1962-02-16

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: On Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question concerning the long term textiles arrangement. I said then that I would make an announcement on this subject on Friday.
The house will recall that an international short term arrangement on trade in cotton textiles was negotiated in Geneva last July. Canada signed the arrangement on September 5, and it came into force on October 1 for the period of one year. The short term cotton textiles arrangement was aimed at expanding export opportunities for the less developed countries which produce cotton textiles in substantial quantities, while at the same time preventing disruption in the domestic markets of importing countries.
Negotiations have been going on intermittently in Geneva since last October for the purpose of drafting a long term international arrangement on cotton textiles which would replace the short term arrangement when the latter expires on October 1, 1962. These negotiations have been carried out in the cotton textiles committee which was established for this purpose by the contracting parties to the GATT. Nineteen countries, including Canada, are represented on the cotton textiles committee and, taken together, these countries account for the bulk of world trade in cotton textiles.
At the last meeting of the cotton textiles committee which was concluded in Geneva on February 9, agreement was reached on the text of a five year long term cotton textiles arrangement. This text was made public today. It will now be submitted to the governments of the participating countries and, if approved, will become effective on October 1, 1962, the date on which the short term arrangement will lapse.
Like the short term arrangement, the long term cotton textiles arrangement is aimed at the orderly growth of international trade in cotton textiles. To this end it provides that countries now maintaining restrictions on the 26207-1-59J
importation of cotton textiles shall progressively relax these restrictions over the life of the arrangement. On the other hand, countries such as Canada which do not impose restrictions can, under the terms of this arrangement, request an exporting country to apply restraints on exports to their markets of cotton textile products when imports of such products cause or threaten to cause disruption in the domestic markets of the importing countries. These provisions are, of course, broadly similar to parallel provisions in the short term arrangement.
Because of its five year life, however, the long term arrangement departs in one important respect from the short term arrangement. It provides that if restraints are requested along the lines I have just explained and if such restraints are maintained for more than one year, the level of imports shall be increased automatically in each of the following years.
The cotton textiles committee recognized, however, that certain countries which are already importing a large proportion of their requirements of cotton textiles are in a special position, and cannot be expected to commit themselves to automatic increases of imports of sensitive cotton textile items without regard to the situation in their markets. As far as Canada is concerned, we have made it clear on many occasions that we accept the principle of orderly growth in imports of low cost textiles. This does not, however, mean automatic increases in every item every year whatever the state of the domestic economy or of our own industry.
Whether or not the long term cotton textiles arrangement is accepted by the principal countries concerned, we shall continue to pursue a policy which, while avoiding flooding and disruption of our market for sensitive cotton textile products, will permit an orderly expansion of trade on fair and reasonable terms. This is the principle of orderly growth in trade in cotton textiles to which we subscribe and which the long term arrangement on cotton textiles seeks to apply internationally. If all countries will play their proper part the aim of the arrangement, which is to increase export opportunities of cotton textile producing countries while at the same time avoiding disruption in the markets of importing countries, will have been achieved.

Textiles Arrangement


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: 
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: The
members of this group thank the minister for his statement on this very difficult and

complicated problem, especially since we are trying to increase our overseas trade without affecting our own Canadian industry or preventing its maintenance, improvement and development. One thing about this approach that I like is the sort of self imposed quotas by the countries concerned at the request of countries that might be affected. Regardless of the difficulties of the problem and the short run arrangement we have to make, the members of this group are of the opinion that our final objective must be at all times freer world trade.
(Translation):



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that the republic of Italy will purchase flight simulators of the F-104G Lockheed Starfighter aircraft in Canada. Confirmation has been received from Italy by Canadian Commercial Corporation, together with commitment of funds necessary for the immediate commencement of work.
The value of the Italian order is estimated at approximately $2 million. The simulators will be built by Canadian Aviation Electronics Ltd., Montreal, under contract with the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Technical and administrative supervision of the program will be the responsibility of R.C.A.F. and Department of Defence Production officers who are exercising the same functions in respect of the Canadian, German, Netherlands and Belgium simulator programs which were placed with Canadian Aviation Electronics in the summer of 1960.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence perhaps I should ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if there are any plans to reconvene the Canada-United States ministerial committee on defence, which last met a year and a half ago.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: There are no plans at the moment.



PETAWAWA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Renfrew North asked whether the government has rejected a proposal to assist in providing hospital accommodation in the two Pembroke hospitals.
I have been informed that the Department of National Defence has not received any proposal to provide hospital accommodation in the two Pembroke hospitals for dependants of army personnel stationed at Camp Peta-wawa. If the hon. member was referring to requests for assistance for construction with regard to the Pembroke Cottage hospital, it will be recalled that this matter was raised during the discussion on the estimates of the department last September and was fully dealt with at that time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the brief and cryptic report in today's newspapers as to what occurred in the senior political committee of the United Nations general assembly during the vote on the Soviet bloc resolution relating to Cuba, and in view of the importance and interest in this question, will the minister provide the house with further information concerning the proceedings and Canada's position?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, during the first committee's debate on the item regarding the Cuban complaint against the United States about alleged aggressive plans and interference in the internal affairs of Cuba, a draft resolution was put forward by the Czechoslovakian and Rumanian delegations. The resolution prejudged the issue and was an attempt to make mischief in an already complicated situation.
For these reasons the resolution had little support in the assembly. The only paragraph which found any favour was a preambular restatement of charter aims, worded in general terms. In separate votes the remaining preambular and the two operative paragraphs were rejected and no vote was taken on the resolution as a whole, as neither operative paragraph carried. Canada joined with the overwhelming majority of members in opposing the resolution. There was no point in supporting any part of this communist move
Inquiries of the Ministry which, however innocuous it appeared, was designed to make United States-Cuban relations worse.
(Translation):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that the Department of Justice is going to build a large rehabilitation centre in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi and since I consider this matter as highly important, I should like to obtain some information from the minister.
A certain Paul Derome, president of an organization known as the "Federation des Fonds Maisonneuve" which is to look after the rehabilitation of former inmates, has hinted that once his centre is opened in Rose-mont, it will receive $15 per week for each person entrusted to its care by the penal authorities. Here is my question. Are we to understand that the penitentiary branch of the federal government will subsidize this organization?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker. Grants to this organization were never contemplated.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another question. Is it true, as suggested by Mr. Derome, that the "Federation des Fonds Maisonneuve" is an institution for the rehabilitation of former inmates which is recognized by the Department of Justice as well as by the penitentiary commission and the remission service?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker, this organization is recognized neither by my department nor by the penitentiary commission nor by the remission service.


Mr. Chevrier:: Then, it is not true.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport.
930	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Following his talks in Ottawa yesterday with Mr. Jean Drapeau, mayor of Montreal, and Mr. Lucien Saulnier, would the minister care to comment about the tolls on Jacques Cartier, Victoria and Champlain bridges?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I did have a talk yesterday with the mayor of Montreal and the chairman of the executive committee, Mr. Saulnier. During that talk we discussed, in an entirely preliminary way, the removing of the tolls on Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us whether, in the course of that talk, reference was made to the approaches to Champlain bridge?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed in a general way several problems concerning the relationships between my department and the authorities of the city of Montreal and we have dealt also, in a general way, with the question raised by my hon. friend.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Could the minister tell us whether he has heard from the Quebec government?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the house whether, in the course of that same talk, reference was made to previous discussions about the development of parks and grounds along the St. Lawrence river, in the city of Montreal?


Léon Balcer: Not this time, Mr. Speaker. (Text):



REPORTED STATEMENT ON INCREASE IN EXPORTS TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question is based on a statement made by the Cuban ambassador to Canada, as reported in the press recently. Is it the intention of the government to encourage an increase in Canadian pur-


chases from Cuba in order to reduce Cuba's trade deficit with our country?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Would the hon. member mind repeating his question? I am afraid I did not catch the point.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I asked the minister whether, in view of a statement made recently by the Cuban ambassador, it is the intention of the government to encourage an increase in Canadian purchases from Cuba in order to reduce Cuba's trade deficit with our country.


George Harris Hees: I think the hon. member is referring to an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette yesterday, which I saw, entitled "Canada to buy more from Cuba soon, Castro envoy declares". My attention was drawn to the article in the Montreal Gazette and I do not know where the Cuban ambassador obtained his figures, which were vastly exaggerated. Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister made a statement on February 2 on Canadian-Cuban trade and at that time indicated that for the first nine months of 1961 Canada's exports to Cuba were $21.5 million and imports from Cuba were $4.6 million.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH COMMUNIST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: A number of questions were asked of me yesterday. As reported at page 880 of Hansard the hon. member for Essex East asked:
Is it a fact that the government or its agencies are now negotiating with communist China for the sale of further grain by Canada to China?
Discussions took place between representatives of the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company recently during a visit of the commissioners of the Canadian wheat board to Hong Kong, but no negotiations are under way at this time.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: A question was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont in which he asked whether I would make inquiries to ascertain whether the ship Tank Empress then loading grain at Halifax

Inquiries of the Ministry
under the Chinese wheat deal was in fact whether he would give consideration to the not destined for a Chinese port but was sail- question I asked him on two occasions in ing on February 15 for a communist bloc connection with the report on information by country.	the Department of Agriculture. The last
I have been advised that there is no in- reply given by the Prime Minister was that formation presently available as to the final he had not been aware it had been published port of destination of this vessel. I might or submitted, on July 31 and he would look add, however, that diversions are permissible into the matter and perhaps make a state-to certain countries which are not regular ment to the house. I wonder whether he is commercial markets for Canadian grain.	in a position to do so now.



