I wish to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith):
That this bill be not read a third time until surcharges approved by order in council which alter rates set up in this bill and the act which this bill amends have been presented to the house for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there anyone who wishes to speak as to the nature of the amendment, because I have to determine whether it is in order?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would simply say, as Your Honour pointed out a moment ago in an observation, that the surcharges do not form part of this bill in any shape or form. The amendment, therefore, is not relevant, and I suggest it is completely out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I anticipated Your Honour might raise some question about this amendment. I would draw your attention first of all to the Journals of the house for July 30, 1958 when your predecessor was faced with a motion moved by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) which read as follows:
That this bill be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the repeal or reduction of the excise tax on motor cars.
Mr. Speaker Michener ruled that the motion was in order. Your Honour will find that in its form it is precisely similar to the motion I have made. Perhaps I should read briefly from the ruling given by the Speaker at that time.
As I see this amendment, it really is a declaration of a contrary principle to that which is under debate. The principle under debate is an amendment of the Excise Tax Act as the government has proposed.
Just as this bill is an amendment to the Customs Tariff as the government has proposed.
Now, the view which is brought forward is that the government has taken the wrong line and

Customs Tariff
should have adopted another principle in amendment of the Excise Tax Act, that of reducing excise taxes instead of the tax with which it has dealt.
Then the Speaker went on to give ancillary reasons for his ruling, but it seems to me what I have quoted deals with the question whether an amendment of this kind can be moved. This view is supported by citation No. 382 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill to move as an amendment to the question-
And this applies, as Your Honour knows, to the third reading also-
-a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution .. .
It seems to me that the amendment does fulfil the requirements of that citation. As for its direct relationship to the bill, of course, as Mr. Speaker Michener also pointed out, it cannot be so directly related to the bill that it could have been moved in committee. His Honour went on to say on July 38:
This is clearly not a matter which can be introduced as an amendment to the bill in the course of its consideration in committee.
In other words the amendment has to be related to the bill but not amend a part of the bill or something which was capable of being a part of the bill; because, if it were that, it could be moved in committee and therefore could not be moved in a motion which was opposed to proceeding with the measure.
It seems to me I should not take any more of Your Honour's time, because these two citations would appear to be conclusive.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Perhaps I may speak on the point of order and, more particularly, deal with the argument which has just been made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who in my submission has somewhat twisted the meaning of citation 382 in Beauchesne. I think it is clear on reading that citation that it has reference to things which may happen on second reading of the bill. On second reading, as we know, we are concerned with whether the house accepts or rejects the principle of a bill. I submit this citation has no relevance to any motions which may be made on third reading, where the debate and the type of motion permissible are much more restricted.
The second point I should like to make is that in effect we have here an expanded negative that the bill be not now read a third time, and setting forth one reason why it should not. No matter how the hon. member argues his point, I submit this is still an expanded negative and, as such, at variance

with our practice. Further, I might point out that at page 289 of Beauchesne various examples are given of instances where Speakers in the past have declared similar motions to be out of order, and I think the hon. members' motion follows within this category.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I in half a sentence congratulate the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on presenting a much more rational amendment today than we had from him yesterday.
When the hon. member, a moment ago, read from citation 382 of Beauchesne, the citation which indicates what can be done by way of amendment to the motion for second reading, he said, paraphrasing another citation, that the same things can, of course, be done on third reading.
I think it would be useful to read the sentence from citation 418 which confirms what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said, even though there are certain restrictions. The key sentence is:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
The hon. member who spoke a moment ago said there is a difference between second reading and third reading. There is a difference, but it is right there; the restriction is that an amendment to the motion for third reading must deal with matters that are contained in the bill.
I submit that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has done precisely that. He has limited his reasons for not wanting to give third reading of the bill now to matters which are in the bill. He moves that this bill be not read a third time until surcharges approved by order in council which alter rates set up in this bill are considered by the house. We know from the discussion we had in committee of the whole that there are certain rates in this bill which are altered by surcharges approved by order in council, or vice versa. So the amendment clearly states two things which are in the bill itself. Therefore it seems to me that the argument about relevancy is well met by the way in which this amendment is framed.
There is no question but that certain types of amendments are in order on third reading, and if I had time to look it up I think I could find the answer to the expanded negative. There are times when even that is permissible. It is permissible to move that a bill be not now read a second time or a third time even though that is a negative, particularly when reasons are given for so moving.
The example to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred I find very

interesting. When Mr. Speaker Michener ruled on the motion of the hon. member for Fort William on July 30, 1958, that was a case of a member asking for third reading not to take place until certain other things had been done. That is precisely what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is asking for. He is keeping it within the compass of the bill itself. The motion talks of rates set by the bill. The motion talks of the act which this bill amends. I submit that he has not gone astray, that the amendment is in order, and that it should be put to the house as such.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, in the debate yesterday -I think it was in committee and perhaps you were not present-it was admitted by the Minister of Finance that included in the schedule to this bill are items that bear a surcharge imposed by order in council. This was done subsequent to the budget resolutions of April 10. The point being raised here is that we are not dealing realistically with the rates shown in this schedule if we do not concern ourselves with what is superimposed upon these rates, namely the effect on the taxpayer of the surcharges imposed by the June 24 order in council which the Prime Minister said involved $200 million of taxation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is one which deserves very serious consideration. It is the first time this session that an amendment has been moved on third reading, and we must be rather careful as to what course is followed in this regard. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already quoted citation 418 on page 288 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. That citation says:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
The point has already been made by the Minister of Finance that surcharges are not contained in the bill. Then further down in the citation it says:
When a motion is made "that the bill be now read a third time'', the same kind of amendments are permissible as on the second reading...
-that is, amendments postponing second reading for three or six months, and specific examples of the type of amendment that Mr. Beauchesne had in mind when he was writing that paragraph are given. Mr. Speaker, if you will refer to Bourinot, fourth edition, pages
Customs Tariff
528 and 529, you will find there a dissertation dealing with amendments on third reading. I quote from page 528:
In the Senate it is usual to follow the English practice and amend the bill, when necessary, on consideration of the bill as amended in committee of the whole.
That is, when third reading stage is reached.
As a fact the Canadian Commons never amend the bill at this stage in accordance with the English practice. It is quite usual, however, for a member to move that the order for consideration be discharged and the bill committed for the purpose of amending the bill in any particular.
Based on that practice in the House of Commons, which practice has been followed since, an hon. member might suggest in his amendment that the bill be recommitted to the committee for amendment according to the lines he has in mind. To reinforce that citation I refer to May's sixteenth edition, page 578, which deals with the subject of amendments on third reading. This matter is dealt with as follows:
By standing order No. 53-
That is the English standing order.
-verbal amendments only can now be made to a bill on the third reading. If material amendments are desired, the order for the third reading of the bill should be discharged, and the bill recommitted to allow the introduction of the amendments in committee. In such cases it has been customary to consider the bill, as amended on recommittal, and to read it the third time immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that these citations indicate that the method of procedure on third reading differs from the method of procedure on second reading; and when we reach third reading, if amendments are desired, the bill would be recommitted to the committee stage where the amendments would be put forward. But this is not the case of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who simply is attempting to give a disguised six months' hoist to the bill by the use of his phrase about the surcharges being presented to the house for consideration. It is a disguised six months' hoist. It would have been better if he had moved his amendment in the proper manner. But based on these references, Mr. Speaker, I say that the amendment is entirely out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) if he is going to contribute something new. After all, we have had a considerable amount of canvassing this point of order. I do not want to close off the debate, but I think he will realize what I am getting at.

Customs Tariff


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether what I have to say is absolutely new. I wanted to make some comment on a point or two made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I think the minister attempted to put forward the idea that there was something irregular in moving a reasoned amendment on third reading. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already referred to Beauchesne, and I have the parliamentary dictionary by Abraham and Hawtrey in my hand which has been used as an authority in this house on previous occasions by Mr. Speaker Michener. On page 162 the following appears:
A reasoned amendment may be moved on second or third reading of a bill, and on certain other occasions as stated below.
This is a reasoned amendment because it gives the reason why the house should not proceed with the third reading of the bill. It is in an entirely different category from a six months' hoist, which is a delaying amendment and not a reasoned amendment. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate could easily have moved a delaying amendment, but he chose to move a reasoned amendment because he wished to assert a principle in connection with the passage of the bill through the house. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that this amendment was irregular because there was no reference in the bill itself to surcharges. That is perfectly true, but the amendment is made relevant to the bill because of the reference in the bill to tariff rates. This provides the link of relevancy between the amendment and the bill itself.
In my judgment the category into which this amendment falls is found in Sir Erskine May's sixteenth edition, page 530, where the author establishes three categories of reasoned amendments. Category No. 2 is an amendment expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of a bill, and the circumstance to which we object in the prosecution of this bill is that surcharges which affect the rates contained in the bill have not been brought before parliament for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with the hon. member on the matter of a reasoned amendment. Therefore there is no need to continue the line of argument that this amendment is a reasoned amendment; but I will have something further to say in that regard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question at this stage? Would he draw the attention of the house to the fact that on page 530 of May, to which he referred, the general heading is "Amendment
[Mr. Speaker.1
to Question for Second Reading". There is no reference to third reading at all.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been established- I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question there. In a more limited way an amendment may be advanced at third reading which could have been advanced at second reading. On the question of a reasoned amendment, I would put it to hon. members that the fact that an amendment is a reasoned amendment does not give it, shall we say, a free ticket. Therefore, even though it may be a reasoned amendment it may lose out on other grounds. I think that disposes entirely of the arguments with regard to whether or not this is a reasoned amendment. Even if it is, that does not necessarily let it in.
In considering the amendment as put before me, I would refer first of all to citation 418 in Beauchesne where we see that the second sentence reads as follows:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
Here the question is whether there is any distinction between surcharges and any matters found within the bill. In the bill there are amendments to rates. There are no references to surcharges whatsoever, and if I need any buttressing on the question of what can be referred to I would refer hon. members to page 171 of Beauchesne, citation 203, paragraph 3, which is in these words:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
I thank all hon. members for what they have said, but with the greatest respect I am of the opinion that surcharges are not rates within the meaning of the Customs Tariff act. Surcharges are something ancillary and not generally applied. They are removable by order. They are of an entirely different category and therefore they are not a matter referred to within the bill. There is a clear distinction in my mind between surcharges and the customs rates set out in the bill under consideration as well as in the Customs Tariff act.
In addition, I think the amendment would be out of order on a second basis in that in effect it is an expanded negative and so is contrary to the sense of the main motion. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, will you hear me again on the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: No, not on the point of order. The Chair has given its ruling.

1S17


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to refer to the Canada Gazette.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has given its ruling in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not yet spoken on third reading? He has only spoken on the point of order, I take it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are perfectly right, sir.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words before this bill is given third reading. I shall have to pick my words carefully to stay within the ruling which has been given both with respect to debate and the moving of amendments. But I wish to reiterate the position which has been taken in this corner of the house as well as in other parts of the chamber with regard to what the government is now doing. We have before us now the third reading of a bill which changes the rates of duty on about ten or a dozen items set out in the Customs Tariff act. Yet we are being given by the government, without any reference to any rulings, no opportunity to discuss changes of rates on hundreds of items in the Customs Tariff that have been brought into effect by order in council.
I suggest that it is an affront to parliament for the government to carry on in this way. May I point out that the changes that have been made in rates in this same act by order in council, the validity of which some of us question, are described in the order in council as changes in the rate of customs duties. Nowhere, and I have checked this carefully, in the order in council in dispute does the word "surcharge" appear except as a title describing it.
The order in council prescribes that the customs duties set forth in the general tariff shall apply to certain goods and it prescribes that, by the operation of the two acts to which reference is made, all customs duties are changed by certain percentages. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to offend your instruction not to discuss the ruling that has just been made, but my point is that at this time on third reading of this bill we are being asked to vote on changes involving ten or a dozen items in the Customs Tariff while at the same time we are being given by the government no opportunity as the parliament of Canada to deal with several hundreds of items, all of which involve changes in rates of customs duties and are so described in the order in council which has made these changes. It is a pretty serious situation. I am not quarrelling with your ruling; I am quarrelling with the government.
Customs Tariff


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding the hon.
member's protestations that he is not doing so, I have found that most of the argument has been directed toward some sort of nibbling away of the interpretation that the Chair has placed on the amendment, and I would trust that the hon. member would come back to the bill and not deal with the matter of surcharges to which there is no reference at all in the bill. I think the hon. member is quite well enough versed in the rules of this house to appreciate the rule of relevancy at this stage particularly. What he is saying now might quite conceivably be said at the resolution stage, but once we are into third reading the field of discussion is much narrower.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say Your Honour surely does not mean that the hon. gentleman is not entitled, in the argument he is making and which addressed to another point, to observe in passing that it is regrettable the government has not allowed parliament to pass on-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I make my point?