MEETING WITH PREMIERS RESPECTING NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West made an inquiry regarding correspondence I had with the various provinces suggesting that in a spirit of co-operation there might be a meeting of federal and provincial representatives to give consideration to the problems that would arise in the setting up of a national grid.
I may say that letters went to all provincial premiers, and eight of them have agreed that such a step would be appropriate and in keeping with the attitude taken by this government. While power development within a province is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, interpower developments between provinces are of interest and concern to the federal government. Under the circumstances I hope that the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland will see fit to join in such a meeting with the other eight provinces and agree just to discuss the matter. I am sure that no possible harm would result. We intend to proceed in that way, giving the provinces, their officials and experts the means whereby they together with us may discuss this matter which we believe is of great potential value to the future development of this country.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister table the correspondence he has had with the provincial premiers in this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: There has been a motion to that effect, and as soon as we are in a position to do so all the correspondence will be tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the questions the Prime Minister answered earlier, I wonder


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman has stated, on two occasions he asked a question in regard to a report submitted to the Minister of Agriculture by Harry M. Halliwell.
I indicated to the hon. member on both occasions that I had not had an opportunity of examining the report.
Having now looked it over, I do not think there is anything further I can say other than that the report is readily available to all, and I would again suggest to the hon. member, if he has any further questions on this matter, that he ask them upon the return of the Minister of Agriculture, which I hope will not long be delayed, when he may receive more detailed information.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Two or three days ago, I directed a question to the Secretary of State on the same subject. I asked him to tell us why certain documents were not published in French in the province of Quebec. Did he have the opportunity to inquire of the officials of the Department of Agriculture about the reason for such a situation? If so, has he a statement to make to the house?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: I made inquiries following the question put by the hon. member for Laurier, but I have not yet received any information. However, I should like to point out that this matter does not come under the Secretary of State and that the Queen's printer acts according to instructions. At any rate, early next week I hope to be in a position to give a definite answer.
(Text):



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received the further information he said he would obtain concerning the possible new site for the town of Churchill.
932	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the only information I can give at the present time is that this question should be directed to another minister. I believe the question of the site for the town of Churchill would come under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Public Works.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I observe that the Minister of Public Works is not present. If his parliamentary secretary is in the chamber perhaps note could be taken of my question and the minister could answer at a later time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that we were told four years ago there would be amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act; in view of the fact the government caused His Excellency to state in the speech from the throne a year and a half ago that the government proposed at that time to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, and in view of the perilous state of the fund, may I ask the Minister of Labour if we may expect amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act before the dissolution of the present parliament?


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that there was any mention in the speech from the throne of actual amendments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, oh.


Mr. Robichaud:: Short memory.


Michael Starr: However, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. gentleman may I state that a royal commission is presently reviewing the entire act, and we are awaiting its recommendations.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I was aware, Mr. Speaker, of the government's diversionary tactic in appointing a royal commission. May I ask the minister if he could tell us if the royal commission will report to the government before the dissolution of parliament, in order to enable the government to bring forward legislation based on that report or on the views which the government itself may or may not possess?


Michael Starr: The length of time required by the commission to make its report is a matter entirely within the hands of the commission.


Peter Francis Martin: It will not report?


Mr. Churchill:: Why does the hon. gentleman constantly mention dissolution?



CHILDREN OF WAR DEAD ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of Bill No. C-65, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-63, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from Whitecourt, Alberta, in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 23.2 miles to the property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1-Construction and. completion.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to report on the meeting of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in so far as consideration of this bill is concerned. Unfortunately I was not present at the committee meeting-not that that makes any difference-and I think the committee would wish to know what was the position taken by the officers of the C.N.R. and in general what the minister has to report since the measure was before us on an earlier occasion.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I can assure my friend the hon. member for Laurier that his absence from the committee certainly did make a difference.


Lionel Chevrier: It went through faster?


Léon Balcer: The bill was studied by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines yesterday. Present were four witnesses: Mr. George Scott, of my department; Mr. Fortier, legal adviser of the department; Mr. Purves, in charge of developments for the C.N.R., and Mr. MacDougall, senior counsel of the C.N.R. The bill was studied clause by clause and hon. members of the committee had the opportunity to ask questions. The witnesses gave an excellent resume of what was involved in this bill, and members of the committee had the opportunity to question the witnesses at length.

Personally I feel that all the required information was supplied by the witnesses, and I do not intend to add anything to what I said at the resolution stage and at second reading. I wish only to repeat that it is a very good bill. Under its terms the C.N.R. will work with private enterprise to develop the natural resources in that section of Alberta. Under a special agreement that has been signed there is a guaranteed minimum tonnage of substantial proportions. The witnesses had the opportunity to state at what rate this ore and other goods will move over this branch line.
This is an excellent project. All the expenses of the C.N.R. will be met through the rates and the contribution made by the company. I feel the bill should commend itself to the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a further question? Did any of the witnesses indicate the amount of the contribution that is going to be made by the company to the C.N.R. in consideration of the construction of the line?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Chairman. This is a point of information that could not be given to the committee. Both the witnesses and myself explained to the committee why it is necessary to avoid publicizing certain information. We do not wish to jeopardize future similar contracts between the C.N.R. and private companies, nor do we wish to put the private company in an inferior position in competing with similar sulphur companies.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister will recall that when the resolution was under consideration I gave a figure as the amount I had understood was being paid by the company, namely $1,800,000. Is the minister able to say whether or not that figure is accurate?


Léon Balcer: Unfortunately not, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Léon Balcer: moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-48, to amend an act respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Optic lake to Chisel lake and the purchase 26207-1-60
Canadian National Railways by Canadian National Railway Company from the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited, of a line of railway from Sipiwesk to a point on Burntwood river near Mystery lake, all in the province of Manitoba.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the committee would expect the minister to make a short statement relative to what took place in the standing committee with reference to the bill.


Léon Balcer: Yesterday, while we were studying a previous bill, the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines studied this bill clause by clause and the witnesses were questioned at length on matters of interest to the committee such as the mileage and the cost. The witnesses for the railway also had an opportunity to give a brief statement on the operation of the old branch line. They also explained to the committee that this new addition to the previous branch line would serve two mines of the same company, one at Chisel lake and the other at Osborne lake. They also explained that the ore from Osborne lake is going to be moved by truck to Chisel lake and that from Chisel lake it will be shipped, together with the ore from Chisel lake, direct to Flin Flon where the smelter is located.
This bill did not require a resolution owing to the fact that there is no new requirement in respect of money. So far the amount spent on the Optic lake branch line is below the departmental estimate, with the result that there is enough money left to cover the expense of building these eight miles of branch line.
I think this is another example of these branch lines in which the C.N.R. by contract is compensated for all expenses it has incurred for the purpose of giving service to the particular venture. This is another example of the great development works that are going on in the province of Manitoba, and I have no hesitation in recommending this bill for adoption by the committee.


The Chairman:: I recognize the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I observe that the hon. member for Churchill wishes to rise, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield to him.


Mr. Simpson:: As I mentioned previously when this particular bill was being discussed by the house, I am extremely pleased to note that we are taking such speedy action on this measure. It is very important that this development go on at this time. The mining company concerned have worked out a

Canadian National Railways schedule in relation to their shaft sinking programs. It is therefore extremely important that parliament co-operate in order to have these measures put through so that the construction of the line can be carried out as quickly as possible.
During the discussion in the committee a few interesting features came to light, and I think a brief history of the situation would be timely. I am sure all hon. members will be pleased to know that the cost of these eight additional miles of line will come well within the original estimate made when the first 52 miles of the line were built. This extension is going to make a total of 60 miles of branch line. The original estimate leaves available enough money to provide for the additional eight miles.
One other thing which came to light during the discussion and which is of particular interest is the fact that when these additional eight miles of line are constructed from Chisel lake to Stall lake at a point where the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company are currently sinking their second shaft in that area, the railhead will still be a distance of approximately 12 miles from a third shaft that is being sunk, namely the one at Osborne lake.
Questions were asked as to the plans for transporting ore from Osborne lake to the end of steel at Stall lake. We were advised in the committee that it was the thinking of the company concerned that the ore from the new Osborne lake shaft would be transported to the railhead by road, a distance of 12 miles. Someone asked why the railway was being extended only eight miles to Stall lake while the transportation of the ore over the additional 12 miles was going to be done by road. I believe the witnesses who appeared before the committee gave a good answer when they said that the 12 miles of road had to be built anyway because it is necessary for the transportation of the miners, who will be working at the Osborne lake shaft, from their homes in the community of Snow Lake. Therefore it seemed more desirable when the company was making its plans to build a 12 mile road from Stall lake to Osborne lake and to transport the ore over that distance by trucks.
Incidentally, the 12 mile road from Stall lake to Osborne lake was constructed under a northern development program with the province contributing one third of the cost, the federal government one third and the industry concerned, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, one third.
There is an interesting story involving the area now being opened up so quickly as a result of the road building and the additional