Mr. Speaker:: The only point is, that is not the point of order I raised.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is the point of order, with great respect.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest of respect I raised the question that the member was not discussing the nature of my ruling. There was nothing said about what he thought the attitude of the government was; that is not for the Chair to discuss with the hon. member. I have avoided that specifically, and that is for the hon. member to say. It is only on the matter of the wording that I have raised a point. I think the hon. member, on reflection, will see that I limited myself to that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I quite appreciate your position and I take no offence whatever at your concern lest what I say seems to be an indirect way of trying to nibble away at the ruling that you gave a moment ago, or the comments that you made. However, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, that is not what I am now concerned with; that is gone. What I am concerned about is the way in which this government, which was elected in 1957 as a result of ringing tremendous changes on the rights of parliament, is in fact nibbling away at the rights of parliament.
If there is one right that is recognized across the centuries as a right that belongs

Customs Tariff
to parliament, not to the executive, it is the right to impose taxes. Yet, here in this instance, we have before us right now the third reading of a bill to amend one of the statutes that imposes taxation. In the process of presenting this bill to us, the government gives us the right to discuss and vote upon a dozen changes in the Customs Tariff, but the government gives us no chance to discuss or vote upon the several hundred items which it has dealt with by order in council. I say, Mr. Speaker, that in this day when we are concerned with the maintenance of our democratic way of life, the maintenance of democratic rights, this is a very serious issue.
The failure of the government to bring this matter before parliament, the failure of the government to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada as we requested, the almost lighthearted way the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) will talk about the possibility of our talking from now until Christmas or whatever the period was, about the legality of the order in council is, I suggest, very serious in the whole history of our Canadian parliamentary democracy. There has been given to parliament no chance to discuss or debate with the government the basis on which it took the action to which we took exception.
I suggest it is a particular affront to us now, in the light of what was not done regarding this set of changes, to bring this bill to us and ask us to think we are exercising a parliamentary right, that we are maintaining the rights of parliament because we are given an opportunity to vote on ten or a dozen changes in the Customs Tariff, but not given a chance to vote on hundreds of others.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just ask the minister if he will not tell the house, in view of the strong statement just made by the hon. member which I think the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; unfortunately, the Minister of Finance has not the right to speak at this stage, unless it is given to him by the unanimous consent of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is quite true, but there are other ministers in the house who can speak and who can indicate the intention of the government, as well as the Minister of Finance. The speech we have just had from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not quite finished, but go ahead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, I am sorry.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I was rising on a point of order, sir. I would suggest the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would have been in order on the resolution stage or second reading of the bill. We have approved the bill in principle on second reading. We are now within the very narrow ambit that is afforded us on third reading, Your Honour has just so ruled regarding the amendment. I submit the hon. member's remarks were out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: In that regard, so long as the hon. member does not belabour the point unduly, I think I would allow him to continue. There is definitely a restriction, as he knows, on what he can say at this stage. The Chair has to go along to see how far he goes. It is a little difficult sometimes at the resolution stage to know just what is going to be said, because the bill is not before us. I would trust hon. members will keep their discussions germane to the bill, and the principle of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I quite recognize the restrictions that there are at third reading stage of a bill. If you recall, when I got to my feet I admitted I was going to have some difficulty in choosing my words because of this situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You did not succeed.


Mr. Speaker:: There may be comments that are not addressed through the Chair. Let us have them so the Chair can hear them too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In so far as the point which has just been made by the taller member for Halifax is concerned,-


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Christian brother from Scotland-


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that reinforces my point that we have a bill which amends an act that has been the concern of this parliament, and yet at every stage we have difficulty dealing with the changes that have been made under this act without our approval or consent. When we were on the earlier stages, we were told to wait until the later stages. As we are getting to the later stages, we are told we should have done it earlier. It is not you, sir, who has said that, but others taking part in the debate.
What I am afraid of is that in this parliament this process goes on and builds up; we do not realize what we are doing to the institution of parliament, the relationships between parliament and the executive, and all the things that are part of our democratic procedures. It is a question of expediency, of getting things done or what you can get away with: "Something of this nature had to be done; it was done and we got away with it;

let us not worry about these boys who raise points of order or who are nuisances about procedure". In this process the whole business of the parliamentary way of doing things is gradually being eroded. I do not like it coming from anyone, but I think it comes with particular ill grace from hon. gentlemen who got elected mainly on the slogan of restoring the rights of parliament.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, before the government asks the house to approve third reading of this bill it should give us an undertaking that at some point in this session, some means will be found to enable parliament to discuss the changes in the Customs Tariff act that have been made by executive order and that have not yet been brought before parliament. There could be another bill. There could be a reference to the committee on banking and commerce, and I urge that this be considered. There could be an assurance that the matter will be discussed on the estimates of the Minister of Finance, the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue, the estimates of the Minister of Justice or the estimates of the privy council; but, Mr. Speaker, I insist that this free democratic House of Commons must not go on week after week able only to argue procedural points and unable to get any substantial discussion of one of the most serious affronts to parliament, one of the most serious violations of the law made in a long time, when a government imposes taxes without due process of law, then does not give parliament a chance to deal with them, and then compounds it all by bringing before us the very bill in which this is involved and letting us vote on a dozen items, but not letting us have anything to say on hundreds of items set out in the order in council. I urge the house to face the seriousness of this issue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am sure that all hon. members in the house have been impressed with the argument we have just had from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some hon. members say no. If that is their position I shall contrast it with the position they took in 1947 with regard to the right, and indeed the obligation, of parliament to participate in the initiation of any act on the part of a government of Canada which involves the imposition of taxes. The position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite on other occasions is certainly not being reflected in the attitude they are taking today.
Customs Tariff
Apart from the application of certain items which are involved in the surcharges order in council and in the schedule of the bill, I would argue with great respect that it was open to an hon. member in the discussion of this bill to make the complaint that you, I think quite properly under our rules, have allowed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to make. But lest there be any doubt about this I would point out to Your Honour that I have in my hand a copy of the Canada Gazette, part 2, containing statutory orders and regulations 1962, No. 233 and 234 and at page 233 Your Honour will note 440m and 440n covering articles which are referred to in the schedule of the bill now before us. These are to be found on page 12 of the budget resolutions, 440m and 440n, and page 3 of the bill.
In other words, in this bill we are dealing with items which are covered in the order in council providing for surcharges on imports. It is true the vast majority of the items in the order in council dealing with surcharges on imports are not covered in the bill, but at least two items are. The fact that these two items are included gives the fullest justification, I argue with great respect, to point out to the government that this bill is deficient in that it does not give an opportunity to pass in this house on all of the items involved in the surcharges order in council.
I think that in itself ought to put an onus on the government of meeting at least the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I believe if the government met that request it would be able to arrest somewhat the justifiable concern and impatience of hon. members in the house over the way parliament is being treated by the executive in the matter of the imposition of taxation running to the amount of almost $200 million.
It is no laughing matter to have this free country subjected to a decision of the executive in the imposition of taxation in such a large amount, denying at the same time the opportunity to the elected representatives of the people to pass judgment on this act of the government. I am sure we have not had in Canadian history a more flagrant violation of the rights of parliament than we have in the instance and in the circumstances we are discussing at the present time.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Eglinton says nonsense. He is another hon. gentleman who complained about the act of the former minister of finance, Mr. Abbott, who in 1947 announced outside the house the intention of the government to impose excise
182C

Customs Tariff
taxes. Hon. gentlemen opposite, including the Minister of Finance, said the government of that day was violating the proper relationship between the crown and parliament in a radio broadcast; but what the minister fails to point out is that on that occasion, while the announcement was made outside the house, the excise taxes were not imposed on the Canadian people until parliament had taken action.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is untrue, utterly untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would urge upon hon. members the strictures I made the other day about gratuitous remarks from their seats, which are really contrary to the rules. If we can carry on without them I think we can get more orderly debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the ex-minister of finance, the present Minister of Justice, who continues to cover the waterfront notwithstanding his present position, the statement of the former minister of finance in 1947, who said that if the Canadian parliament decided not to approve of the excise tax policy no Canadian would be called upon to pay those taxes. How does that statement made in the house by the former minister of finance in 1947 compare with the action of this government?
The government announced the surcharges policy in June. The taxes under that announcement and under the order in council became effective, in the mind of the executive, immediately. The taxes are now being paid under that order in council.


An hon. Member:: Not legally.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We say illegally, but they are being paid. Now we are denied the opportunity of having the government at least come formally before the house and ask us to pass upon an act which we say was illegal in the first instance. That is the situation and no amount of contrivance on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite can change this set of circumstances. The administration must stand indicted, as it was indicted a few moments ago in the able speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
That hon. member made a plea. He said that notwithstanding the fact that the government has acted illegally, notwithstanding the fact that it has acted unconstitutionally, it may retrieve its position somewhat if at this very late date it will give the house an assurance that we are going to have, in the

form of some bill or in the form of some instrument, an opportunity at least pro forma of observing the traditional rights of parliament in the matter of taxation recommended by the executive arm of government to parliament.
Surely the government is not going to fail to heed that request? It has violated every other constitutional practice but it cannot say in answer to the hon. gentleman "Well, notwithstanding that plea, notwithstanding what we have done, we are still going to allow this parliament to carry on without giving an opportunity to the elected representatives to formally pass on something which, is within the sole prerogative and responsibility of parliament itself to decide." That is the issue. If the government, through the Minister of Finance, does not accept the opportunity given to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he will stand indicted for having flagrantly violated a sacred principle of procedure in our form of government and will deserve, on that account, an additional reason for the censure which the people of Canada are eagerly anxious to make on this administration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the bill which is now before the house for third reading is a complete travesty. This bill proposes to establish certain customs duties. If and when it is passed an exporter wants to know what are the customs duties, it is supposed that when he picks up this piece of legislation and reads it he will know what are the duties for certain items and certain commodities. The fact is that these will not be the duties imposed at all, because in addition to the duties imposed by this piece of legislation the exporter must also get hold of an order in council dated June 24 and see there other customs duties which have been imposed by executive order. Surely an importer into this country has a right, when he looks at a statute passed by this house setting forth a list of customs duties, to believe that those are the duties, that they have been imposed by parliament and that he can accept them as being proper and accurate.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: Pursuant to the hon. gentleman's argument about looking at the statute and being able to tell what is the duty, what would be the situation if one looked at the statute with respect to airplane engines and airplane parts, which was put

on the statute book in 1954 and has been lifted by order in council from 1954 up to the present time?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of course, if under the
statute authority is given to the governor general in council to alter those tariffs, then the person reading the statute knows that the particular item is subject to change by executive order. But no such authority was ever given by parliament to the present government to make the alterations which they made on June 24.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. gentleman one more question? Has he read the Customs Tariff act and does he know the section which authorizes the executive to raise the tariffs, both most favoured nation and British preference to the general tariff, which was exactly what was done, by the statute and no other way?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the point at issue, as to whether this government had authority under the statute to make the alterations which they did make. This house has been trying for weeks to get the government to table a legal opinion from the Department of Justice to show whether they had the authority to make these alterations, and they have consistently refused to do so. We submit that the government ought to do one of three things. They ought to bring down the legal opinion so that hon. members will have a chance to see whether they had statutory authority for what they did, give hon. members a chance to debate the question of the authority which they exercised, we believe illegally, or bring those items into parliament where they can be debated and discussed, as was done in 1947 when excise taxes were announced and were ratified by parliament.
The government has a third choice. They ought to come into this house with an amendment to the Customs Tariff act, asking for the authority to impose surcharges under certain given circumstances and authority to take them off, giving them a certain flexibility similar to that asked for by the president of the United States under his expanding trade act. Then parliament might consider it. But this government have done none of these three things. They have neither brought down the legal opinion, nor given us any chance to discuss the validity of the action which they took or the legality of this order in council, nor have they given parliament a chance to impose these surcharges or to ratify them; and they have not come and asked parliament to amend the Customs Tariff act so that they can by order in council do properly what we insist they have done improperly. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the
Customs Tariff
action of the government in refusing to do any one of these three things has insulted parliament; that the act now before us is a farce.
If the government can do what they did by order in council on June 24, why did they not make these changes by order in council? Instead of that they come to parliament with a trifling, small change to the act and they make the other changes by order in council. Surely this is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. I would certainly plead with the government, in the interests of good will in this house, in the interests of respect for parliament throughout the country, to take one of these three choices. That is, to give this house an opportunity in the near future to discuss this order in council and its validity, to make available to us the legal opinion handed down by the deputy minister of justice, or bring the items covered by this order in council of June 24 into parliament and let parliament impose these surcharges, giving to the governor general in council the right to lift them as circumstances warrant and make desirable if an exchange position makes it advisable to do so. Or the government should come before parliament and ask us for the power to have the flexibility which they think they might need for periodic changes in customs tariffs without reference to parliament at all.
I am certainly not saying that I would support such a measure to give so much authority to the executive council. If it were properly hedged about and capable of submission periodically to this house or to a committee of this house, I think it might have to be considered. We are now moving into a whole new trade pattern throughout the world. The President of the United States has received from the congress of the United States very wide powers, and it may be that in the present stage of international trade relations a government cannot always come to parliament quickly to deal with a given trade situation, and they may need certain powers vested in the governor general in council to make changes in the tariff structure. If this were properly safeguarded, with proper reference to a committee of this house, I think the house would probably give favourable consideration to such a proposal in the light of the present international trading situation.
I urge the government to do one of these three things. They have not done any of them. They have refused to discuss the order in council or its validity; they have refused to give us any chance to debate these surcharges or the items upon which they fall; they refuse to give us any opportunity to discuss whether the government is to have this kind of power in the future. We can only assume that they

Customs Tariff
have exercised this power arbitrarily and illegally in the past and they think they can quite easily exercise the same kind of power in the future. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am going to suggest an amendment, unless the government is prepared to give some such undertaking.
I think this is one of the most serious matters to face parliament in this session, namely that the cabinet, by order in council, should take upon itself the right to impose charges which are virtually taxes to the tune of some $200 million a year. That is something which no government has a right to do under a democratic system such as ours, and members of any party in the house who are prepared to acquiesce in such an undemocratic procedure will have a great deal to answer for when they meet the people of this country, and a great deal to answer for to future generations who will look back on how parliament conducted itself in this situation. So I certainly hope the government will reconsider and provide some opportunity for the discussion of this question.
I am, therefore, going to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That this bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce for consideration and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is anyone prepared to express any views on the validity of the amendment?


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: In connection with the amendment which has just been proposed, there is a reference in Beauchesne, citation 415 on page 287 which I think is relevant:
On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approved on second reading.
The amendment before us seeks to refer the bill to the standing committee on banking and commerce, but I suggest the principle is the same. Furthermore, in the same citation the following words appear:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it should not be read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
This is not the purpose for which it is now suggested the bill be referred to the standing committee. It is not suggested that it be referred back so that part of it may be amended. Instead, it is being referred back in toto. I submit that the committee of the whole house has already considered this bill and passed it
IMr. Douglas.1
as it stands, clause by clause and that it cannot now be referred back to a standing committee for consideration in its entirety. For that reason I suggest the amendment is not in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I might-


Mr. Speaker:: Really, I do not think there is any point in continuing the discussion on the point of order because it is clear from the last sentence of paragraph 1 of citation 415 that the amendment is in order-
Or the bill may then be ordered to be reprinted or committed to a select committee.
The standing committee on banking and commerce is such a committee. The first sentence is not applicable because this is not a reference back to the committee of the whole from which this bill has come. Therefore, the amendment is in order.
Mr. R, B. Cowan (York-Humber): I wish to speak on the amendment. In rising to support this amendment I wish to comment on the fact that when the hon. member for Essex East was speaking he said he thought everyone would support his interpretation of the rules and agree that the rules of parliament were being circumvented. There was a little murmuring from the other side of the house at that point. However, I have here an authority which I believe will be accepted by hon. members on the other side in connection with this matter. I shall not read at any great length, because what this gentleman says is right to the point. In Hansard volume V, 1960, at page 5648, the following appears-this is from the debate on the introduction of the bill of rights. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is speaking on Dominion day, July 1, 1960:
I am trying to get through in five minutes to enable the Leader of the Opposition to speak. I will answer the hon. member for Laurier once more. I could go through the record and review it briefly. 1 believe the hon. member for Laurier was a parliamentary assistant on the occasion when the rates on government annuities were unjustifiably increased by order in council. This is just one instance of a statute being amended or suspended by order in council. The hon. gentleman will recall, too, that he was a member of the cabinet when an order in council was passed which legalized taxation three months before parliament met on it. That is not going to happen any more ...
I have been forced to refer to these things because of the attitude of the hon. gentleman. I simply wish to underline that these things are not going to happen from now on. Knowing from experience that they have happened, I feel I can rely on the assistance of the hon. gentleman and I am confident that he will be joining with us in assuring that they will not happen in the future.
A little later, speaking of the bill of rights, the right hon. gentleman said:
They say it can be repealed at another session. Certainly it can. Habeas corpus is a statute of the United Kingdom which has remained on the statute

books now for approximately 160 or 170 years. The bill of rights was a statute enacted in 1691. They have never been changed, because experience has shown that once these declarations are made, subsequent governments and parliaments are most careful not to interfere with the rights and liberties embodied in those statutes.
I am quoting from the speech of the hon. member for Prince Albert on July 1, 1960, and I heartily endorse that which he said.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure we have listened
with a great deal of interest to the eloquence of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and to the impassioned appeal of the hon. member for Essex East who urged that some such amendment as this be moved.
I should like to refer the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who wanted some undertaking given that an opportunity would be provided to discuss this matter, to the fact that if parliament proceeds with its work there will be many opportunities on which this subject may be discussed. Certainly this could be done when the estimates of the Department of Finance or those of the Department of National Revenue are under consideration and there are, besides, various other occasions available, to say nothing of the fact that this question may be raised at any time on a motion to go into supply.
When it is suggested that there has been no opportunity to discuss this question, I wonder how short the human memory is. I know it is frail and that one tends to forget certain things but, surely, I do not need to refresh the memory of hon. members here as to the opportunities on which these matters could have been and already have been, discussed in this house.
It is suggested that this bill is insufficient- that by some strange legerdemain we should have brought in a greatly extended bill; that, despite the fact that this only refers to ten different sections we should include as well every possible tariff item in the whole Customs Tariff act so that we could clarify any doubts which may arise as to the imposition of new tariffs or matters of that kind. As I asked in my question, there are many matters dealt with in the bill by order in council, and it would be a strange thing indeed if, in amending an act of parliament, we should refer in the legislation itself to the whole ambit of that legislation and include everything in it in order that it may be discussed and debated.
We are told that this is a terrible infringement on the rights of parliament. As I suggested in my question to the hon. member for
Customs Tariff
Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), and as I now say again, what was done by this government was done pursuant to an act of parliament which was enacted by parliament, which gave to the executive the right to alter these tariff rates as between the most favoured nation, the British preferential and the general tariff. That was not a usurpation of executive authority. That was an action pursuant to an act of parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us have the legal opinion.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. members asks for a legal opinion. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. friend for Essex East, who was so erroneous on every fact he stated this afternoon that you would have thought he was in a trance, that when Mr. Abbott was minister of finance and made his tariff changes, there was not even an order in council passed when the tariff changes were made by radio.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not, there was a bill before parliament.


George Clyde Nowlan: If my hon. friend would mind the advice of the Speaker and keep quiet, it would help. He has been inaccurate enough this afternoon, and surely he should not be wrong in his procedure as well. I do not think he made an accurate statement in connection with this whole matter.
Mr. Speaker, just what happened on that occasion? When the Canadian people, either inadvertently or just by chance, turned on the radio on that night, they heard the then minister of finance saying: "Hereafter you are going to pay X per cent more excise tax on every item which you buy". That was done by radio; and the hon. member says it was implemented by parliament and implemented by order in council. Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? That very night the deputy minister of customs and excise, who is still deputy minister, sent out wires to every officer in Canada telling them to impose that tax as from midnight that night. That was something done by radio and then by telegram. And there was no order in council-


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was a bill put before parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Clyde Nowlan: There was no order in council at any time. There was not even an act by the executive. What it was was an act by radio waves, and that is all. It was a miracle from heaven which told the people, if they happened to turn on their radios, that on that night, or the next night, I presume, what these charges were to be. Mr. Speaker, these

Customs Tariff
are the gentlemen who protest that parliament has been wronged and that their rights have been interfered with.
They also said that parliament was called to confirm that measure. Parliament was not called to confirm it. That made it all the worse.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was, two weeks after.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, parliament had been called before this voice came out over the air saying what the new taxes would be. But the minister of finance of that day, despite the fact that parliament had been called -not to consider these taxation matters, but had been called in the regular course of events -with parliament just over the horizon, could not wait for parliament to be assembled. He could not wait to submit his proposals to parliament, but in the middle of the night, by radio, while members of parliament were almost packing to come here, he imposed this taxation. And so when we are told that (a) there was an order in council, that is wrong; and when we are told (b) that parliament was called to confirm it, that is also wrong. This was done despite parliament and in contempt of parliament. Parliament met and debated various matters. Matters were adjourned and discussed. I have read Hansard and have the record, and it was not until weeks after that parliament assembled, I am certain after the Easter recess, that this matter was finally brought before it.
So that when we are told by this member that this is something which is wrong and contrary to parliamentary principles, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is at least one precedent in this matter which I am sure my hon. friends opposite will find it very hard to deny, in comparison with which this government, in following legislative authority laid down by statute and established by parliament, is in certainly a much better position, and in a perfectly proper legal position.
I was glad to hear my hon. friend say, and I agree with him, that the term "surcharges" has somehow inadvertently got, I think, into the title of the order in council, because it is the only place it appears. This is a matter dealing with tariff rates; the British preferential, the most favoured nation, and the general tariff. There is no reference per se whatsoever to surcharges except in the title of the order in council which was passed. Again I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this order in council was in accordance with parliamentary authority, not only the imposition of it but also in the relieving section which is provided for under the Financial Administration Act. I can speak with some experience
[Mr. NowlanJ	fjf[
as minister of national revenue, Mr. Speaker. I know that you never heard of any of these matters during the course of the last four or five years you served in the other parliament, but there were scores and scores of times when the then minister of national revenue, through treasury board on recommendation, relieved taxation, and permitted rebates. There were also times when taxation abatements were suspended and taxation imposed again. All those matters have been done by order in council. There is nothing unusual about these procedures whatsoever. This is a matter of practice which has come down through the years in our parliamentary association. It is one which has been recognized by all governments and by both of the parties which have formed governments in this country since confederation. I rather resent, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that there is something wrong, immoral, improper, arbitrary, and in defiance of parliament, in what we have done.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, there will be plenty of opportunities to raise this matter in parliament. I can assure my hon. friends that when my estimates come before the house they can go into the matter in any detail in which they see fit. As far as I am concerned, I would be prepared to answer any and every question in connection with the application and the implication of surcharges on the tariff structure of this country. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time now being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask whether I could have the unanimous consent of the house to bring forward item 303 on today's order paper standing in my name, being the second reading of Bill S-7, to incorporate the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada, before consideration is given to the divorce bills?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like simply to say a word on the request of the hon. gentleman. I have every sympathy with his request, but it does seem to me that we are prejudging the rights of private individuals, who have been before two parliaments now, by standing off the consideration of their petitions to this parliament in favour of some other petition. While I am not prepared

Private Bills
to withhold unanimous consent on this occasion, I do suggest that we should not forget that these other petitioners are also human beings who are entitled to fair treatment by this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) has asked for unanimous consent that the item he referred to, which is item No. 303 in the order paper, be now advanced to first position. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Leverett Morris: the second reading of Bill No. S-7, to incorporate the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to thank hon. members for their consideration in allowing me to bring forward this matter at this time. Out of consideration for this step on the part of the house I will not trespass unduly upon its time. I would commence by drawing the attention of hon. members to the peculiar position in which the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada find themselves on today's order paper. They have been in tight fixes before in Canada but never before have they found themselves isolated among 356 couples aspiring to be divorced. Indeed, one would have to look for the item on the order paper today with diligence and perseverance in order to find it. I assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill), who is interested in the order of Christian brothers-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is true.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -because of their widespread activity in the province to which he now owes his patrimony, that I will not take an undue amount of time, so that he can return to the consideration of other matters representing, one might say, the other side of the coin of Christianity. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that while the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada, who are seeking to incorporate themselves, would not approve of all of the other items under private bills today they would probably not wish me to stand in the way of that which parliament has said should be done.
This is essentially a very simple bill, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members will now have it at their places in both the French and English languages. It consists of 16 sections. It is in effect simply a bill whereby the order of Christian Brothers desires parliament to incorporate them under the title of The Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada so that they may carry on the work of a religious body and be enabled to hold property, allowed to build and conduct schools and carry out the other objectives of their order.
I should say something about the order in Canada and its international ramifications. The order originated in Ireland and its founder was Edmund Ignatius Rice, one of seven children of a well known county Kilkenny family in southern Ireland. He was first apprenticed to his uncle who had a substantial business in Waterford in the county of Cork. The uncle was an exporter, importer and dealer in ships' provisions. This is an interesting point because the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada now have very extensive educational responsibilities in the province of Newfoundland. Indeed, with regard to this measure, which comes to us from the other place, again without a murmur of senatorial discontent, a recent distinguished appointee to that body said that the greatest blessings ever imported into Newfoundland were the order of Christian Brothers and rabbits. In the province of Newfoundland the Christian Brothers are continuing their historical connection with the sea and all her ways.
Edmund Rice, the founder of the order, inherited his uncle's business and became a successful businessman. He amassed what would in those days have been regarded as a modest fortune but his instincts were always greatly humanist and he desired to turn himself to the welfare of other people, particularly by the practice of religious avocations. There was a glaring lack of educational facilities for the poor boys of Waterford and, indeed, throughout Ireland generally.
The order was not easily founded but, like so many other teaching orders in Canada and other countries, both religious and lay, it owes much of its genesis, its strength and its vitality to the perseverance and Godfearing devotion of those who gave it its being and who have kept it alive. Times and ideas change and the winds of adversity which blew upon Edmund Rice in his younger years and upon his conception of a teaching order of Christian brothers calmed and ultimately stilled. Edmund Rice took advantage of the change in attitude of the Irish people and with the approval of his bishop decided to form the members of the small community who had gathered about him into a society consecrated by vows to the service of God and religion.
In 1808 the congregation of the brothers of the Christian schools of Ireland was informally founded. Twelve years later, by brief of Pope Pius VII, the congregation was formally established and appropriately Edmund Rice became its first superior. The development of the order thereafter was rapid. Its schools spread throughout Ireland. Interesting in its history is the account of a great occasion in 1822 at North Richmond

Private Bills
street in Dublin when the cornerstone of the great O'Connell school was laid by the celebrated Daniel O'Connell in the presence of 100,000 people. On that occasion Daniel O'Connell referred to Edmund Rice, who had become Brother Edmund Rice, as "the patriarch of the monks of the west".
The order now has 12 schools throughout Canada. Two are located in Vancouver, one in Victoria, one in Montreal and eight in the province of Newfoundland. The total membership of the order of Christian brothers in Canada today is approximately 140 and they have in their trust the education of 10,000 pupils. One of their first schools in Canada was St. Mary's college, now the great Jesuit University of St. Mary's in Halifax. I hope that hon. members will not hold it against the purposes sought by the Christian brothers in this bill that the humble sponsor of it in this chamber is himself an alumnus of St. Mary's University. Indeed, the hon. and friendly parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is another graduate of Christian brothers' teaching.
Had I not been in the position this afternoon of interrupting the meditation of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on such things as 302 bills for the relief of one from another, I would have trespassed at greater length upon the time of the house to relate some anecdotes which I think would illustrate the great faith and the great humanity of the order of Christian brothers.
The purpose of the bill before us is essentially a very simple one. At the present time there is one provincialate of the Christian Brothers of Ireland which serves the whole of the North American continent. The bill before us provides for the promotion of a Canadian provincialate with its head office in the city of Montreal or, as hon. members will see in section 2 of the bill, in such other place in Canada as the corporation may from time to time determine by bylaw and publish in the Canada Gazette.
The objectives sought to be served by the statutory enactment incorporating the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada are set out in section 3. Essentially, they provide for the provision by the order of educational facilities, orphanages and novitiates; promotion of the religious life; the creation, erection, organization and administration of other educational institutions, such as colleges, schools and academies and the administration in Canada of the property, business and other temporal affairs of this religiously inclined order.
The bill thereafter, Mr. Speaker, contains the customary and predictable sections dealing with the incorporation of religious and

other bodies. It provides in section 4 for the maintenance of schools. The order desires to have the power to purchase land, to buy and sell property and indeed to finance itself by the borrowing of money.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is one which has been considered in the other place. It will be referred now, if the house sees fit as I hope it will to give it second reading, to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. The purpose, in summary, is very simple. The Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada desire to be incorporated as such. They are now operating under a North American provincialate and they desire to have a Canadian provincialate. In order to do so, they have come to parliament seeking this act of incorporation. I thank hon. members of the house for their consideration of this bill in precedence to others this afternoon, and I recommend it earnestly and fervently and with recollected affection of the Christian Brothers to the consideration of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I can speak neither so eloquently nor with such experience as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) on the subject he has introduced today. I would not have ventured to speak at all, sir, but for the regrettable fact that the great constituency of St. John's West is not represented in this house at the present time. Notwithstanding any election returns that there may have been yesterday, I am one of those people who believe, apparently differently from some other members, that constituencies should be represented in parliament and not left unrepresented.
I know that if my friend, Mr. Cashin, had been able to be here he would have wished to join with the hon. member for Halifax in supporting this bill as I am happy to do in a vicarious way. I should like to join in supporting the bill on my own because, although I have not the experience of the hon. gentleman, I do know something of the splendid work the Christian Brothers have done, particularly in the province of Newfoundland.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: the second reading of Bill No. SD-4, for the relief of Mildred Dawson Meakins.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I only have a brief comment to make in respect of this particular bill because of some