branch line of the C.N.R. Near the three shafts that have been mentioned, Chisel lake, Stall lake and Osborne lake, is the town of Snow Lake, Manitoba. There is a very interesting story involved which ties in closely with the northern development that is rapidly taking place at this time. For a number of years the citizens of Snow Lake were engaged in gold mining operations at the Snow Lake gold mine, a subsidiary of the Howe Sound Company or Britannia. The operation at Snow Lake lasted for eight or nine years. Some four years ago a notice was issued that the gold reserves at the Snow Lake mine had become depleted and the mine would be closing. The seven or eight hundred people living in the town were faced with the fact that their means of livelihood was being ended.
However, about this time Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, which had been doing a lot of exploration and development work in the area, discovered copper and zinc ore bodies. As a result the 52 mile railway line which came into being by reason of the act which we are now amending was constructed. Instead of the town of Snow Lake becoming a ghost town, business picked up as a result of this new development. New housing construction has been undertaken in each of the last three or four years and Snow Lake, which was on the verge of becoming a ghost town, now has a particularly bright future for many years to come. This has all happened because of the ingenuity and interest of the mining concern now operating in that area, which was very ably assisted, of course, by the northern' development program of this government.
I am very pleased to see that the bill has now reached the committee stage. I hope the bill will be passed as quickly as possible so the legislation will come into effect and work may proceed on the eight mile extension to the Optic lake-Chisel lake railway line.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am sure hon. members have listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Churchill, who has a particular interest in this project because of the fact that the line is located in his riding. It does happen from time to time that the house gives favourable consideration to lines and projects of this kind which are of interest to an individual member. I am happy to support this project, one aspect of which, as I indicated earlier, that involving the line from Sherridon to Lynn Lake, was undertaken when the former government was in power. It was a development which the house felt should be furthered and to which the house gave its support.

The first extension to that line was approved by the former government but introduced by the present government and by the predecessor of the present Minister of Transport. Now this amendment has been brought before us. These are some of the reasons why, as I indicated at a previous stage, we on this side of the house cannot do other than support the legislaton and give it our approval, as we did then and as we do now.
One or two questions come to my mind as I look at the bill. I would ask the minister why it is not in the same form as Bill No. C-63, having to do with the construction of a line by Canadian National Railways from Whitecourt, Alberta, westerly 23.2 miles. I know the minister will answer that we are now considering an amendment to a bill introduced in 1957, I believe, but there is the added point that all that is being amended here is the schedule of the act. The schedule only is being amended, because the C.N.R. was able to construct the line authorized under the original bill at a cost much less than estimated, and with savings in the cost of construction of the original line it is now possible to build this additional 8.2 miles, I believe, for the amount estimated in the first place, $8,840,000.
This question arises. Why was it necessary to come to parliament at all? I can understand that when projects of this nature are involved it is always better to bring them before parliament, which is the place where the country can find out about lines that are being constructed in one region or another, but that question comes to my mind now. I quite understand why there would not be the necessity for a resolution because of the fact that no additional funds are required. However, under the Canadan National Railways Act is there not provision for the authorization of an addition such as this without the amendment to the schedule? Perhaps the minister would address himself to that question.


Léon Balcer: As the minister responsible for the passage of this bill, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I was very pleased to hear the speech made by the hon. member for Churchill, which outlined the tremendous developments occurring in his riding and the good effect the present bill will have in securing jobs for a number of miners and other people connected with the two mining projects.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier was wondering why we were proceeding by way of a bill in this case. First of all, it is another, perhaps minor, proof of the tremendous care this government always takes to keep the representatives of the people of Canada informed. We have a 26207-1-60i
Canadian National Railways tremendous respect for the importance of parliament, and for that reason everything we do is brought here and discussed at length. We want to give all the information possible, as long as it is in keeping with the traditions, regulations and rules. In this case the reason we brought in this amendment was precisely because we were amending a previous bill that had been passed by this parliament. I do not think it would have been proper to construct this extension without correcting a previous statute, because the purpose of this bill is the prolongation of a line which was authorized by this parliament.
We want to keep all hon. members well aware of what we are doing in that area and what the government railroad is doing in that area. We are very pleased to bring this measure before the committee. I really believe everyone in this house will agree it is a good bill. There are no procedural complications and the committee knows quite well what is involved, because my distinguished predecessor was responsible for the introduction of the previous bill connected with this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who was your
predecessor?


Léon Balcer: The hon. member for Broadview. My predecessor did a very good job while he was in office, and that bill was an example of the tremendous job he did.


Lionel Chevrier: I had asked the minister a legal question and he saw fit to inject a political note into his answer by speaking about the great care that is being taken by the present government. I would remind him that the government is not too cautious about some of the things it does, particularly with reference to the wheat agreement with China. We have now been asking on a number of occasions for the details and terms of that agreement-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -but the minister has not seen fit-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think his remarks should be restricted to the clause under consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: In speaking on the point of order I should like to draw to your attention the fact that Your Honour did not see fit to bring the Minister of Transport to order a moment ago when he was discussing a matter which was not within the orbit of this bill. On the contrary, I put to the minister a strictly constitutional and legal question, and he proceeded to deal with it politically. Your Honour saw fit to allow him to reply in

Canadian National Railways that vein but now, because I bring into the discussion an extraneous matter, Your Honour interrupts my question and my manner of proceeding.


Léon Balcer: On this same point of order-


Lionel Chevrier: If you will allow me to finish.


Léon Balcer: I thought you were about to take your seat.


Lionel Chevrier: Not until you take your seat.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member for Laurier had not finished his observations.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going on with reference to the point of order which was raised, namely that it was improper for me to raise an extraneous matter. I admit at once that the China wheat deal and the manner in which the government has treated that deal is extraneous to the bill under discussion, as is the fact that the government has refused to give any details on that matter. I admit at once that I was out of order and that the matter is extraneous. However, the point I was raising was that the minister, instead of replying to a purely technical question, proceeded to inject a political note-


Léon Balcer: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment.


Léon Balcer: Are you speaking to the point of order or are you carrying on with your speech?


Lionel Chevrier: I still have the floor.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would ask the hon. member for Laurier to complete his point of order as succinctly as possible.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what I have been attempting to do, but I have been interrupted twice by the Minister of Transport who apparently feels himself hurt by the statement I have made.


Léon Balcer: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the minister will be given an opportunity to reply in a moment. The only point I am making is that if I am out of order in my attempt to indicate the lack of information the government has given about the China wheat deal, then the minister should not be allowed to state politically what the government is doing with reference to this particular bill.


Léon Balcer: In answer to the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Laurier, I would say I made it a point in my remarks to say precisely that this government is very anxious to give all the

information that it is possible for the government to give, according to the various laws and regulations of this country and the rules and traditions of this house. We have always endeavoured to do that and will continue to do so. We are very pleased to be able to give this information, and we will keep on giving it.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the agreement?


Léon Balcer: I think the political issue that has been raised has been raised by the hon. member for Laurier. He should be the last person to stand up and say someone is raising politics, because he is bringing the China wheat deal into this little railway line in Manitoba, and I do not see the point.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the point of order has been sufficiently discussed. As I understand it, the minister made a reference to the concern of the government, and I do not think it was unrelated to the subject. I would ask the hon. member for Laurier, who has the floor, to continue, but to continue discussing this particular clause and not refer further to the China wheat agreement, which he has admitted is an extraneous matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I will do my best to follow your ruling, Mr. Chairman. In so doing I want to bring to the attention of the minister one or two things he has just said in dealing with the point of order. He has said that this government is anxious to give all the information, within the regulations, within the rules and within the law, to which parliament is entitled. Well then, I ask you, why don't you produce the agreement in connection with this line? You have been asked repeatedly to do that, but you have refused to do so. You produced the agreement in connection with the Pine Point railway, and if you produced the agreement in connection with that railway then I think we should be entitled to the agreement in this case.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member for Halifax is raising a point of order.


Mr. McCleave:: I am only pointing out that the hon. member for Laurier is simply flying in the teeth of the ruling made by the Chair.


Mr. Benidickson:: He is talking about the agreement relating to this railroad.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I believe the hon. member is relating his remarks to the subject.


Lionel Chevrier: It is perfectly apparent that the hon. member for Halifax has not been following the discussion. If he had been he would not have raised the point of order which he did. The point I am making now

is that if there is an agreement between the company and the C.N.R., then I think this house is entitled to find out what is in that agreement. I asked the minister, since he produced the agreement having to do with the Pine Point railway, why would he produce the agreement in one case and not produce it in the other.
The answer that has been given is not satisfactory. It is not one that answers the point which the minister himself made, namely that this government is anxious to give all the information and to abide by the rules and regulations in connection with matters of this kind. That being the case, I now invite the minister to give all the terms of the agreement which was entered into between the C.N.R. and the company; second, to tell us the amount of money that is being paid-the amount of the contribution, if any, that is being paid by the company; and third, what is the freight rate under which this product is going to be moved. I think the house is entitled to have that information.


Léon Balcer: To answer the previous question asked by my hon. friend as to why we should bring in this bill, according to the Canadian National Railways Act the C.N.R. can build a branch line of less than six miles without coming before parliament. In this case it is a matter of eight miles, and that is one of the reasons we have the present bill.
To answer the renewed argument by my hon. friend, in which he was blaming us for not tabling the agreement, we all know why we are not doing that. It is because the tabling of the agreement might be damaging to the government railway and also might be unfair to the private company in the face of competition from its competitors. On that point I should like to quote a sentence uttered on Tuesday, March 28, 1950, at a meeting of the sessional committee on railways and shipping. I think it will clarify the tradition that has been followed for quite a long time on matters of branch line construction. One hon. member said:
Well, Mr. Chairman, as far back as I can remember it has always been the policy of this committee to give as much information as possible, but when an officer of the Canadian National Railways makes the suggestion or gives it as his opinion that it might not be desirable to give out certain information, it has been my understanding always that such information was not made public; that in the past the committee has always followed the advice of the officers of the railway.
These very historic sentences were pronounced by none other than the hon. member for Laurier himself, so we are simply carrying out this tradition. In this case I am informed by the officials of the C.N.R. that it is not desirable to give out this information,
Canadian National Railways and that is the reason I am not giving it. We are following a tradition, maybe one which was not established by the hon. member for Laurier but a tradition that has been continuously defended by him, and I think he should be the last one to come here and try to say the government is hiding information because we do not want to produce an agreement between the C.N.R. and a private company. I do not think his argument stands. He knows this very well, because he was minister of transport and had to defend branch line bills in this house and before committees. I am sure he does not think his argument is serious.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: He
never told us anything.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister has simply tried to displace the question, and I do not intend to allow him to do that. The minister wants to know how it is that I state the government is trying to hide information whereas I took a position that was entirely different in former years. That is not the point. The point I raised was brought about by the statement made by the minister, and that statement was that "we do not want to hide anything from the house".


Léon Balcer: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: And also that "we want to abide by the rules and regulations". The minister made that statement and I immediately asked him why he would not produce the agreement, as he had produced the agreement last year in connection with the Pine Point railway. That is why I say he displaces the question when he says the member for Laurier took a different attitude-


William McLean Hamilton: He
certainly did.


Lionel Chevrier: The point we are dealing with now is the great care which he says he is taking about divulging all the information. If he is taking such care why not give the house the information in so far as the agreement is concerned, in the same way he did on a previous occasion? Instead of dealing with that the minister replies "Oh, well, you did exactly as we did," or "You are the one who created the precedent in the first place." That is not replying to the question. That is simply displacing the question and I say to the minister, if he is so anxious to give all the information then let him give it and, if he does not want to give it, why not say he is not willing to do so?


Léon Balcer: I am very pleased to do so. The reason we produced the agreement in the case of the Pine Point railway was simply because the C.N.R. agreed it would not be

Canadian National Railways damaging to them if we produced the agreement. It is as simple as that. In this case the C.N.R. tell us that it is not desirable to produce it. That is what we are doing, and in doing that we are following a tradition that was practically established by my hon. friend from Laurier.
I wish to repeat that this government does not want to hide any information and will not hide any information. It will always follow the laws of the country and the regulations, traditions and rules of the House of Commons. We are very pleased to give all the information that it is possible and legal for us to give.


Lionel Chevrier: Then give us the information on the wheat deal.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall clause 1 carry?


William Moore Benidickson: In connection with the Alberta branch line the Minister of Transport, in previous stages of debate, gave us a considerable amount of useful information such as the immediate tonnages of sulphur that were anticipated, sulphur being perhaps the main item of freight expected, in fact almost the only item of freight expected on the branch line. He indicated that the tonnage for the first five year period would be considerably less than that expected after markets had been developed and the mine was operating at its full capacity.
That kind of information has not been provided in connection with the Manitoba branch line. I wonder if the minister could give us some information as to what tonnage is expected after its construction, and perhaps a projection forward into increased tonnage, if that is likely to be the experience as the mine develops to its full capacity.
The hon. member for Laurier was asking about freight rates. We did get information yesterday with respect to the Alberta branch on the freight rate that was part and parcel of the agreement with the company. I think we should also have that information, if possible, with respect to the freight rate on the Manitoba branch line.
In addition to that, yesterday I intended to ask the minister a question in committee on this bill, but the bill went through rather rapidly and I did not put my question. In the opening remarks of the minister, as I recall it, he said that the basic 52 miles had recently been completed. I was going to ask the minister, and I ask him now, how recently was the road completed and what has been the experience in relation to the volume of freight, if it has been carrying freight already?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to give this information to my hon.


friend. When these mines are in production after the final eight miles of branch line are built, about 182,000 tons of copper and zinc crude ore will be shipped every year. This mining will be carried out at these two sites. At Stall lake it will provide work for about 100 men, and at Osborne lake work for about 85 men.
My hon. friend has asked about freight rates. Unfortunately I do not have that information here. It is unfortunate that he did not ask this question yesterday when the two experts from the railway were present. As the committee knows, these rates are filed with the board of transport commissioners; they are public, and we have no reluctance in tabling them. I have not the exact figure with me but I will be very pleased to send the information to my hon. friend.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, when the minister was dealing with a first question I put to him, to which I did not then receive an answer but which was answered afterward, he said that Canadian National Railways can build a line less than six miles in length without the authority of parliament; they do not have to come to parliament for authority. That is really the information I was seeking from the minister. If I had obtained that answer in the first instance I do not think there would have been the altercation that took place. I did remember that there is a limit, but I did not remember that it was six miles. I was under the impression that it was more than eight miles, and that is what prompted me to put the question in the first place.
I should like to deal with the matter of the freight rate. I think the committee should obtain some indication of what is going to be the freight rate in this case. The minister has said he cannot tell us what it is but that he will produce it in due course. However, once this bill has gone through there will be no opportunity for the committee to obtain that information. Meanwhile perhaps the minister can indicate how the freight rate is made up, because I take it that the freight rate is compiled after consideration first of the commodity that is going to be moved, second of the mileage and third the competition, if any, that exists in the area. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River now brings to my attention the matter of capital cost, and I think that also enters into the composition of the freight rate.
I am wondering whether the minister will give the committee some information as to how Canadian National Railways proceed to fix the rate. I hope he will be able to obtain this information from his officers before this bill goes through committee of the whole.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, it is very unfortunate that the hon. member for Laurier was not present yesterday at the meeting of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, because it is precisely the purpose of that committee to put before its members all the technical information that is available within the company in all its details. I am sure nobody in the committee expects me to know all these various freight rates and so forth.
I quite agree with my hon. friend from Laurier that it is an important factor in a project such as this. Unfortunately I have not these rates at the present time, but I will be very pleased to obtain them from the officers of the railways or from the board of transport commissioners. If it had been possible for the hon. member to attend the standing committee meeting I am sure the two witnesses would have supplied this information to the hon. member, and from my point of view there would have been no objection whatsoever.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there any objection to giving the committee the actual freight rate?


Léon Balcer: No, but I have not that information before me.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister get the rate from his officers, who I understand are now here? That being the case, I think the committee is entitled to this information. The next question is this. The minister did not give the committee a breakdown of how Candadian National Railways proceed to establish the freight rate in a situation such as this. I think we should know how they do proceed, because even though a member of parliament is not at the standing committee meeting, or is not a member of the committee, surely he is entitled, under the rule established by the minister that the government wants to give all the information it has at its disposal, to inquire what the terms are under which the freight rate is established.
In this case, if there is no objection from the railway, there should be even less difficulty in giving this information to the committee, and I wonder whether we can obtain it now.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to repeat what I said earlier. As far as the question of how the C.N.R. has arrived at the rate, we must not forget that part of the agreement with the private company deals with certain penalties and certain minimum guarantees given by the company. These matters enter into the tabulation and making up of the freight rate that is arrived at. I cannot give this part of the agreement to
Canadian National Railways the committee except with the consent of the railway. However as far as the freight rate is concerned, I simply repeat that I will send this information to my hon. friend immediately this committee has finished.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that he does not wish to give certain details of the agreement, but would he see fit to tell us what period of time the agreement contemplates will be required, where there are obligations on the part of the company which in due time are expected to compensate for the capital costs as well as the transporting of the ore over that period?


Léon Balcer: The arrangement contemplates that this minimum agreed guarantee and also the penalties in case of shortages are for a period of ten years.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago the minister said the freight rate had to be filed with the board of transport commissioners. Does it in fact have to be filed with the board if it is a rate that has been established by agreement? I know that when the C.N.R. submits a tariff on which goods move, that has to be filed with the board. The question that now comes to my mind is this. Is this akin to an agreed charge? If it is not, it is a charge under an agreement. Has the agreement been submitted to the board? I assume that the agreement must of necessity be submitted to the board if it was made pursuant to the method outlined to the committee a moment ago by the minister.
The information I wish to obtain is this. How will the public know, if at all, about the nature of the freight rate that will be charged for this commodity?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that these freight rates had to be filed. What I said was that my information is that these freight rates have been filed.


Lionel Chevrier: If they have been filed, then why can we not find out what they are? The board of transport commissioners has them and they are public. Anybody can go over to the board and see them.


Léon Balcer: Even the hon. member for Laurier could do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, even I could do so; but why should I have to when we are dealing with this important matter in parliament at this very moment? Why should not parliament have this information?