peculiarities surrounding it. These peculiarities, I might say, are somewhat connected with the general argument which colleagues of mine were presenting on an earlier occasion in connection with another bill. In order to understand the background, I think we have to look at some parts of the petition to the Senate upon which this particular bill is founded. The pertinent reasons for the comments I am about to make are contained in the petition, parts numbers 6 and 7. There are three general comments. The first one is, and I shall quote rather than paraphrase to make sure it is correct:
That after the said marriage, your petitioner lived and cohabited with the said Jonathan Fayette Meakins and there are now living issue of the said marriage three (3) children: Jonathan Lar-month Meakins, born January 8, 1941; Sally Anne Meakins, born February 26, 1942; Sandra Diane Meakins, born December 25, 1945.
So, in addition to the question of whether or not the marriage should be dissolved as this bill seeks to do, we are, I believe, concerned with the effect of that dissolution upon the children of the marriage, especially in view of the fact that one of them is of the age of 16.
Paragraph No. 7 reads:
That on or about the 25th day of January, 1961, your petitioner instituted proceedings in the superior court of the province of Quebec sitting in and for the district of Montreal for a separation as to bed and board from her said husband, for custody of her children and for alimony.
There are two points here with which we must concern ourselves, namely the custody of the children and the alimony payments. Then, there is an indication as to what the support is, and I quote:
That on or about the 5th day of April, 1961, by judgment of Mr. Justice Maurice Cousineau, a judge of the superior court of the province of Quebec, your petitioner was granted a separation as to bed and board from her said husband, granted the custody of her said three minor children and granted an alimentary allowance of three hundred and seventy five dollars a month for herself and for the support of her said children as long as they are living with her . . .
Her husband was further ordered to pay the cost of the education and clothing of the said children, and any medical and dental expenses incurred for them.
There is reference following that to a marriage agreement entered into prior to the marriage, and I shall read from it as follows:
That by ante-nuptial contract entered into on the 2nd day of June, 1939 between your petitioner and her said husband, before notary George Lyman VanVliet of the city of Montreal, province of Quebec, her husband undertook to pay her the sum of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000), which amount by agreement entered into between your petitioner and her said husband, her said husband will pay her the said sum if and when the marriage herein mentioned is dissolved, at which time
Private Bills-Divorce
your petitioner will have the legal capacity to discharge her said husband from his legal obligations undertaken in virtue of the terms of the said contract.
Therefore there are three points about which this parliament, and subsequently the miscellaneous private bills committee, must concern themselves: first, the custody of the children and their maintenance, second, the question of the payment of alimony to the wife, and third the payment of the lump sum of $25,000 referred to in the marriage contract of 1939.
As has been said earlier there are some rulings, which in my opinion are not too definite, to the effect that such things as the maintenance and custody of children and alimony to the wife are not the business of this parliament. In the past we have gone along with that view, more by reason of ignorance than anything else, but it appears we were in error and that they are things with which the parliament of Canada must concern itself. They are things which should be contained within the bill itself. It should contain more than the simple clause 1 which says:
The said marriage is hereby dissolved, and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
This bill and others like it, which will become statutes of Canada, should contain a declaration relating to the maintenance of the children and their custody, and the payment of alimony to the wife. Unless we have such provisions within it we are only concerning ourselves with half of the problem or half of the difficulty, and it is incorrect to dissolve a marriage without taking steps to deal with these other all important questions.
I know the argument has been advanced that we cannot do this because these, in effect, are civil rights and are thereby matters which come within the jurisdiction of the provinces, in this case the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec; but there are within our party and in the house hon. gentlemen versed in the law, and in particular two hon. gentlemen who have studied this question in great detail and will be able to argue, far more forcibly than I, the reason why we must concern ourselves with these matters and why we are constitutionally correct in so concerning ourselves.
For the time being I would leave it at that. I have not given any lengthy recitations from the evidence itself, but may I merely say in passing that the evidence is there and that there was extensive questioning by hon. members of the Senate committee about such things as the children, their age, civil actions in Quebec relating to bed and board, and the ante-nuptial contract referred to in the
i823

Private Bills-Divorce bill. Notably there was a concern on the part of hon. senators, in the committee dealing with this particular case, about the welfare of the children and of the petitioner herself in so far as her support and maintenance are concerned.
I for one would like to see provision made in the bill governing these important matters. Perhaps there will be an amendment to the bill when it reaches the miscellaneous private bills committee and when it is subsequently reported back to the house for committee stage and third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: the second reading of Bill SD-5, for the relief of Marion Ruth Catherine Slattery.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of this particular bill we are being asked to divorce this couple whose marriage, we are informed by document, took place in the province of Quebec. It is interesting to note that according to the bill the domicile is considered to be in Canada, although there is reference to the provincial domicile as well.
This is one of these cases where no settlement has been made, and also there were no previous proceedings in other courts to provide for financial arrangements between the petitioner and the respondent. We are also fortunate in this case that there are no children involved; but the fact that we are not given any guidance from the other place as to the settlement that will be arrived at to take care of the petitioner, seems to me to indicate a lack of something in our proceedings. I believe there should be a statement saying some arrangement has been made which will provide for the maintenance of this woman after the divorce is granted.
In examining the evidence we are impressed with the fact that in this case private detectives were not employed. The persons involved are relatives, which makes it a difficult case to discuss from the point of view that the people who are testifying are all connected with the case, and therefore some

of the contentions that are made in many of the cases where hotel and private detectives are used, are not necessarily applicable.
When this bill goes to the committee I would submit that the committee should examine it in the light of a settlement for the woman in this case, so that the committee will be assured that the lady will be looked after, because this divorce is the result of no fault of hers.


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


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment to make on this bill. I am not going to go into great detail on this point, but it is something the miscellaneous private bills committee should consider. Two people appeared as witnesses on behalf of the petitioner, each of whom is a relative of the petitioner. Usually, as we have discovered from discussing these bills previously, when so-called private detectives or investigators appear as witnesses there are also two in number. Part of the comments of the presiding judge in a divorce case in Ontario was to this effect. He said that if there are witnesses who are not licensed to practise the profession, if that is what it can be called, of a private detective, the court which hears that particular case should give the testimony of those witnesses even greater scrutiny than it would if they were licensed detectives. The argument used by the court in that case was that people who are not licensed as private detectives, when they appear to give evidence on behalf of a petitioner in such a case are nothing more than paid witnesses, and this is especially so when witnesses are relatives of the petitioner.
I am not in any way attempting to indicate that in this particular case the two witnesses who appeared might, because of an emotional attachment to the family have coloured or flavoured their evidence, but this was the attitude taken by the judge in the case to which I referred but which I do not have with me at the moment. I merely asked that, by virtue of the fact that the two witnesses involved are apparently not licensed, or there is no indication that they are licensed as private detectives under the relevant Quebec statute, the committee should perhaps give a little more care to the consideration of the evidence given by those witnesses than might normally be the case or has been the case in divorce petitions.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) knows that he cannot speak twice on second reading. He

has already spoken on this particular bill, if I am not mistaken. Is the house, then, ready for the question?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: the second reading of Bill No. SD-6, for the relief of Sonja Bagry.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill. In doing so I would like to make it clear that the only reason I wish to speak on this measure for the relief of Mrs. Bagry is to ask the house to provide adequate protection for the petitioner in its consideration of the bill. This bill asks us to dissolve a marriage which took place on May 8, 1945. Upon perusing the evidence it is clear that there are children of the marriage and that at least one of those children is under the age of 16 years.
It was suggested to the house that we must adequately exercise our legislative powers over divorce. Clearly under the statutes and under the law it is our duty to go into the whole matter of the children, their custody and maintenance. In perusing the evidence in this case it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the history of this particular marriage is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the children of the marriage. There were previous separations; the husband neglected for years to support the children, and he would appear and disappear. The whole matter of looking after the children has been very unsatisfactory. Of course, Mr. Speaker, once we exercise our legislative powers in dealing with the relief of this individual, the difficulty is that if we fail to properly take care of the custody of the children and the maintenance of the wife there is some doubt as to what will happen to any action which may have been taken in other courts. In effect, if we neglect to deal with the children and their welfare, we may leave a vacuum by virtue of the fact that in purporting to exercise our legislative power, and failing in fact to do so, we will wipe out any judgments which have been handed down by lower courts. By our very neglect in failing to carry out our legislative duties adequately we may be undoing anything which may have been done in the lower courts.
The other problem that occurs to me in relation to this bill demonstrates the absurdity of parliament dealing with these matters. It is, how are we going to enforce our edicts? Assuming that the House of Commons will accept the proposition that we simply
Private Bills-Divorce
must deal with the welfare of these children-and we do, in effect, in final passage of the bill, make provision for these children who are unable to look after themselves- how do we enforce that judgment in the event that the errant spouse decides to defy the will of parliament and neglects to keep up whatever order we may make? How do we discipline him? Do we have him brought before us periodically and chastise him and order him to carry out the terms of the bill? The whole procedure becomes an absurdity in itself, Mr. Speaker. Yet once we enter this whole field of divorce, which clearly under the British North America Act is given to parliament, we are forced into this ridiculous position of acting as a court over situations that we are just not adequately equipped to deal with.
For example, Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence before us of the circumstances under which these children live, have lived or will live. There is no evidence as to how adequately the husband can support them. We do not know what is his income. There is no way in which we as a parliament can properly and adequately deal with this matter, and yet we have the legislative duty to deal with it thrust upon us. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), when other bills were before the house, began to put the legal argument to hon. members, but since it has not been challenged there seems little point in repeating it. The legal case is strong and undisputed. Indeed, in my view and in the view of other hon. members of this party, the legal case is unassailable.
Once parliament is asked to legislate on matters of divorce it must take into account all the ancillary questions such as the welfare of the children in each case, the support of the children in the future, their education and so on. All these things must be brought before us. But, surely, it is becoming evident to hon. members that if we are really to carry out our legislative duties properly the parliament of Canada will be able to deal with little else but divorces in the time available. Presumably, there will be 700 or 800 of these cases before us eventually and we shall be placed in the position of needing to inquire into all the matters ancillary to the merits of each case. Surely, this should not be necessary. Surely, some provision could be enacted so as to remove this duty from parliament. We are not able to deal with it adequately. For one thing we do not have the information which we need. We shall do a poor job. We shall injure the parties to the application, we shall injure the children of the marriage

Private Bills-Divorce
and, no doubt, make it difficult for them to lead normal lives, all because we continue to legislate on questions of this kind.
It seems to me we should set up a royal commission to go into this whole matter-to discuss it from coast to coast, and eventually relieve parliament of a duty which it does not want and is not equipped to perform adequately.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to this divorce bill and the other bills which preceded it or will follow it, I should like to say that there are no legislators on earth-neither in our country nor elsewhere-who are authorized to grant the liberty to divorce to anyone, because marriage is a divine institution.
That is why we Social Crediters are firmly and energetically opposed to all those bills which constitute, on the part of the petitioners, a public scandal, calling for protest from all honest people.
However, I am not surprised to see that those bills are being introduced by socialists, because socialist countries are places where anarchy is prevalent, and where divorce is approved.
(Text):


Frank Howard: I had not intended to discuss this item, but at the invitation of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat I feel inclined to do so because of the accusation he directed toward me. I can understand his reluctance to give passage to this particular bill-I am assuming that his religious faith and that of the petitioner and of the respondent are the same. This, of course, is his business and it is not for me to get involved in that.
But the hon. member did make inaccurate and erroneous statements which, bearing in mind that he is a member of the Social Credit party, are wholly understandable. He said these bills were supported by socialists. Presumably he was directing his remarks at least in part to myself, because I place myself in that category, as do others in this party. If the hon. member would look at the record in a few of these cases he would see that I, together with my hon. friend from Timiska-ming are the only ones in this house who have consistently, over the years, opposed these bills and voted against them whenever an occasion arose. If the hon. member had listened he would have noticed that even with respect to those bills which have been passed during this session, and today, they were passed on division. I myself made the point that they were passed on division, indicating

to the house by the use of the words "on division" that we disagreed with the motion to pass a particular bill.
Perhaps what we should do in order to indicate what our attitude is, and show whether or not we have jellyfish in the Social Credit party or people who stand by their convictions, would be to call divisions on each one of these bills. This would show whether those individuals who now like to castigate everybody else who does not agree with them or who comes from another part of the country or who has a different linguistic or cultural background, have the courage of their convictions and will vote as their hearts dictate or whether they will hide behind the curtains as others of their party have done. (Translation):


Maurice Côté: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to correct a mistake I made a moment ago. After conferring with my friends of the Social Credit party, I realized I made a mistake when I said that those bills were introduced by socialists; now I see that they were not.
So I withdraw that sentence from my statement. I want to be frank and loyal with them. I admire the way in which they deal with a matter and the solutions that they suggest are often worth while.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion
carry?


William Arnold Peters: On division.


Frank Howard: The record will show it was we who said: "On division", Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: the second reading of Bill No. SD-7, for the relief of Lena Quelle.