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Why were you not present at the committee meeting yesterday?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend should be quiet, Mr. Chairman, because he came to
940	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways parliament as a suppliant in connection with his own line in Alberta and we co-operated to the fullest extent. As far as the hon. gentleman is concerned I think it would be better if he were to remain silent and allow me to put these questions to the minister.


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I think this is a serious situation. The hon. member for Laurier, a distinguished parliamentarian and a member of the legal profession, after four years is still unable to distinguish between the hon. member for Jasper-Edson and his brother, the hon. member for Acadia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are identical twins.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a point of order. It is a point of confusion.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister just stated that this rate has been filed with the board of transport commissioners which is a public body, a court of record. Anybody can go to the board and obtain this information. Why cannot parliament be given information concerning freight rates, which information is in possession of the board?


Léon Balcer: Parliament can have this information when the freight rate is filed with the board.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has already said it was filed with the board.


Léon Balcer: May I point out to the hon. member that this information was available yesterday in the standing committee. The experts were present at the meeting and all hon. members of the committee were allowed to ask these questions. The experts would have been extremely pleased to answer these inquiries.
I should be pleased to give this information to the committee if I had it before me, but it is physically impossible for me to give it because I do not have it before me. It would have been very easy for the hon. gentleman or his colleagues to obtain this information yesterday when the bill was before the standing committee. A standing committee is established precisely for the purpose of giving such information. I think hon. members of the opposition should avail themselves of the opportunity of attending the meetings of standing committees with a view to obtaining the information they require.
When I suggested that this bill be considered in the committee of the whole the hon. member for Laurier was the first to jump to his feet and suggest that this would be a crime, a terrible practice, and that the bill should be referred to the standing committee. We acceded to his wishes. The bill


was referred to the committee, the experts appeared before the committee with all the necessary information, but the hon. gentleman was not present and his colleagues failed to ask these questions.
The hon. gentleman comes forward today and accuses us of refusing to give information. The hon. member's position lacks logic. My hon. friend knows very well we like nothing better than to provide pertinent information. The only thing we ask is that hon. gentlemen opposite request the information they require at the appropriate time and place. If they do so they will receive excellent service and co-operation from the government.


Lionel Chevrier: The position taken by the minister, Mr. Chairman, is untenable. The minister cannot come to the committee and take the position he has just taken. Whether or not this bill has been before a standing committee, and whether one or 25 witnesses have been called, the committee of the whole is entitled to have this information. It is not a valid reply on the part of the minister to say that the standing committee met and certain hon. members did not ask questions.
In one breath the minister admits that this information is public and can be obtained at the board of transport commissioners, but he refuses to give the information to the committee either because he does not have it or his officers will not give it to him. The point I now make is that whether or not this legislation has gone to a standing committee we are now considering it in committee of the whole, and it is the duty and responsibility of the minister, as a suppliant before the committee, to give it the information it requires.
Hon. members of the opposition are interested in knowing the amount of the freight rate and the method by which it was established. I asked for the production of the agreement. The minister said the C.N.R. advised him not to produce it and I will accept that, but I wish to know if the agreement was filed with the board of transport commissioners. Will the minister answer that question?


Léon Balcer: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman, because this agreement does not have to be filed with the board. It is a private agreement between the railway and a private company.


Lionel Chevrier: If the agreement does not have to be filed with the board the minister should explain to the committee how the freight rate of X dollars on this commodity, moving from one point to another, moving on

to Vancouver and other points, has been established. The committee is entitled to know that and the minister has not given us that information.
I return to the point I made earlier. There are many hon. members of this house who are not members of the standing committee. If we were to accept the position taken by the minister no one who is not a member of the standing committee could ask questions, because the minister would simply rise and say "Oh well, you should have been present at the meeting of the standing committee and asked for the information there." That is silly. That is not in accordance with the tradition of parliament and the procedure under which we operate. I feel the minister should obtain the freight rate from his officers and give this information to the committee. He should then tell us how the freight rate has been established in this case.


Léon Balcer: Unfortunately the hon. member for Laurier did not attend the meeting of the committee, where it would have been so easy for him to obtain the information he requests. I am quite agreeable to the idea of adjourning the debate and securing the information the hon. member requests, which could probably be given to him at 2.30. I shall be pleased to do so if that is the wish of the hon. member.
On the other hand I should like to correct the impression my hon. friend is attempting to create, that we are refusing to give information. We are not refusing to give information, and I consider it unfortunate that the hon. member could not be present yesterday.


Lionel Chevrier: Why does the minister not make one frank admission, that he does not know what the freight rate is.


Léon Balcer: I have already said that. I stated that I do not have the information before me. I said it was physically impossible for me to give the information because I do not have it in front of me. I do not know offhand what the freight rate is. I am the first to admit I do not know what it is. If I had the information before me I think it unlikely that I would have bothered answering the 15 repetitious questions the hon. gentleman has put.


Lionel Chevrier: There were only two.


Léon Balcer: It would have been much simpler to divulge the figures, but I do not have them as I have already told the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made a frank admission for which we respect him, but it does raise a point that has arisen repeatedly, not just with respect to
Canadian National Railways this bill but with respect to many others. It arose last night in another context with another minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let the hon. member confine himself to this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the days when the former government was in office ministers were accustomed, at the committee stage of bills, to have their officials in front of them and to have the information relating to the bills so that parliament could be served. It has now become the custom of ministers to sit there alone, without any administrative officials and without any information, as the minister has admitted he is now doing-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and to delay the proceedings of parliament because they are not in a position to deal with these matters. When a minister comes here asking us to pass a bill it is his duty to have the information available for those of us who are the masters. The government is the servant and we in this parliament are the masters, and we are entitled to the information. This kind of conduct is tantamount to a contempt of the committee of the whole, which is a committee of the house.
If this had been an isolated case I would not have made these observations at all. However, this has become a custom with the present government. The ministers come here knowing nothing about the legislation, or practically nothing about it; they are unable to answer questions and are without the officials to give them the information. I exempt the house leader; he had his officials on the floor. What I am saying is that far too often this thing is happening, and with a government with that great leader who was going to restore the rights of parliament. May I say that it is an odd way to be treating parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this matter cannot pass without some comment. These generalizations that have been made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate are unfounded.


Lionel Chevrier: They are not generalizations; they are facts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are generalizations that are unfounded. The government has not refused to give information. It has not become accustomed to appear here without the information that is required.


Lionel Chevrier: It has happened in this case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In this particular instance the hon. member for Laurier is just delaying matters in the House of Commons and holding up a branch line in the province of Manitoba-

Canadian National Railways


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -by asking for information which he has been offered by the minister and which can be given to him easily at a later time. He is making an excuse for his failure to appear at the committee meeting the other day.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I understand that the minister has requested or moved that I rise and report progress.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to allow the house leader to get away with the statement he made a moment ago. The house leader cannot come into the House of Commons and make the statement that the hon. member for Laurier is delaying a bill affecting the province of Manitoba for such and such a reason. That procedure is against the rules of the house. The hon. member is reflecting on the motives of another hon. member.
The house leader knows full well that when this matter was brought before the house he obtained from the opposition the assurance that not only this bill but all other railway bills would be expedited and that the opposition would co-operate to the fullest extent. That co-operation was given not only here on the resolution stage and on the second reading stage but in the standing committee, where I am told that in less than an hour these two bills were passed. How then can the house leader rise in his place and say that there has been delay? But then when we come to the committee of the whole, I say that whether or not a member was at the meeting of the standing committee, or whether members of parliament who are not members of the committee were there, they are entitled to get certain information which we did not receive this morning.
I am not going to cast any reflection on anybody, whether it be the minister or anybody else. However, as was said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I say that the minister should be here with his officers. His officers can be obtained at a moment's notice and should at least be in a position to give the house the amount of the freight rate. How can that procedure be delaying the proceedings of the house? If the freight rate had been given in the first instance there would not have been the slightest delay.
I say to the house leader that he has no right to make the statement he made. I am not going to ask him to withdraw his words; I am quite content to leave them as they are. However, I say to him that he has no


right to impute motives to me or any other member of parliament and say that we are delaying the passage of the bill, when the fact is that we have done everything in our power to assist in the implementation of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I believe the hon. member has now made his position clear in this matter. As the Minister of Transport has indicated that he intended to move that the committee rise and report progress, I do now-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a question that I should like to ask the Minister of Transport. I wish to ask him whether I was correct in my understanding that he wishes to move that the committee rise and report progress at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Peter Francis Martin: Before you put that question, Mr. Chairman, may I say that suggestion has been made by no one else in the chamber. The only one who has made that suggestion is Your Honour.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Peter Francis Martin: If I may say so,
it is an improper suggestion to come from the Chair.


An hon. Member:: It is closure.


Léon Balcer: I made the suggestion.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not make a motion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order, please. I heard the Minister of Transport make the suggestion and I am therefore asking him now whether he wishes to make a motion for that purpose at this time.


Mr. Habel:: Closure.


Léon Balcer: I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Closure.
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 30; nays, 12.
During the taking of the vote:


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Peter Francis Martin: It is closure without notice.

Ajter the taking of the vote:


Mr. McGee:: I rise on a question of privilege, or a point of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The committee is rising.