William Arnold Peters: It is very interesting to note in this petition that a number of changes have been made in the presentation. I would also draw the attention of the house to one paragraph in the original petition, paragraph 9, which states:
That there have been no previous proceedings instituted with reference to the marriage or any children thereof, including applications to the parliament of Canada, petitions and writs for divorce actions, alimony or maintenance, separation from bed and boards and the custody or maintenance of any children of the marriage, and there are no agreements of financial arrangements between the spouses with reference to the marriage or any children thereof.
I wonder whether the hon. member who moved this motion would not agree to move

an amendment in respect of this particular paragraph. It is my understanding that the bill before us was introduced in the Senate a year ago. In effect, this represents a reintroduction of the same bill' with certain notations attached to it at the insistence of the Senate. 1 believe the clause which I have quoted should be changed because the inference might be drawn from the evidence that the assurance given in the petition could be taken as saying that the case had not been before parliament on a previous occasion. I suggest the fact that this petition has been reintroduced in the Senate makes this particular paragraph of the petition not applicable this year and, therefore, not correct, having regard to the date on which it was made. This situation arises from the fact that certain protection has been given to those who wish to continue their applications on the basis of a previous application a year ago. It is my opinion that a notation should be attached to the bill to the effect that these petitioners have been asked whether or not they have decided to live together again during the period in which this petition has been before parliament; whether they have reconsidered the matter; and it might also say whether the people concerned are alive or dead. In my opinion this notation should be attached to the bill. If it is not, I believe the mover of this bill should withdraw it, or at least maintain a certain amount of correctness in its presentation.
It is also interesting to note that the petition continues along these lines:
Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that your honourable house will be pleased to pass an act dissolving the said marriage between your petitioner and the said-
I will leave out the name because it is very difficult to pronounce.
-and enabling your petitioner to marry again, and granting your petitioner such further and other relief in the premises as to your honourable house may seem meet.
I wonder whether in this particular case provision has been made particularly for the petitioner so that she will be looked after? The evidence indicates that she is the innocent party, and therefore I think we should give some consideration to that part of her petition which asks parliament to grant her not only a divorce but the other relief which we have the right to grant.
Mr. Speaker, several things were said in the original petition which were amended before counsel on January 29, 1962. The original petition was changed to 1959 from 1960. The one now before us has already had this change made, and in the presentation we have there is an amendment which 27507-3-116
Private Bills*-Divorce purports to be an actual copy of the amendment to the original petition made by the petitioner. I would suggest that the original, which has obviously been amended by the report given to the Senate in January, in which they asked for the deletion of 1960 and the substitution therefor of 1959, should be before us. I think that these changes should be made, because it seems to me that this is not a legal copy of the original petition as presented; it has been amended by members of the other place.
It is also interesting to note that we are asked to give relief to a lady now living in the province of British Columbia. Because domicile is rather provincial in scope and we have never given complete freedom to our womenfolk, there has been attached to them the domicile of their husbands. Even when they have left the bed and board of their husbands they are still considered to be domiciled in the province in which is their husband's domicile. In this case the petitioner has had to come from British Columbia to Ottawa to present her petition. I am not sure whether hon. members of the other place would have accepted this petition had it been impossible to present the petition without her appearing. This raises a problem where the wife has moved to another province as distant as British Columbia and has to come to Ottawa to present her petition. I think it would have been very interesting if the legal counsel for this lady had been from British Columbia. He was not; but if he had been and he had decided to come here to present this petition, with no respondent or corespondent-because they did not appear in this case-I wonder whether we are not asking a great deal from people who do move about from province to province to return to, say, the province of their husbands' domicile to make their presentation to parliament.
I suggest that this is another instance where a great deal of cost has been added which normally would not be the case; and I wonder whether it is not now time to give consideration to the passage in this bill which says that this lady resided in the city of Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, and is the wife of so and so who is domiciled in Canada and resides at the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, and to strike out what the original bill refers to as her domicile being in the the province of Quebec, which would have allowed her, in my opinion, to present her petition in another province.

Farm Credit Act BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it being six o'clock, may I make an announcement in regard to the business of the house this evening. Last night there was a request that we continue, and attempt to complete, the bill dealing with the Farm Credit Act. I said then that the minister was busy during the course of the day with an agricultural conference, but he will be free tonight and we could go on with that measure. Consequently, I should like to meet with the wishes of the official opposition, and we will revert to that bill at eight o'clock. On its completion we will then resume the study of Bill No. C-81.
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 third reading of Bill No. C-81, to amend the Customs Tariff, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the statement made by the house leader at five o'clock I would now move the adjournment of the debate on the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before that motion is accepted, I think it was understood clearly that as soon as the farm credit bill was dealt with we would come back to this matter, and I should like to point out to the minister that it was just to accommodate the government and not because of any particular desire on our part that the farm credit bill is being called.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate the co-operation from the other side and we will revert to the other bill when the farm credit bill is finished.
On motion of Mr. Nowlan the debate was adjourned.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, November 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act- Mr. Hamilton-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 7-Co-owners.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, when we were last in committee on this bill there was some discussion on the new paragraph (d) which

centred around the changes from the original clause. That clause provided for an appraisal fee of 2 per cent of the amount of the loan, or $100, whichever is the lesser. This has been amended to provide that the borrower shall pay to the corporation an annual supervising fee as prescribed by the corporation. The suggestion is that under the regulations this fee is now $25. It was suggested to the minister that the matter would be much easier to handle and the continuity would be much greater if the new fee of $25 was written into the act. I hope the minister has considered this matter in the meantime and that he has a proposal to make in this regard.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned at the close of the discussion last night that this amendment was to tidy up the legislation in connection with the matter of appraisal fees on which we have set limits. The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that we should put some provision in the clause to limit the amount of the supervising fee. At that time I said this was covered in the regulations and the amount was $25. He suggested at that time that we should amend the act by putting this regulation in the act itself. As far as I am concerned, it does not achieve anything for the farmers but it does not hurt the act by putting it in. It is just another rigidity, and if the committee wants an amendment I can move one. It is up to the committee.


William Arnold Peters: If there is really any difference, except for minor amendments between this legislation and the former farm loan board legislation, it would appear to be mainly in the field of the supervision of credit. I believe this is a very important matter. When you offer a farmer $20,000 or some other large amount of money I believe that this credit should be protected and the farmer should be protected in whatever way appears to be in his best interests.
Over the years loans were made under the Veterans Land Act with supervision and without supervision, and it was generally conceded that in most instances the supervision was very worth while and a very valuable part of the extension of credit. If this is true, I think it is also necessary for us to try to encourage as many farmers as possible to accept supervision of their operations when they are advanced a loan and we should make the fee for such supervision as reasonable as possible. I believe the amount should not be set by regulation but should be stipulated in the act. I am not one of those who believe that it is difficult to amend statutes. I do not think there is much value in an opposition member moving an amendment but I can do so if that is desired.

We have a minority government now and if I were to move an amendment it would likely pass and the government would have to accept it. Therefore I suggest that the government should bring it in in the first place, if that is the general wish of the committee.
I believe that supervised credit is worth while. It is one of the major features of farm credit and the supervision fee should be as reasonable as possible. We have added a new section to the act which in many instances will result in farmers changing their type of operation from that to which they have been accustomed for a lifetime. A farmer may change from the production of milk for a cheese factory or the production of some other dairy industry commodity, and we are now making certain provisions so that he will be able to borrow money and make the change to a different type of farming operation. I suggest that now more than ever the farmer is going to need a great deal of supervision by duly accredited officials at as reasonable a fee as possible. It is more important now in my opinion than it has been in the past to change our farm credit legislation to provide for supervision. Certain types of loans demand supervision and there is no reason why we should not provide supervision at as low a cost as possible to the individual farmer. I hope that the minister himself will make some suggestion. The fee had been a minimum of $100 or 2 per cent of the amount of the loan. If the minister thinks that $25 is too small, then perhaps he should make a suggestion as to a proper amount.
I really believe, Mr. Chairman, in view of what happened to the last amendment it is not advisable for an opposition member to make an amendment because this will clutter up the field and leave the minister in a position of having to amend our amendment before he can accept it. I hope the minister will give consideration to doing something about the supervisory fee which is in this particular clause.


Mr. Argue:: I should like to support the suggestion put forth by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I think we understand what the minister means when he tells us that it might not be necessary to put this suggestion in the act, because it can be covered in the regulations. However, we all recall that when this procedure was followed in connection with the appraisal fee a rate was set which this committee, at this time, does not support and which has now been reduced.
If I understand the minister correctly, he is prepared to move an amendment to establish a limit of $25 per annum, and that would 27507-3-1161
Farm Credit Act
be a very wise move. The amount would then be certain and any possibility of its being increased by regulation would be removed. If the minister is prepared to put forward such an amendment, I would be very happy to support it. I feel it is a good idea to put a figure of $25 per annum in the act and I think it would be acceptable in most cases.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I said to the committee, Mr. Chairman, I was quite prepared to propose an amendment if the committee wanted it. I think we have had an indication, not only from the hon. member for Timiskaming but from the the hon. member for Assiniboia that the opposition parties do desire this amendment.
I should like to clear up one point in the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming. This paragraph that is being amended is really in two parts, and I shall read it in order to make my point clear. The old section reads:
The borrower shall pay to the corporation an appraisal fee of 2 per cent of the amount of the loan or one hundred dollars, whichever is the lesser,-
This reference is to the appraisal fee. We have already dealt with the apraisal fee in a previous amendment. We have set a limit based on a $10 flat charge plus the payment of a half of one per cent of the amount of the loan granted. This appraisal fee applies now as a maximum to both part II and part III. We are really dealing with an additional item here, and I quote:
-and shall pay to the corporation an annual supervising fee as prescribed by the corporation.
The supervising fee only applies to part III of the act. It is a standard charge against any borrower who for the period of the loan, 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, wants supervision by the farm credit officials. With that explanation, I point out that we have already dealt with the appraisal fee and have set a maximum on that. We are now requested, by at least two parties in the house, to put a maximum on the supervisory fee. I am going to ask my colleague, the Minister of Forestry, to move an amendment which would achieve this end.


Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill No. C-71, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act, be amended by striking out line 4 on page 3 thereof and substituting therefor the following :
"annual supervising fee not exceeding twenty-five dollars as prescribed by the".


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want first of all to say that I wholeheartedly support the pleas made by the hon. member for Timiskaming and other members in respect of the amendment to this clause. We are also very pleased

Farm Credit Act
to note that the minister has responded to these appeals. You know, it seems that the farmers in this house have more effect than the lawyers do on other questions. We have been able to get one or two good amendments to this bill. I think all credit should go to the minister for listening to sound and practical advice.
I am very pleased to see this because supervised credit has proven very successful indeed. In fact, it is the bedrock upon which the success of this act is built. I am very glad to know that the cost of this credit is now regulated by statute rather than by regulation. In considering this matter, we must remember that the staff is paid on an annual basis and that it travels to a considerable extent in the region over which it has supervision. This amendment will result in very little extra expense but will mean a great deal to the farmers who are seeking this advice. I have personal knowledge of two or three farmers who have improved their operations a great deal by supervised credit.


Mr. Teillei:: Before we vote on this amendment, would the minister advise the committee what the fee is at the moment?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The same as in the amendment, $25. Perhaps hon. members recall that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me about this and I said the fee was $25. He said, why is it not in the statute so it cannot be changed? I waited to get some reaction from hon. members and they seem to want it this way, so I put the ceiling of $25 on the fee and put it into the statute. This is already covered in the regulations.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumont:: Mr. Chairman, by the contented look of the hon. members who welcome the amendments proposed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), we realize that, whenever some gratuity is given or some gift made, everybody is happy.
We extend our sincere congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture for his nice gesture. Since Christmas time is approaching, he will surely be named the "Santa Claus of the year".
We hope for only one thing, that he will help us in getting other gifts, other concessions, for the consumers. And those gifts and concessions we have been advocating for so long, we are sure that, thanks to Social Credit, the day is bound to come when they will be readily accepted by all.
In the meantime, congratulations to the minister for the gesture he made.


Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the proposed amendment-this may not be of great importance-if we refer to the French

version, we find nothing concerning that matter on page 3. Therefore, should not this be added to the amendment:
(Text):
-line 4 on page 3, English version- (Translation):
-since in the French version of this bill, that matter appears on page 2?
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 7 as amended
carry?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Since compliments are flying in the direction of the Minister of Agriculture, I would like to add just a few words on the second subparagraph of clause 7 concerning the ownership of property in joint tenancy. It has always been a bit of a problem where property belongs to a husband and wife and only the husband is eligible for a loan. It is also becoming more and more accepted that husband and wife jointly own their real property, particularly that on which they have their residence, and in a case where husband and wife jointly own their property it seems unreasonable they should have to put it back into the name of the husband in order to qualify under this clause.
I think the amendment proposed here will cover one little difficulty that has arisen quite often in the administration of the act, and I am glad to see it included.


Mr. Rapp:: Under clause 7(2) where it applies to a supervised loan would that not be applicable on part 2?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale has very shrewdly pointed out another aspect of the point raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka, namely this anomaly in the bill about the husband and wife, that it was not put into the clause in part II so we already can make loans under part II to a joint tenancy. This makes it the same for the supervisory-type loans as for the part II type loans.


Mr. Rynard:: I would like to ask the minister if this security by way of life insurance is only applied to the man and, in a case where a man dies before the first payment is made, what is the outcome? Does the insurance company pay the insurance to the widow or does the loan go on? I do not know if I have made my question clear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, the question is quite clear to me. I shall read the subclause again:
The security by way of insurance on the life of the borrower shall be by way of insurance on the life of the farmer only.

So far as the act is concerned the farmer is the person who actually does the farming, so where you have a joint tenancy the insurance is taken out on the one who does the farming. The purpose of this part of the legislation is to guarantee that the loan will be paid off and the farm will be debt free. "Farmer" here means the one who does the work, and I think that covers the point.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have one further question. If the man is insured and he dies before the loan is consummated-and I may add it usually takes two or three months to get a loan through-what happens then?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that the insurance comes into effect the minute that the loan is made, or the cash disbursed. Therefore there is no period or gap. The minute the money is disbursed then the life insurance comes into effect.


Philip Bernard Rynard: But I wonder if it covers the interim. It is the interim with which I am concerned.