Lionel Chevrier: Too late.
Progress reported.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on this question of privilege or point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Frank Charles McGee: I have reference to the allegation made by the hon. member for Essex East during the discussions in committee a few moments ago.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the question of privilege which the hon. member wishes to raise. There is no question of privilege to be raised by an hon. member at this stage in connection with what another hon. member has said concerning the proceedings of this house, particularly in committee. That is what the hon. member is now trying to do and, with respect, I say it is entirely out of order, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Charles McGee: May I explain the position further?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Charles McGee: I can speak to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Laurier. I certainly would have expected that on reflection the hon. member for Essex East would have been delighted at the opportunity to withdraw the unfounded allegation that he made a few minutes ago.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said "closure without notice".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York-Scarborough stated that he was rising on a question of privilege, but he has said enough to indicate that it seems to be a point of order and that it should have been taken at the stage at which it arose. The committee is master of its own proceedings and deals with such problems when they arise. In my view, and I think I am correct, it is too late now to raise a matter which could have been dealt with in the committee.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill No. C-68, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Export Credits Insurance Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have no further statement to make. I made quite a long statement at the resolution stage yesterday and there has been quite a full debate, so I have nothing further to say at this time.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Olfawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I should like to make on second reading of the bill. This is a short bill and seems to raise two matters of principle. The first arises out of clause 1 of the bill, which was described in the resolution as a certain matter having to do with the administration of the Export Credits Insurance Act; but now that we have the bill it turns out that the certain matter relating to the administration of the act involves an increase in the number of directors from five to six. This, of course, raises the whole question of the administration of the act and the principle being applied in relation thereto. On that point I desire to say a few brief words which will to some extent be repetitious of what I said at the resolution stage, but I will try not to make my remarks any more repetitious than necessary because I merely want to deal with the principle involved.
The other matter of principle raised by the bill has to do with whether or not parliament should grant increased funds in order to permit the corporation to proceed to guarantee payment of further instruments of sale or export under section 21A of the act, and whether the government should make additional funds available to the corporation for use in the purchase of guaranteed instruments.
With relation to the question of principle involved, I think enough has become apparent at the resolution stage and earlier in other debates to show that everything that can be done by appropriate legislative means to assist our exporters should be done because of the sharply increased competition they have to face throughout the world. It is readily apparent from an examination of statistical data on this subject that this country is not quite holding its competitive position. That is due to a number of things, among them being the very rapid recovery made in Europe, the success of the venture undertaken there in coming together in the common market grouping, and so on. Whatever the reasons are, I do not propose to discuss or develop them now, but they make it very clear that every assistance must be given our exporters to meet the kind of competition they have to meet in world markets.
The second clause of the bill, which raises the question whether or not we should grant an additional $100 million for the purpose of guaranteeing export payments or purchases of instruments where necessary, is

Export Credits Insurance Act one that I think will commend itself to the house. I believe it is reasonably clear from the minister's explanation that there is every prospect that the applications for guaranteeing payment of these instruments, which really has the effect of granting long term credit, will be sufficiently great before another year goes by to use up all the funds that have been made available by parliament. Therefore so far as we on this side of the house are concerned we are quite prepared to grant approval in this regard, so that an additional $100 million can be made available for this very desirable objective.
With respect to the first point I raised, the increase in the number of directors from five to six, no explanation has been given as to the need for that change, but I presume one will be given at a later stage. I am not disposed to raise any objection to the proposal at the moment, because I assume that when we get to the committee stage we will be given an explanation. On the assumption that the explanation will be satisfactory, I am quite prepared to approve this proposal. But I do want to raise one question of a general nature with regard to the administration of the act.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would agree that it is one o'clock, if he has further comments to make.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the noon adjournment I had indicated that there was one matter of principle relating to the general administration of this act that I wanted to raise and place on the record. It is simply this. The Export Credits Insurance Act, since its enactment in 1944, has worked very well. It has, I think, been clearly demonstrated over the years that the act has made a substantial contribution towards aiding the exporters of this country, either by insuring the credit risks on exports or, as a result of later amendments, by guaranteeing the export paper and thus enabling the exporters to discount it. In other words, this has had the effect of granting long term credit to the exporters. These two things have been needed by the exporters over the years in order to carry on their activities.
The practice has been for the exporters, when they require long term credit, to apply under this legislation for a guarantee of payment, thus making the instruments of sale readily negotiable. It is true that we have
[Mr. Mcllraith.)
private corporations dealing with this subject of export credit financing. These private corporations have not, as yet, occupied a very large sector of the field available to them. On previous occasions, I have expressed the hope that no use will be made of this act that will interfere with the private export credit financing that is available. I have no reason to suspect that there has been anything done under this act that would interfere with the private firms engaged in these activities. As a matter of fact, I am satisfied that up until the present at least, there has been no clash of interest between the two. I may say that if there is any evidence of public funds being used improperly under this public act to interfere with the activities of private concerns who are available and ready to render service in this field, I shall be the first to object. I would expect that on that occasion I would be supported by all hon. members in the house.
The particular point that concerns me today is the government activities in this field outside this legislation. This legislation was intended, at the time of its enactment, to be legislation that would provide the insurance support for exporters who were exporting commodities from this country. There was general use made of it throughout the years since its inception. Recently, something has occurred that has caused me great concern and which I feel should be examined carefully by the house. I will try to deal with the particular item I have in mind in order to identify it clearly.
We have from time to time over the last number of years had sales of wheat to communist countries. These sales, in general, have commended themselves to this house as they occurred. The payments of these accounts have all been insured or guaranteed under this act, up until the last one about a year ago. I think this will be found to be a correct statement if one examines the records of the sales of wheat to European communist countries. They were dealt with under this legislation. The significance of that is that the government is then restricted in its granting of export credits to the form and extent approved by parliament. In addition, the actual orders in council providing for that guarantee of payment have to be tabled and made available to all hon. members of the House of Commons who, in effect, have the responsibility of passing on the extent to which public funds will be made available to the government for use in transactions of this type.
Within the last year we had a sale of wheat to China but when it came to insuring and guaranteeing the payment and the granting of credit it was not done under this

act. It was done by some means outside this legislation, and I have been quite unable to find the authority under which it was done, or the method by which it was done. I for one take strong objection to that non-disclosure, because I say it is the responsibility of the House of Commons to pass on that kind of commitment of public funds, and we have not had any explanation as to why that kind of transaction was not done under this legislation.
The consequences of having it done under this legislation would not, so far as I know, have affected in any way the actual position of the fund but it would have enabled this house to know how much of a commitment of public funds was made and on what terms, and it would also have meant that the authority granted by the government for guaranteeing the credit would have been made available to the House of Commons for such action, if any, as the house saw fit to take. I want to repeat my point of view that all government action in this field of guaranteeing export credit or insuring the payment of exports of commodities from this country to other countries should be done under this legislation, and be brought within the ambit of this legislation so that parliament can exercise its traditional control of the commitment of public funds.
I think that is an important principle although I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I may be slightly repetitious in asserting it again because I did assert it on the resolution stage of this bill. I think however I am quite in order in asserting it-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member is in order, in view of what he has already said. I raise the question for him to answer because of the way he himself put his argument. He proposes discussing a matter which he says is not within the ambit of the act, that it has been dealt with outside this act, and therefore would not be affected by the proposed vote of additional capital. If the hon. member follows me, I draw a distinction between a discussion on proper uses of the money now to be voted, and a discussion on a matter which, on his own statement, has been dealt with by the government under other powers. That is a separate matter which is proper to be discussed at an appropriate time because it pertains to government acts and to public funds, but it does not seem to come under the legislation before us.


George James McIlraith: I quite appreciate what you have said and I sought at the outset of my remarks in explaining the two matters I wanted to discuss, to do it in such a way as to make it quite clear I was within the rules in discussing this point at this stage. As I say,
Export Credits Insurance Act there are provisions in the legislation under which I can do that. One is that the first clause of the bill has to do with the question of principle which was described in the resolution as a certain change in the administration of the act, and now contained in clause 1 of the bill-the increase in the board of directors. It seems to me that provision is of such a nature as to relate to the whole administration of the act.
Having said that I come to the second question of principle and that has to do with providing an additional amount of public funds for the granting of long term credit to exporters for commodities exported from Canada. That is where the second question of principle arises. The point I was seeking to raise was that this act is the only act granting that kind of authority to the government, and this other action that was taken in the China wheat sale, in the absence of some explanation by the government, must have been taken without authority because it was not under this act. Of course, if there is some other authority that I have not heard of, that enables them to do that, to commit the public funds, then my argument fails; but so far I have been unable to find the authority. I have gone on in my remarks to explain that in so far as action on similar wheat sales to communist countries is concerned in the long period of time-17 or 18 years-since the passage of this act it was done under this act. I presume that being so, and in the absence of finding any other legislative authority, this one should also come under the act.
That is my point, Mr. Speaker, and beyond that I cannot go. I quite accept the point of order you raised but I think I have answered it and brought myself within the rules of relevancy because I have brought that transaction under the principle in this bill. That is my point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose that the hon. member might properly take the position that he would not wish to approve the increased amount of capital which this bill would make available unless the government uses that capital for all transactions of the kind that come under this bill. To that extent he could present the case on second reading, but it would have to be action of the government of the kind that would come within the bill. The hon. member knows that the government does act and disposes of public money under other powers and such acts could not be discussed under this bill. If he says the government has purported to act on authority outside of this bill, in one view he would be taking away from himself the right to discuss such act. However, I think there is enough to permit him to continue.