Mr. McPhillips:: There is no interim.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Well, if an examination is required for insurance and it takes three months after that to get the loan through, there is an interim, and if the man dies two and a half months after the examination what becomes of the loan?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Simcoe East wants an explanation for this and I agree it is an important point to the family concerned; but, as I visualize it, there is no loan made to a farmer until the money has been disbursed. If the man dies between the period of acceptance of the loan and getting the money, then he has no debt to insure. If a man comes in to borrow $10,000 and, after a period of discussion we agree to give the loan, then if it takes three months before we disburse the money and he dies in the meantime legally there is no such thing as a loan, because the money has not been disbursed. The man is covered from the very minute the loan is made.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I would ask the minister to check into it and make sure of that point because here we are examining a man, passing him, and three months after that we consummate the loan. Meantime the man becomes medically unfit, and that is the point I would like to have checked.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall be glad to check into that particular case. I think it is a matter for the insurance company, but I am not certain.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I think all hon. members are delighted to see this new subclause 2. It will be particularly welcome in eastern Canada,
Farm Credit Act
especially Ontario, where owning farms by joint tenancy has become very popular since the end of world war II. However I wonder whether the minister and his officials, when they are considering this, would give consideration to including the case where farms are owned by tenancy in common. That also is a very popular method of owning property between husband and wife, and it is somewhat different from a joint tenancy.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am learning a great deal about the law on these matters, and I am informed under part III that it would be the supervised type of loan. Since we can only supervise one person then we have to deal with that one person we are supervising; but if a person holds property in common we can give him a loan under part II where supervision is not required. The niceties of that will be clear to anybody who does supervision for the farmer.


Reynold Rapp: Would the minister give an explanation of what is meant by joint ownership? Does it mean that the title to the land has to be made out in the names of the husband and wife or does it mean there is just a partnership between the farmer and his wife?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member is asking me for legal advice. As I understand it, it is a technical definition of joint tenancy where two people hold a title in common and if one dies the property belongs to the other. This is a device, used by men and women who are married, by which they own property jointly. Perhaps some of my legal friends would know more about this, but that is how I understand it. It is a joint ownership and if one dies the property belongs to the other.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say-


Mr. Godin:: Filibuster.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: You are not
interested in agriculture.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I think we have been talking around what is the intention of the act. We are not interested in every province's interpretation of the sections of the British North America Act. The intention is good; let us pass it. We will thrash it out after we get it into operation. We are not getting anywhere, the way we are going.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could give us an idea of the total amount that came forward for supervision fees last year, or for each of the years the act has been in operation.

Farm Credit Act


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, after a reasonably quick calculation the estimated amount is about $20,000 per year for supervision fees under part III, supervised loans.


Hazen Robert Argue: Carried, Don't love it to death, boys; let's pass it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to hear that the hon. member for Assiniboia is not interested in going into these sections as carefully as some of the rest of us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am just curious as to-


Hazen Robert Argue: You are coming in rather late.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am just curious about this. I could not quite make out from the minister's previous answer whether consideration has been given to including tenancies in common as well as joint tenancies under this section. I am referring, of course, to husband and wife.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Apparently, Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between tenants in common and joint tenants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that under this section we just handle joint tenants' supervised loans. But if the hon. member wishes, we will look into the possibility of providing loans for tenants who are holding property in common. What the difference is, I am not quite sure.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you talking about land?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 7 as amended carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I will not go into questions of joint tenancy or tenancy in common, because we might get ourselves back to the period between five and six o'clock this evening. I was going to ask the minister whether he could explain what I consider to be a rather curious part of both the old and new section 27 (1); that is, the inclusion of a covenant by the borrower that he will follow the plan of farming operations approved by the corporation. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I am speaking on the wrong clause.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are even better than you thought you were.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise.


Hazen Robert Argue: Block this Tory filibuster of their own legislation.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The motion to rise is not debatable. I was merely signalling to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that I need the motion in writing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you insist, Mr. Chairman, on having it in writing, I will do that.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are running for the whips.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. It is moved by Mr. Pickersgill that the committee now rise. Will those in favour of the motion please rise.
During the taking of the vote:


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Watch them behind that curtain.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: You can't vote.


Some hon. Members:: Watch them.


Hazen Robert Argue: Watch them over there.
After the taking of the vote:
Motion (Mr. Pickersgill) negatived: Yeas, 54; nays, 89.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Before announcing the result of the vote in committee I think I should remind hon. members of standing order 12(2), which states as follows:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the house, or make any noise or disturbance.
I think we failed on several counts there, especially the latter part which speaks of noise and disturbance.
I declare the motion lost. Shall clause 7 as amended carry?


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the minister a question, the answer to which I am not sure about. There are one or two things I have learned tonight. One thing I learned was that there are no farmers in the riding of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. However, the question I wish to raise is this: are the insurance policies which borrowers take out under both part II and part III loans compulsory in each case? What charge is made to the borrowers under each part in respect of life insurance received as security? Is it a charge imposed above and beyond the charge for the loan? Finally, how is it arranged?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have already passed clause 4 of this bill to amend the Farm Credit Act but I shall have to refer to it in order

to answer these questions. Clause 4 makes it possible for a borrower under part II to take out life insurance. Putting this change into the act makes it optional whether or not a borrower under part II takes out life insurance. Under part III it is mandatory that life insurance be taken out.
I should like to emphasize the importance of this insurance provision in the operations of the Farm Credit Act. One of the difficulties we encounter in trying to help farmers to set up economic units is their reluctance to borrow money, for reasons going back over many years of home and church teaching. This shows up in various ways. In the first place they are reluctant to borrow and then, if they do receive a loan, they think they have been improvident. The protection afforded by life insurance means that one of the great fears in the minds of young couples taking on a large loan has been removed. The fear always existed that should the husband die his wife would be left, possibly with young children, unable to carry on the farm operations alone and saddled with a heavy debt. By making life insurance compulsory for borrowers under part III, which is only available to young people between 21 and 45 years of age, we have been able to eliminate the fear which existed in this respect because, should anything happen to them during the period of their working lives, insurance would take care of the debt and the improved farm could be transferred to their family debt free.
The insurance rates we were able to obtain are very attractive. Most members of this committee would probably be glad to be able to get protection at these rates from such a scheme. I shall put the figures on record so that the committee may know exactly what is paid by those who take out insurance under either the optional section or the compulsory provisions. I will give this table to the Hansard reporter after I have read it. It sets out the annual premium during the total amortization period. As an example, the
Farm Credit Act
premium a young farmer of 21 has to pay each month for a loan of $1,000 is ten cents. So if a farmer takes out a loan of $1,000 his premium would only amount to $1.00 a month during the early period of insurance. It should work out to $12 a year.
Most of us cannot buy insurance of this type at such a price. If the borrower is 25 years of age his premium is still ten cents. If he is 30, it is ten cents; if he is 35, it is 13 cents; if he is 40, it is 22 cents; if he is 45, it is 37 cents; if he is 50, it is 61 cents; if he is 55, it is 94 cents and if he is 61 it is $1.60.
I have been looking into this a little further. If the loan is held for any length of time, the premium goes down. If the loan is held for 29 years, the premium for a year on $1,000 is $1.13; for 25 years it is 98 cents, for 20 years it is 85 cents and for 15 years it is 76 cents. A person who pays 13 cents a month in the initial stages would pay $3.50 a year on a 29-year loan, $2.91 on a 25-year loan, $2.29 on a 20-year loan and $1.79 on a 15-year loan. If a person were 50 years of age he would pay 61 cents a month in the initial stages. Afterwards, on a 29-year loan he would pay $13.85 a year, on a 25-year loan $11.75 a year, on a 20-year loan, $9.48 a year and on a 15-year loan $7.66 a year.
I should like the permission of the committee to put this table in the record as it is, so that hon. members may study it and see how cheap this insurance is to those who make use of it under the terms of this act.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it agreed that the table from which the minister quoted shall form part of his speech and be printed as such in Hansard?


An hon. Member:: What is the use? He has already read it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
Table of Premiums (per initial $1,000 of loan)
Age	Premium Per	29	25	20	15Nearest	Month During	Year	Year	Year	YearBirthday	Interim Period*	Loan	Loan	Loan	Loan21 	
$ .10	$ 1.13	$ .98	$ .85	$ .7625 	
.10	1.46	1.22	.99	.8430 	
.10	2.21	1.82	1.43	1.1335 	
.13	3.50	2.91	2.29	1.7940 	
.22	5.61	4.70	3.76	3.0045 	
.37	8.89	7.49	6.03	4.8950 	
.61	13.85	11.75	9.48	7.6655 	
.94	21.37	18.37	14.91	12.0161 	
1.60	35.38	31.33	26.00	21.09
*Interim period is period between date of loan disbursement and first instalment due date.

Farm Credit Act
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture three questions.
1.	Which insurance company is covering those loans?
2.	What arrangements were concluded with that insurance company? Were tenders called for a so-called "group" plan or was it allocated through patronage?
3.	Would the premiums be very high should the protection be extended to the age of 50 for borrowers? Would it be possible to do so?
(Text) :


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In reply to the hon. member for Bellechasse, I am informed that all the insurance companies were asked to submit tenders for the provision of insurance of this type. The company which submitted the lowest tender was allowed to provide this insurance under the act. I have the name of the company here, but unless the hon. member asks for it I shall not mention it.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, under part II of the bill loans are not supervised. I wonder whether it could be made possible to have loans under part II supervised as well as loans under part III. I say that because I know of a case in my section of the country where a husband has died and his widow is left with 8 children. She has a loan of $15,700 under the act and she would like to have supervision. Why should she not be allowed, on payment of the fee of $25, to be included in the loans which are supervised?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, the question of supervision is compulsory under part III, and a fee of $25 is charged. But under part II of the act, where farmers are allowed to borrow up to $20,000, supervision is now possible if it is requested, and the same fee is paid as under part III. I understand that a number of farmers do ask for this type of help, because it is of great advantage not only in the spending of money but in actually solving their farm management problems from year to year. The farm credit supervisors and the credit advisers are very pleased to carry out this service for anyone who requests it. I might add that for a $25 fee it is very good service.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, in a case where a farmer gets a loan for, say $10,000, and then, having listened to the members of the Social Credit party, he finds himself in a position where in the first year he can pay off one half, can he then re-insure himself for the other $5,000 in such a way that he would not have to pay on the original $10,000 for the balance of the 25
[The Chairman.]
years? Can he just cut it in half? For example, if a farmer had a $10,000 loan and suddenly finds himself with a windfall-not that that happens very often-can he then reinsure after the first year on the basis of $5,000, or does he have to pay back interest on the basis of the $10,000 for which he originally asked?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the observation of probably the newest married member of the house. Many people are sorry to see a bachelor leave the ranks, but I should like to congratulate him on his very fine choice, and also for the complexity of his question. It took me a long time to understand what it was all about, but I think the answer to it is this. If a farmer pays off a loan, having had a windfall-although I do not know what the hon. member had in mind there-then there is no question of insurance; it is all paid off.


Stanley James Korchinski: What I was referring to was the case where someone gets a loan for, say, $10,000. If he pays off $5,000 in the first year is he bound to pay off the rest of the loan on the basis of having borrowed $10,000 or can he renew his agreement on the basis of his having paid off $5,000 in the first year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I understand that if a person has a loan for $10,000 and, having had a windfall, pays off $5,000, so that he only owes $5,000, the original contract of insurance stays in force until the loan is paid off. This is a contract between the borrower and the insurance company, and I think that is the way they interpret it.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask one further question? Is the amount of interest then deducted from the final amount which has to be paid by way of interest? That is to say, if you start off with a loan for $10,000 principal and you pay off $5,000 in the first year, you then have left $5,000 principal. If you have 25 years to pay that off, is it calculated in a different fashion, or is it calculated on the basis of $5,000, or on the basis of $10,000 so that you must pay the interest on $10,000 as you originally agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is still the same in so far as the insurance payments are concerned. But if the amount of the loan is lowered by paying off $5,000, then obviously the amortized amounts are less on the balance of the loan, inasmuch as it is paid off faster and the interest is less during the period of the loan. That is the natural course with paying off any loan.

(Translation):


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is still of the opinion that the adoption of the bill under consideration is a matter of urgency and that the farmers will suffer if it is delayed?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I gather this remark from the hon. member is intended to demonstrate his serious interest in farming. I would say yes, the farmers of this country have demonstrated, as I showed in my original charts, a tremendous demand for credit, not only for the 30-year mortgage type we are discussing now, but also for the short term and intermediate types of credit from the banks and under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I am very anxious to get this bill through-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very anxious to get these amendments through because there is a backlog of applications which have been turned down over the last year or so which I think we can cover under these basic amendments to the act. In answer to the hon. member, I would say yes, the farmers do want this type of amendment, and they want it very badly; and I am sure the seriousness of his remarks will be judged by the public in his constituency.


Mr. Legare:: Let us vote on it.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, following the information given by the minister a while ago, about the tenders from insurance companies, I wish to inform him that I have been involved in the establishment of an insurance company and I can assure him that during the first year, the profits are insignificant or non-existent. Therefore, if tenders were called some years ago, would it not be in order to do so again, because I am under the impression that the rates would not be the same and that other companies would like to have the opportunity to insure farm loans.
On the other hand, why not give each province the right to insure those loans?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think we are satisfied with the rates we have now. If the hon. member will examine the rates on Hansard and could tell us of any company who wanted to offer cheaper rates, then we might consider calling a new tender in the future; but at the moment we are very satisfied.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I intervene with some trepidation in view of the strictures-
27507-3-117
Farm Credit Act


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Is the hon. member for Bellechasse asking a supplementary question?
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Would some companies be allowed to render in order to give them a chance? That is especially what I should like to know. I appreciate that the rates are low, but other companies would be interested. Would it not be possible to reopen tenders?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the hon. member wants us to reopen tenders on the rates of insurance that we have, my point was that there would not be any point in opening up new tenders unless we had solid evidence that some company wanted to come in and give substantially lower rates. If the hon. member has such a company in mind, we would be glad to hear from them.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I was starting to say that I intervene in this debate with some trepidation because of the strictures laid down by the hon. member for Kootenay West who did not want to see lawyers taking part in the debate on this farm credit bill. However, there is a very real problem arising out of this particular section. When I was here earlier in the evening it was being discussed and I do not know whether an answer was ever provided. I refer to the intended meaning of the words "in joint tenancy". In the province of Alberta there are two forms under which title may be held by husband and wife, either as joint tenants or tenants in common. The distinction is that if the land is held in the name of husband and wife as joint tenants and not as tenants in common there is title by survivorship. On the death of one spouse it is only necessary for the surviving spouse to obtain a death certificate and file it in the land titles office. Automatically, without the necessity of filing for probate, title will then be changed into the name of the survivor.
On the other hand, joint tenancy is construed to be ownership by each of an individual half interest in the land. I can recall that over the last ten years I have probably drawn several hundred transfers of land and in each instance I have advised my clients to accept the transfer as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. The new subsection 2 of section 26 in clause 7 of the bill reads in part as follows:
.. . where a farmer and his spouse are owners of a farm in joint tenancy . ..