Export Credits Insurance Act


George James McIlraith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed I have not digressed into a discussion on the sale of the wheat. I have confined my remarks to the guaranteeing of the exports payment. That transaction was very, very large. At least I believe it was very large but we are not told of the extent of the guarantee. From the public information given, we are led to assume it was very large and if I am right in my argument that it should have been done under this act the government conceivably might have had to come back earlier for this amendment in order to have the funds available.
In any event, I want to draw from the argument that the government has an obligation on this bill to explain why that transaction, which appears of a nature that it must come under this act, was not brought under it. If there is no explanation, of course they must stand condemned for not bringing it under the act. If there is in fact some other authority to permit them to guarantee export payment, then I must at once protest that this bill is not wide enough in that it does not make it clear, as has been assumed all these years that the Export Credits Insurance Act is the only legislation providing for government insurance or guarantees for export credit.
I want to press that point because, while perhaps I am guilty of not having made it sufficiently clear at the earlier stage, unclear as my remarks have been, the minister's reply on that point was very close to being nonexistent; it certainly did not really deal with the point at all. It is a point that I think must be dealt with if his legislation- which, as I have indicated, is good legislation-is to maintain its useful purpose in the years ahead. If we have been misled all these years, into thinking that the government may use many other methods of granting the use of public funds or putting a charge on them to assist exporters, then it is a rather serious thing. I would hope that no such action is contemplated by the government in the future in regard to export credit assistance to those selling commodities in other parts of the world.
Mr. Speaker, in these few remarks I have sought to make clear my point of view. I regret very much that the minister has not seen fit to deal with this point, because the principle involved here has to do with the increasing of the amount of money made available under the one clause of the act that is being amended. We are providing $100 million of the taxpayers' funds and I am old-fashioned enough to believe that we are pressing pretty heavily on taxpayers these days and making very heavy demands indeed upon


them. That being so, I should hope that every care is exercised in examining any legislation of this nature that is brought before us, to see that the use being made of it is of such a nature as will also help to relieve the burden on those taxpayers. I think this provision of $100 million will have that effect. I am prepared to support the addition of the $100 million but I think it is a grave mistake for us to blandly assume that we can provide sums of money like this without being very acutely conscious of the burden it does impose upon our taxpayers. I was going to say our citizens generally, but our taxation has become so heavy that really the terms "taxpayers" and "citizens generally" are synonymous.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if I have appeared to belabour the point, I have done so for a purpose, because I think this matter is of the utmost importance. Export in our economy is so important that there can be no hope of prosperity in this country without the very heavy sale abroad of Canadian goods. If I have appeared to take a few minutes longer than might be expected on this, what appears on its face to be a simple bill, I have done so with the full consciousness of its importance. I hope that when we get to the committee stage the minister will deal with the points I have raised and will give a responsible and carefully thought out answer to them, if there is any answer available; and if there is not, of course he will have to stand condemned by his own failure to do so.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated in other years by other hon. members, our party endorses the principle inherent in the operation of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. Also, as was shown a couple of years ago with respect to a concept of that operation similar to the one now before us, we are in agreement with this particular approach.
Two or three years ago, by way of an amendment to the Export Credits Insurance Act we, at the insistence of the government and with relatively little explanation at that time, removed from office as a member of the corporation the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Coyne. In 1959, when Mr. Coyne was fired from his position as a member of this corporation, we wondered what was the reason for it but we were given no explanation at all by the government. Perhaps we did receive an answer, though, for those doubts which we expressed in 1959. We received the answer during the last session when the government attempted to

make a scapegoat of Mr. Coyne, and we saw this move in 1959 as a sort of preliminary in that direction.
One of the principles of the bill, or one of the thoughts behind it, is to increase by one the number of directors other than those who are members of the corporation. I think we all have great esteem for the individuals who now hold office as appointed directors of the corporation. Inasmuch as each of them is well respected and is an admired member of the public service of Canada, I think we can expect-and if the minister said this earlier, I regret not having heard it or not having been in the house at that time-and hope that the additional director covered by the bill will also be appointed from the public service of Canada. I would hope and suggest that the appointee be someone from the Bank of Canada, preferably the present governor, who is in a closer relationship with the government than was the previous governor. I say this because it seems to me that this, being a crown corporation, and inasmuch as I understand there are at least 18 other nations in the world which participate with Canada in the Berne union and who also operate through government insurance plans such as this, that we should have someone involved in the international monetary fund and in the financial field from our own government services.
That is one of the reasons I suggest that the person who should be appointed as this additional director to replace former governor Coyne, who was fired from this position a couple of years ago, should be someone from the Bank of Canada, and preferably the present governor, Mr. Rasminsky.
I find it strange to hear in parliament the right wing, ultra-Tory advocates of individual initiative and free enterprise lauding legislation such as this. It indicates to me they have some doubts about the efficacy with which free enterprise operates in our economy.


William Heward Grafftey: What is the hon. member's stand on nationalization?


Frank Howard: Again we hear what I am sure was a delightful comment from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). Unfortunately I was not able to hear his delightful comment but perhaps he will take the opportunity of speaking later.


Lionel Chevrier: Always refreshing if not delightful.


Frank Howard: It is interesting that those who wish free enterprise to operate untrammelled and unassisted should laud a measure such as this which is designed to employ public funds to ensure that private enterprise operates properly.
Export Credits Insurance Act
I do not dispute that this legislation is necessary. It represents a socialist concept that has been advocated for a number of years. I am sure there are a few right wing, ultra-Tory members still left in the Tory party. No doubt they will agree this legislation is necessary and beneficial to our economy.
In addition to providing insurance coverage for sales such as this we should be thinking in terms of expanding the operations of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation or a similar corporation, bringing into being an import-export board so that government facilities in Canada will insure sales of goods to other countries in a manner beneficial to this nation.
Certain companies are prohibited in Canada by United States law from selling goods and commodities to certain countries such as red China. If a board such as I have described were established as a government agency it could assist in the sale of non-strategic commodities to such countries to which some companies were formerly prohibited from selling by United States legislation. This type of thing should have developed by now to enhance our export position and provide employment to Canadian workers.
Like the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) I wonder why the recent sale of grain to China was not insured under the act. Similar sales in years past were protected and insured under this legislation. If a board such as I have described were established all such sales would be channelled through it and the details would be made public.
I submit one of the main reasons the government followed the course it did is that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) had little to do with the sale of wheat and merely wished to cash in on the publicity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman is departing from the principle of the bill.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to commend the government and the minister for introducing amendments to this legislation. If I were to offer any criticism it would be that I hoped the amount involved would be larger. Later on I shall briefly explain why I take that position.
Let me deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) yesterday which was pursued this afternoon by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. As I understand the legislation and the principle involved, it is not mandatory that the government bring in contracts such as that relating to the sale of wheat to China

Export Credits Insurance Act and other similar contracts mentioned last evening. This is a discretionary matter initiated by the board. The board in dealing with a contract oi insurance reaches certain conclusions and requests the minister to make application to the governor in council. There is nothing within the ambit of the legislation or inherent in the principle involved that calls upon the government to do what hon. gentlemen have suggested should have been done, and as time goes on I believe we will be satisfied that this is the case.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) dealt with a point raised by hon. members of the official opposition yesterday. The remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite in this respect clearly reflect the restrictionist trade program of the Liberal party and, in particular, its apparent dislike of those measures which formed the subject of some criticism on their part yesterday and today.
In my opinion we are fortunate in having a government that recognizes the great importance of trade in the world today, unlike the previous government which rigidly, even slavishly, adhered to the Washington line when dealing with projects of this nature, and which is prepared to have full regard for the interests of Canada and the Canadian people.
I shall leave that point at this time. I believe there was some question in Your Honour's mind as to the relevance of that subject to this debate and I believe Your Honour did restrict it. In view of that I shall say no more at this time.
When the history of today's period is written I think the value of measures of this kind will be proved. I hope these amounts will be increased over the years. I think it will be proved that measures of this nature have played a great part in the preservation and advancement of a more peaceful and happier world.
I am interested in the new emerging nations of Africa. In the last few years a number of countries there have come to a state of nationhood. They find themselves with a fantastic paucity of material resources and low standards of education. I believe it has been estimated that between $100 billion and $250 billion may well have to be poured into that continent in order to assist those nations to achieve a reasonable standard of living. To reach this objective they will have to export, but this will be impossible for them until they can provide themselves with plant and equipment geared to that purpose.
That is the purpose of this particular legislation. I am relating it particularly to the countries in Africa and the necessity of those countries in the free world which have the resources being able to supply to the newly