Farm Credit Act
I would submit to the minister that if that is construed strictly it might well in the province of Alberta rule out as ineligible a very large number of husbands and wives who own as joint enants and not as tenants in common. If a sympathetic attitude is adopted and no strict interpretation is made, with the result that the words "joint tenancy" can be extended to cover the thousands of cases which I know exist in the province of Alberta, I think this will meet the situation.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 8-Mortgage covenants.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to section 27 in clause 8 of the bill intrigues me somewhat and I think I can best preface my remarks by reading it.


An hon. Member:: We have all read it.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: It reads as follows:
27. (1) A mortgage given to secure a loan under this part shall include a covenant by the borrower that he will follow the plan of farming operations approved by the corporation, will permit supervision and inspection of his farming operations as required by the corporation until the principal amount of the loan outstanding has been reduced to 75 per cent of the appraised value of the land and will annually submit to the corporation in such form as the corporation may prescribe a net worth statement, a statement of revenues and expenditures and such other information respecting his farming operations as the corporation may require.
What occurs to me is this, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: I wonder if we could have a little order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: You guys are just killing time, so don't take it too seriously.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order, please. Throughout the evening, and notwithstanding any objections that have been made, there has been a great deal of conversation in various corners of the house which has made it very difficult for the Chair to hear. Whether hon. members wish to hear what is being said is of no consequence. I am in a position where I must hear what is being said, so I would ask hon. members to co-operate.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Chairman, what concerns me are the words "net worth statement". When I read that I automatically think of the hon. member for Davenport who has a very large firm of accountants. I believe such statements are rather expensive to obtain. Would this mean that the farmer would have to consult a firm of that kind or could he go to some hick bookkeeper in Elkhorn, Manitoba, to get his net worth statement?

That is something we should look into. I am not criticizing the hon. member for Davenport. He has a nation-wide reputation. He has to have suitable quarters and his fees have to be reasonably high. On the other hand, in Elkhorn, Manitoba, fees are not high, but would such a net worth statement be acceptable under the circumstances? I think we should have an explanation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised that the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia did not assist the debate more by reading the old section 27, subsection 1, which the new one is intended to replace. I have just received some Hansards, Mr. Chairman, from a member who is apparently unable to read but I must return them to the source from which they came. Seriously speaking, since we have farm delegations in the gallery they must have been somewhat mystified by the apparent lack of desire of the opposition to deal with this bill properly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Since I am a city slicker at heart I should like to raise a question. It has to do with the new section 27, subsection 1, and I will only quote part of it.
A mortgage given to secure a loan under this part shall include a covenant by the borrower that he will follow the plan of farming operations approved by the corporation-
It is this part of the section on which I should like to have some information from the minister. It strikes me that this is an unusual type of covenant, one I suppose that must have given the law officers of the crown some anxiety before such a requirement was written into the section. However, it is not my purpose to raise the legality of the covenant but rather to ask the minister to inform me how this section of the act operates. How does the corporation see to it that the farmer follows the plan of farming operations which is approved by the corporation? That is my question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Section 27, which is now being amended by clause 8 of the bill, is the heart and soul of part III of the act. If you are going to have supervised credit, you have to have an understanding with the borrower that he will follow the plan of farm operations approved by the corporation and will permit supervision and from time to time inspection of his farm operation in order that we can assure ourselves that the farm operation is being conducted in such a way the farmer will be able to repay his loan.

Farm Credit Act
Now, what this amendment is doing, and what has been overlooked, is that before the amendment was introduced the borrower was forced to stay under our supervision until he had reduced his loan to 65 per cent of the value of his land. Now, by reason of the amendment, it is 75 per cent. We have put the borrower in this part on the same basis as a part II borrower so that he knows he is not being discriminated against. This is very important because if a young borrower wanted also to borrow under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, he used to have to wait until his borrowing was down to 65 per cent of the land value before he could use the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This amendment means he can borrow under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, for example, when his debt is reduced to 75 per cent of the value of the land. This is the heart and soul of a very fine piece of legislation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a very simple question. There is a reference in this clause to 75 per cent of the appraised value of the land. Does that mean what it says, "of the land"? If it does, I do not believe that is very fair because, in my experience it is very difficult to get an actual appraisal of farm lands. The farm is a unit, may be worth a great deal of money, but the per acre value of the land may be very low. If this section means what it says, then it seems to me that there may be many areas in which you might have an expensive dairy operation valued at $75,000 while the land may be worth only $100 per acre. If the appraised value of the land is the criteria, then you will have to reduce the loan until there is no loan and it would still not equal 75 per cent of the value of the land.
I feel that the wording should be changed to include the appraised value of the farm operation instead of the appraised value of the land. One of the biggest complaints of the farmers in my area is about land prices. They say the price of the land has no real relationship to the value of the farm as a unit. In most cases the buildings are more expensive than the farm land. Sometimes a dairy herd will be much more expensive than the land. The total farm operation, of course, will be worth more than the land. If the borrower has to reduce the loan to 75 per cent of the appraised value of the land, you are almost asking the borrower to completely wipe out his loan from the corporation. I suggest this should not be a requirement.
At a certain time a farm improvement loan might be advantageous to the farmer, perhaps after he has made a number of payments on a loan of this type. This loan might 27507-3-117i
enable him to improve some other aspect of his farm operation so that his total operation would be increased. I wonder if the minister really means land, and if he does I think this clause is worthy of some discussion. I think even the Liberal members of the house should try to give some consideration to this matter, if there are any of them interested, because it seems to me the farmers are very much concerned about this problem of the unrealistic valuation that is put on land.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member could get a clearer picture of the meaning of the word "land" in this clause if he went back to the interpretation section of the act. Land is defined there as meaning the land which is farmed by the farmer or land which has been purchased by the farmer for immediate occupation and farming by him, and includes the buildings and other improvements thereon. The meaning of "land", is not just the land itself but a good deal of the farm operations are included as well.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What would be the situation under these circumstances? I am thinking of a farmer in my constituency who owns a property with 700 acres of water on it, which is included in the assessment. Would that be included as land under this bill?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I think the hon. member for Timiskaming brought up an important point, and I am not sure that the minister has got the point. Farming is becoming more specialized all the time, as the minister knows. The hon. member for Timiskaming spoke about dairy farming, but I believe his remarks apply to farming generally. His remarks apply equally to farmers raising pigs, sheep and a lot of other things. In a great many cases the value of the buildings and equipment far exceed the value of the farm land. I think something should be done to make this section more realistic in its application.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I believe there is a slight misunderstanding in so far as this section is concerned. We do lend not only on the value of the land and buildings but also on the value of the equipment and livestock. If these items are part of a whole farming operation, such as hon. members suggest, we lend money on those things under this particular section. The borrower has to reduce his loan to 75 per cent of the value of the land, which is defined as the land and buildings, but we do lend money beyond that on the equipment and on the livestock.
The hon. member for Kootenay West brought up a question about a lake. This is a very serious question because under the

Farm Credit Act
amendment if there is a lake on the land which has any value, and if the farmer wants to use that lake and can get income from it, it would be included as part of the assets under the new amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
On the title-
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the title carries, I have one or two observations to make. We accommodated the government, as I pointed out at eight o'clock, to get through this bill in a very short time. I simply want to draw attention-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to the fact government supporters have filibustered this bill for two hours while the Prime Minister complains about the lack of progress in our work.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to speak to a point of order. The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate is completely out of order in his remarks, and for him to raise the subject in this way when he moved that the committee rise which meant that the bill would be killed-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -is going beyond all limits.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At the same time the hon. member talks about co-operation and attempting to get the business through the house, he attempts to kill the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege since the minister has been permitted, without interruption, to make a personal attack upon me. I point out to the committee that the only effect of my motion would have been to take this bill off the order paper. All the government needed to do was to make a motion to put it back, and it would not have been killed. The only reason I made the motion at all was to draw attention to the fact that after we had offered co-operation to get the bill through, we were treated to this disgraceful filibuster.


Mr. Fulton:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate ought occasionally to refresh his memory by reading the rules because, if he did, he would know the effect of his motion would have been effectively to kill the bill; and he cannot escape that responsibility.


George James McIlraith: That is not so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Any suggestion of co-operation is completely negated by the fact that his motion would have had the effect not to make it possible to start over again but also, as he knows, to destroy the motion to have the committee to sit on the bill. That was the whole effort and purpose of the hon. member's motion.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: As a new member I had not intended to participate in this debate but I could not let the last interjection by the urgent member for Bonavista-Twillingate go past without commenting that his extravagance of expression suggests an anxious nature at which I am sure all Canadian farmers must wonder. As I say, I did not intend to speak but I represent a large rural constituency and I propose to take a minute or two to discuss the bill.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Just before the
point of order was raised, and I have some doubt about its authenticity on both sides, we had reached the point where I put the title. If the hon. member for Royal wishes to make a contribution at this stage, recognizing that subsequently there will be third reading at which time his remarks might be more relevant, he will have to stay very close to the title which reads "An act to amend the Farm Credit Act."


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am prepared to stick fairly close to the title, which is an amendment enlarging the scope of the Farm Credit Act and is an achievement of this administration. The very word "amend" in the title shows that the Farm Credit Act, as we brought it in, was not sufficient and now we are doing more with it to assist the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have not been called to order by the chairman and I propose to continue until I have been. We have heard interpolations from everybody else and I do not think my participating in the debate for a minute or two will do any harm. As the title suggests an enlargement of the act I think this gives me a chance, on behalf of the farmers of Royal, to congratulate the minister on the winds of change that he and this administration have brought about on the agricultural scene. The old farm loan board was negative in its policy-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Even the patience of the Chair can be exhausted at times.
Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. McGee:: Obstruction.


Mr. Habel:: You had your night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Agriculture.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that we give third reading now, by leave.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no leave, Mr. Speaker.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan for the third reading of Bill No. C-81, to amend the Customs Tariff, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas.
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a hockey game or baseball game. Let us get on with the business.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, after the somewhat relaxed atmosphere in committee it is rather difficult to discuss the matter of the amendment which the house has in front of it on third reading. As I was sitting waiting for the debate to be resumed I could not help thinking how short are human memories.
We were told this afternoon that this government had done something that was derogatory to parliament, had done something without authority, and done something concerning which we should have the concurrence of parliament. We are therefore now being castigated and it has been suggested that because of our wrongdoing this bill should now be referred to a committee, based not on the bill but based on actions which, as you pointed out quite correctly in your ruling, were entirely independent of the bill.
I wonder how many hon. members remember the situation with which this nation was confronted in June. I am not going to try to assess responsibility for it at the moment. There will be other times and places when that can be done.


An hon. Member:: The sooner the better.


George Clyde Nowlan: The sooner the better. I am not going to deal with that, but at the moment I would like to look at this in a cool, non-partisan fashion rather than in the hysterical fashion of some hon. members. I am not assessing responsibility at the moment,
Customs Tariff
and the responsibility may be dependent on various factors; but there is no doubt that in June the Canadian dollar was subjected to terrific pressure and this nation faced an exchange crisis. The opposition speak of it as if in the cold dawn of a languid morning the government should have dealt with this thing dispassionately and should have consulted parliament, as suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). However, Mr. Speaker, he forgets the fact that there had been an election and that cabinet ministers, like everyone else in the house, were tired. We had just come through a long strenuous campaign. They came back here and were faced with this crisis.


An hon. Member:: They were no longer
ministers.


George Clyde Nowlan: If you have any more wisecracks stand up and make them, or sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Not only do gratuitous remarks interfere with the regular course of debate but I would also direct the attention of the hon. members to the fact that if they are not sitting in their own places they cannot even be heard. I would commend that to their attention as well.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not want to pursue this matter too far. I was simply saying the government was confronted with that situation immediately after the election. Ministers came back here and faced that situation. We dealt with it; we dealt with it energetically and firmly, as a result of which the crisis was overcome and the exchange fund has been improved. Whatever criticism may be levelled as to responsibility-as I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not going into that question at the moment-I think everyone recognizes the fact that this government dealt with a very difficult situation, dealt with it firmly, dealt with it quickly, dealt with it realistically, as a result of which we are sitting here today in a relatively-and I say "relatively"-good position in so far as the finances of this nation are concerned, and particularly our exchange fund.
This is not only my own assessment of the situation, Mr. Speaker. It was suggested this afternoon that there has been no opportunity to discuss this matter, that no one has reviewed it. I am not going to again refer to the debates in the House of Commons which I mentioned this afternoon. I simply call the attention of hon. members on all sides of the house to the fact that the executive of GATT reviewed this situation within the last two or three weeks and the findings of that organization I tabled in the house the other afternoon. What did they say? GATT

Customs Tariff
said that we, the contracting party, regretted that this action was necessary. Certainly we, as one of the contracting parties, regretted this action. Certainly the Canadian government, ministers returning from an election and any other Canadian would regret the fact that we had to take the action we did take.
We have heard responsible hon. members- particularly one hon. gentleman who has had experience in this House of Commons in days gone by and who since then has been premier of his own province, with heavy responsibilities resting on his own shoulders-talking as nonchalantly and as easily as he did this afternoon about our having disregarded the rights of parliament, as though parliament was something you could start with a push button and then turn off, about concealing things from parliament during those difficult days of June and July. GATT said the contracting party regretted it, and we agreed with that, because we did regret it. GATT said they consulted the international monetary fund, which means, when you look into it, that the I.M.F. agree that this action should have been taken. GATT said there was an undertaking that we would revise or do away with these surcharges as expeditiously as possible. Mind you, there were people and parties-I do not mean political parties, but financial parties and organizations-who did not expect that finding to be made. There were those who suggested in the press and elsewhere that there would be. a time limit placed upon this action; that we would be required within a certain period to do away with certain disciplinary action we had taken. Instead of that GATT accepted our undertaking that we would do away with these measures as expeditiously as possible, that we would report to the council when it meets some time next spring.
There was a review there, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest to hon. gentlemen in this house that if they consider the background of that review and the circumstances under which we were compelled to take this action, it certainly is not appropriate and it is, to put it on a very human basis, not fair to suggest that the government did something which was a reflection on the rights of parliament; that we tried to destroy parliament. When I think of the hours and days which I spent in this house when other people tried to destroy parliament, I find it rather hard to accept that criticism, in view of what prevailed in previous parliaments.
I, personally, in many ways would like to see this amendment adopted. I would like the actions of the government to be reviewed by the banking and commerce committee. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I was told by

someone sitting here a moment ago, who was in the banking and commerce committee meeting this morning, that this was one of the matters on their agenda. I do not know whether that is so. But as I said, in some ways I, personally, would welcome this, because I would like to bring before the banking and commerce committee the evidence which would justify the action this government has taken. If we brought that evidence before that committee, those who are sponsoring this resolution would go away from the committee with their tails between their legs like dogs who had been whipped.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we are not entirely masters of our own fate in this very closely knit world. The financial situation is such, the exchange situation is such, that something could happen to it. For instance, if the motion of no confidence which was moved by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had carried in the house the other evening, and if overnight we had to remove all of these, shall we say, restrictive actions which this government has taken, I suggest that the reaction on the exchange fund and on the Canadian dollar would make the storm of last June look like a summer shower and we would have been in a much worse situation than we were. If we had not taken this action in June, if the government had sat back, if we had summoned parliament, for instance, as is suggested-and in many ways we would have liked to summon parliament-within a week after the election, because of the uncertain political situation I think the Canadian dollar would have been at 50 cents or less. It was essential that this action be taken. We have taken it. We are prepared to stand on the record.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have it reviewed by a committee. I am not sure what the reaction would be outside of this nation if we agreed to such action at the moment. There might be a reaction, in view of the delicate situation which prevails, and because of the uncertain political situation alone. We have been talking about an election which sometimes comes over the horizon. If there were an election in the immediate future, in view of the uncertain situation, in view of the uncertainty that developed after June 18, an uncertainty which I think largely precipitated a run on the dollar-and it has been said time and again recently that hon. members opposite would welcome another election-I do not know what would happen in the present situation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility to conserve the financial situation, to avoid any crisis which might develop, to avoid any run on the dollar and to maintain

the financial integrity of this nation: and that this government is determined to do as long as it is responsible for the financial affairs of the nation. Therefore all I can say at the moment is that I very much regret the fact that an hon. gentleman with long years of experience in administration, and the record he has of responsibility as a premier, and knowing the responsibilities with which people in public life are faced, particularly those on the treasury benches for the time being, felt it necessary to move the motion he has moved this evening. He wants a review of this matter. He can have a review in almost any way he suggests, provided it is not one which attacks the integrity of the financial position of this country and the position of the government on these matters for which we are responsible.
Mr. Speaker, our estimates will be before the house before long. There are a dozen ways in which this matter can be dealt with. I suggest to the hon. member, even yet, that he should withdraw his amendment and we should pass this bill which, after all, as far as the financial structure is concerned, is a minor matter. We have all agreed on that. It is only a small section. It is not the bill, though, Mr. Speaker; it is the implications of the amendment which has been moved and which is before us, which suggests that all the financial measures which this government has taken should be reviewed and perhaps discarded, and that-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: I hear somebody saying,
"Hear, hear". If that were done, the financial situation of this nation would be a very serious one indeed. I am again asking the hon. member to withdraw this amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am much more impressed with the tone and temper of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) has said since dinner than with what he said before dinner, and I think the whole house has been impressed in the same way. I will try to make my contribution, as far as I can, in the same vein. I am rising to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam, and I think the arguments put forward by the minister are the best possible support for it.
If what the minister says is correct, if the financial situation of this country is as precarious as the minister has just portrayed it as being, then there is the utmost need for complete unanimity in the parliament of this country. It seems to me that the minister misapprehends what we understand by
Customs Tariff
responsible government when he says parliament is not to be trusted to consider these matters. All the motion seeks to do is to send this bill to a committee. The minister suggests that all sorts of dire consequences would follow from such a course. If there were any dire consequences, those consequences, I suggest, would be on the heads of those who were irresponsible enough to bring them about. I doubt if the minister was seriously suggesting that his colleagues here in the House of Commons are a lot of irresponsible people. If he was, I think the minister is more of an old fashioned pre-Responsible Government Tory than I had thought him to be.
Let me make this clear. We did not criticize the government for acting in the emergency. My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) took a position in June which, perhaps, some of his partisan friends thought was not partisan enough. I was not one of them. I agreed completely with the position he took. His statements can be read by any hon. member who cares to do so, and some hon. members ought to read them instead of indulging in the foolish and untrue statements they frequently make about these matters. Notwithstanding the fact that extraordinary action was taken in a way we thought, and still think, was unconstitutional and perhaps illegal, my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, confined himself to saying that the most important thing was to safeguard the value of the Canadian dollar and that he, and those associated with him, would not do anything to lessen the effectiveness of the steps taken by the government in that regard. But one thing he said should not be forgotten. Speaking as a Liberal, he said: parliament should be called as soon as possible to deal with these matters.
That is what should have been done. I can go back to the analogy with 1947 which the government is always using. That is what the government of that day did. The government of that day was faced with an emergency when parliament was not sitting, but my friend Mr. Abbott who was minister of finance at that time went on the air and announced that parliament, when called, was going to be asked to enact legislation to provide for certain taxes but that the Department of National Revenue was authorized to collect them immediately. However, they would be placed before parliament. I have the documents right in my hand if anyone would like me to read them, but I prefer not to take the time. Mr. Abbott said in parliament: I did not impose those taxes. I have no right to do so, but I did give fair warning

Customs Tariff
to the people that we were going to ask parliament to have the taxes made retroactive, and we have a majority.
The bill which is before us right now is a bill which imposes taxes-taxes which have been imposed since April 10 as a result of a statement made by the hon. gentleman's predecessor. And what did the hon. gentleman's predecessor, or the chief of the hon. gentleman's predecessor, do? He did not give parliament a chance to deal with this matter. He had parliament dissolved. The consequence was the election of the kind of parliament we have now, where the minister is very unsure whether he can get his bill through at all. That is the difference between the situation in which Mr. Abbott found himself in 1947 and the situation in which the government finds itself with respect to this bill. I am not talking about the surcharges, but about the bill itself. These charges have been imposed since April.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question so that there may be no confusion at all? The bill which is presently before us does not impose any taxes whatever, because it reduces taxes. Is that not the case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there is any difference. It does not matter whether taxation is increased or reduced. It is the imposition of a tax. I might point out to the minister that if this bill does not pass, his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, would have to instruct his officials to go back and collect all the back taxes on the old basis if, in fact, this bill does reduce taxes, because that would be the law. The law has not been enforced since April.


George Clyde Nowlan: Can the hon. gentleman point to one clause in this bill which imposes a tax?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it is clearly understood that I have the same latitude as to time as has the minister, I would be glad to deal with that point, but I do not think it is a very important point compared to some of the other matters which have been raised.


An hon. Member:: Caught out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might remind hon. gentlemen opposite that I listened to the minister without a single interruption of any kind.


Mr. Speaker:: I was hoping we would not get any more interruptions. The minister was accorded a courteous reception by the house and I think the hon. member is entitled to the same, as are all hon. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would remind hon. members, some of whom may have forgotten, that these surcharges were imposed not by radio

but by television, because we have moved with the times. The Prime Minister had this to say-I am reading from the words he used that night:
It is natural to expect that the measures taken will be discussed by parliament when it meets.
There were some of us who took the Prime Minister at his word and who expected to find in the speech from the throne words similar to those found in the speech from the throne in 1947. Here is what was said in the speech from the throne in December 1947:
Provision of a temporary character has been made to conserve and supplement Canada's reserve of United States dollars. The measures recently announced to deal with the various aspects of the immediate foreign exchange difficulty will be submitted for your approval.
That is the attitude of a government which considers itself responsible to parliament. What we are complaining about is that we now have a government which boasts that it has no responsibility to parliament, a government which boasts that parliament should not be allowed to look at what it is doing, a government which says that parliament should have nothing to say about the imposition of taxes; that the verdict of the people last June should be disregarded entirely. That is just what the Minister of Finance has said this evening-that the views of parliament should be disregarded entirely, that the distortion and, in our view, the misuse of statutes enacted for another purpose should be a cloak to impose taxes and that parliament should not have any chance to consider them.
I,	personally, would have been willing to forgive the government for using any device it might have found to hand to meet the crisis of last June, though I think it would have been better to have followed the example of Mr. Abbott and to call parliament as soon as possible in order that parliament might deal with the matter. That would have been a better and more constitutional way of doing things but, as I say, I personally would have said that in a crisis such as arose last summer, whatever measures needed to be taken should be taken and the government of the day should carry them out. What I complain about and what, I conceive, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and those associated with him in putting forward this motion complain about is that this government, though in a minority, did not come as quickly as possible to parliament to say: "The elected representatives of the people have the sole right to tax in this country. This is a tax and we ask you to co-operate with us in dealing with this national emergency."

That is what should have been done, and if it had, I suggest that the government would have had the opportunity to present the good case which the minister boasted it had. The minister said he would like to bring the evidence before us. Well, we should have liked to have it. Is the minister suggesting that there is any member of this house who, given the evidence, would be so unpatriotic that he would not do what was in the national interest? Is that the view that the minister takes of the members of this house? Because it is not the view that I take, and I do not believe it is the view the majority of the members take.
Now, sir, I feel I should very briefly point out what the effect, as I understand it, of this amendment would be. This amendment does not kill the bill. Except in a very temporary way it does not even interfere with its progress. During the time that it may be under consideration in the banking and commerce committee, if the hon. member's amendment is accepted, the tax structure will carry on in exactly the same way as it has since April 10. Nothing will be changed outside this house. There is no urgency, in that sense, about passing the bill, none at all. What it would do is to enable the minister and his officials to come before the committee and, as the minister himself said he would like to do, tell us what the real situation is, tell us what the real problems are, and tell us what really ought to be done to meet this situation. I am perfectly sure that if the minister and the government are willing to trust the members of the house to do their duty as Canadians, they will not be disappointed. Therefore, sir, for the reason that it will not kill the bill, for the reason that it will not defeat the government, and for the reason that all it will do is to give to parliament the right to scrutinize taxation, I ask that this amendment be accepted.
Mind you, I think it is second best even at that. I think it would be much better if we had a bill before us and parliament determined these things right here. The minister talked about discussions on his estimates, and other opportunities of that sort. We want the right, as the elected representatives of the people, not just to discuss but to determine these matters. We are the ones who have the right to determine them, not a handful of half discredited ministers sitting in the cabinet. I say that because the government has failed to act in a responsible fashion, and I use that term in its correct constitutional sense. It has failed properly to discharge its responsibility to the elected
Customs Tariff
representatives of the people and to bring a tax measure before us. We have sought by one means or another open to us under the-rules to bring this matter before the house in some fashion in which hon. members could get at it and could find out what was really needed in the national interest, and find out how much was really needed in the national interest. While I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would consider this a second best, it is still a great deal better than having parliament totally ignored and bypassed, and refused any opportunity to consider $200 million of taxation imposed by television and order in council by a Prime Minister who, on Dominion day of 1960, talked about other taxes raised by order in council and said that that was not going to happen any more. I suggest that all hon. members read the passage which was read by the hon. member for York-Humber this afternoon as reported at pages 5648 and 5649 of Hansard, where the Prime Minister gave the most categorical of undertakings that never again in this country would taxes be imposed by order in council. Not two years had passed when on June 24 there was imposed $200 million of taxation by order in council, the like of which has never happened before in Canada at any time, or perhaps in any other country where the British system of responsible government prevails. For that reason, sir, because we believe in responsible government, I am happy indeed to support the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, just last week the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said in this house: "We are here to defeat this government". I fully realized when elected last June 18 that I came to support a minority government, but I felt that opposition tactics would be tactics based on principles. I knew the opposition would bring votes to the floor of this house one way or the other to try to defeat a minority government. But what do we see? Last week, putting party before country, the hon. member for Essex East said that the only thing he had to do here was to defeat the government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


William Heward Grafftey: Since the official opposition and the party to my far right do not seem to be able to accomplish this on matters of' principle, we see before us fractious procedural debates. The hon. member who was just spoken knows that this amendment and:

Customs Tariff
this particular procedure on third reading is very extraordinary. I think it is all the more extraordinary that this whole debate is taking place when the hon. member realizes full well that in another place today we agreed, and I thought agreed in a bipartisan manner, to bring forward the type of subject that the hon. member wants to have discussed. I felt that his remarks on the floor of this house, after what went on in another place today, were slightly hollow when we consider the good fellowship which took place in the other place; and I say that in all sincerity. If hon. members opposite wanted to discuss in committee particular matters pertaining to this bill, which does not have the wide significance they would like to attach to it, or if there were any doubts relating to surcharge matters then I suggest those doubts were fully explained by my minister during the committee stage in relation to items 440m and 440n. They agreed that these matters were explained. Therefore it becomes quite apparent that all hon. members want to discuss, if this bill is put back into committee, is something which is not germane at all to the bill. They want to discuss the broad and general topic of surcharges. I think they would have been much more forthright with the house if they had come out and said that rather than proceed- Mr. Speaker: Order. It is now ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business of the house will be for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, which is one of the short days, I thought the house might consider six items standing in the name of the Minister of Justice and take them in this order. Four of them are resolutions, which of course could pass rather quickly and then the bills would be before us later on. The first item would be Bill No. C-49, to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act. The second is resolution No. 25 on today's order paper, to amend the Judges Act. The third resolution is No. 26, to amend the Admiralty Act. The fourth is the resolution which is No. 22 on today's order paper, a measure to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act, then, fifth, Bill No. C-48 which deals with the revision and consolidation of the Interpretation Act, and No. 6, the resolution dealing with the Revised Statutes of Canada.
On Thursday or Friday we propose dealing with the resolution respecting a national development board. It will depend on certain arrangements I have to make with the Minister of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 21, 1962