emerging nations of Africa the machinery and the equipment to open the mines, to build the roads and to build the schools which are so very essential.
Directed to that end I think there can be no criticism of this legislation. Then as I say, I think we shall probably find that, in the not too distant future, we may be obliged to increase it. Consequently for my part, disregarding what in my opinion were the irrelevant criticisms advanced by the official opposition, I strongly support this bill and commend it to the house.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): If we on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, seek to obtain information with regard to this amendment, that fact cannot be interpreted as suggesting that we are in any way, shape or form in favour of a restrictionist trade policy. The record of our party on that matter is clear. However, that record should not and will not prevent us from trying to find out all we can about this amendment under which we shall be increasing the limit of liability from $200 million to $300 million. An expenditure of $100 million is a fairly important proposal to put before the house. The information we are seeking has to do with both the omission of certain transactions from the operation of this act and on the other hand the inclusion of certain transactions within the operation of the Export Credits Insurance Act.
The question of omission was dealt with by the previous speaker. It was dealt with by my friend the hon. member from Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) at some length. It is an important matter, especially the omission from this act of the credit sales of grain to China and other communist countries-but particularly to China-which are dealt with outside the provisions of this act. Had they been dealt with inside its provisions so far as insurance is concerned, all the relevant information in connection with these transactions would have been made known to this house. However, that is not the situation that exists now.
So far as the inclusion of certain transactions within this act is concerned, it brings up another question, and it surely is relevant to a discussion of this bill and indeed it was considered as being relevant to a discussion of the resolution. It brings up the question of the measures for control of the export of certain commodities to certain sensitive areas, if I may call them that. If I raise this question, Mr. Speaker, it is in order to ensure that before this bill is passed we have all the relevant information in respect of this aspect of the operation of the bill. When we try to get that, information,

that attempt should not and cannot validly be interpreted as indicating that we are discouraging in any way, shape or form any measure that can be taken by the government to encourage every form of legitimate export, whether by credit, insurance or by any other measure.
As has been pointed out by those who have spoken previously, exports and the increase of exports are of vital significance to our economy. When we were discussing this bill at the resolution stage the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), as found at page 908 of Hansard, stated that, contrary to the impression he had given earlier in the discussion in the afternoon, certain sales to Cuba had been insured under this act. In fairness to him I should add that he also stated that no sales to Cuba or to any communist country had been financed under this act.
The question of insured sale, of insuring sales to Cuba and to other communist countries, raises the question-and it is certainly relevant to this amendment-of what are strategic materials and of how they are to be dealt with under the Export and Import Permits Act, an amendment to which we are now considering.
Last night, when we made our request for information on this matter and when we discussed it, the minister stated that it was a very sensitive matter. I am now paraphrasing what he said, not quoting him exactly. If I am not quoting him correctly, I am sure he will interrupt me. He said this was a very sensitive matter and that we on this side of the chamber should do nothing -and in fact he accused us of doing something-to make more sensitive the relations between the United States and Canada in respect of this matter. If there is difficulty in regard to those relations in respect of this particular matter, may I say that the responsibility for that difficulty attaches to those who are responsible for policy and surely not to us on this side who are eliciting information which will clarify that policy. Surely that is our duty and we propose to do our best to discharge it.
In respect of strategic materials covered by orders in council issued under this act the minister last evening, as found at page 908 of Hansard and subsequent pages, stated that it was very difficult if not impossible to draw a line between one kind of strategic material and another. He then drew on his own military experience in world war II in order to support that conclusion. Indeed he went so far as to say that in this matter there is no difference between explosives and underwear. However, I suggest to the minister-
Export Credits Insurance Act


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I did not make any such ridiculous statement. I simply said that there were many materials that were vital to the successful carrying on of any military operation and that the opposition had tried to make it appear that certain materials were strategic materials or materials with a significant war potential.
I pointed out at that time that two very important war materials, materials vitally necessary to the successful prosecution of any military campaign, were food and medical supplies, both of which were supplied by the United States to Cuba in very large amounts up until quite recently, as outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he very ably explained the situation to the house and gave the figures some time ago. I went on to say that if one wanted to go through the list of things that are necessary for the carrying on of a military campaign one could take all kinds of clothing, particularly that required in wet and cold weather, without which an army cannot proceed successfully. I then went on to say that you could go right down to items such as ties, underwear and so on; but I did not at any time compare ties and underwear to explosives.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I had better read exactly what the minister did say inasmuch as he is making this explanation to the house. As found on page 911 of Hansard he said:
Anything that one wants to think of can be construed as potential war material because It is material with which an army cannot do without. For instance, shoes, ties, underwear, overcoats, hats, anything at all that an army needs can be so construed.
As essential war materials.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I continue:
I can tell the hon. member for his information that when the weather gets cold or wet there are certain articles of clothing without which an army cannot operate and without which the whole military operation would break down.
Based on that conclusion the minister indicated yesterday that in certain circumstances anything in the categories he mentioned can be construed as military material or, if you like, as strategic goods, that there is nothing strategic or non-strategic but using makes it so. I think that is a fair description of the minister's approach to the problem. I am not quarreling with that as a general description; but by reason of the orders in council passed under this act by the government, and, indeed, by previous governments, the government itself has made a distinction between strategic materials for which export
950	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act permits are required, and which are therefore brought under control, and other goods for which export permits are not required and which therefore are not strategic materials within the meaning of the order in council setting up the list.


George Harris Hees: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) does not want to be unfair and will not mind my correcting him. I have made it very clear at all times that we follow the strategic list of NATO which is worked out in great detail by all of the NATO countries, including the United States, with the exception of Iceland. That is a list of goods which are considered by all of us to be strategic goods. I have said that any country to which the strategic list applies does not export goods that are on the strategic list to Cuba. The decision has been made by the NATO countries, not by us, as to what are strategic goods. We do not ship strategic goods that are on that list to Cuba. Other goods are not considered by the NATO allies as strategic and it is possible to ship them freely.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand the position perfectly and what the minister has said does not get him off the hook. The NATO COCOM list about which he is talking has been drawn up by all but one of the NATO allies, of course, and in the drawing up of that list Canada played its part and has accepted that list.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the list of strategic materials and military supplies agreed on by NATO-


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -for exclusion, if you like, from certain communist countries. But the Canadian government has gone much further than that. The Canadian government has drawn up its own list referred to in the order in council drawing up the list. I will come to that later and quote the exact words of the order in council as to strategic materials. That list is a much broader list than the NATO COCOM list, and on that list there are certain categories of goods described as requiring export permits and control because they are of a military character or are of potential strategic or military importance.


George Harris Hees: Is the Leader of the Opposition referring to the export control list?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, and I will refer to it in detail.


George Harris Hees: That is not the strategic list.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We know that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has made his point and I will make my point when I quote from the order in council establishing this list. We were talking about explosives last night, and I am informed that 125 tons of dynamite went to Cuba recently in one shipment. I have checked the list and the minister is right that dynamite is not included in the Canadian list for which export permits are required and over which control-


George Harris Hees: They are not included in the strategic list of NATO.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I might interrupt for a minute. I understand that a debate of this kind was carried on at the resolution stage and it seems to me that the discussion of the export of goods should be related to exports under this act. I would think that it would be relevant to discuss the use made of the act in the past and whether the capital should be increased; but to embark on a general discussion of exports seems to me to be going beyond the scope of the principle on second reading. In other words, the discussion of exports should be related to exports made in pursuance of authority given under this act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we discussed last evening and, indeed, have been discussing this afternoon certain categories of commodities which have come under this act for insurance purposes. The minister told us last night that some goods of this kind had been insured for Cuba. He also told us last night that the government had satisfied themselves that no goods of recognized strategic significance had moved to Cuba and that such goods had not been insured under this act.


George Harris Hees: Articles on the strategic list.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But, Mr. Speaker, surely we should have a chance to look into the act and how it is operating in respect of the insurance of such goods shipped to these destinations. In Quebec city last December 28, I think it was, under the authority of this act dealing with the import and export of strategic and other goods the governor in council issued a revised export control list-


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and under that section which deals with goods for which permits are required, section 3(a) of the act, 166 items were included in the list of goods for which permits are required. That section is very pertinent to the insurance provision of the act and the amendment now before us. It provides that the cabinet may place goods on the export control list for the purposes of ensuring-

-that arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war, naval, army or air stores or any articles deemed capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof or otherwise having a strategic nature or value will not be made available to any destination wherein their use might be detrimental to the security of Canada.
This is a list of 166 categories of goods which cover goods of a strategic nature or having a strategic value. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the minister may have said, surely that means that the items under this section are items of a strategic character within the regulations established by the government itself, and there have been 166 items of that kind enumerated. In addition to the information we got the other day with regard to permits given under this section of which I think there were 77, we are informed that 100 export permits were issued in 1961 for the sale to Cuba of goods in category 9-1 under this act, that is, goods originating outside Canada. One hundred export permits for the shipment of goods to Cuba originating outside of Canada have been issued, and perhaps when the minister has the appropriate opportunity he will give us some detailed information on that point.
Now, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the disclosure that in the year 1961 there were 76 export permits issued for goods on the list, under authority of paragraph (a), section 3 of the act which I have quoted, the government still states that Canada has issued no permits under this act for the sale to Cuba of goods of a strategic character.


George Harris Hees: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has confirmed that that is correct, that the issuing of permits under this section of the act does not mean that these goods have a strategic character. This denial which the minister has repeated this afternoon is all the more confusing because both the minister and his predecessor have stated that the export control list includes items classified as strategic.


George Harris Hees: It does.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If it includes items-


George Harris Hees: I will explain the whole thing if the hon. member will give me the opportunity.


Lionel Chevrier: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


George Harris Hees: I can explain it in two minutes, if you want to listen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister can make his speech later.
Export Credits Insurance Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the minister will have his opportunity to explain later.


George Harris Hees: You don't want to listen. You are just going ahead talking a lot of nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is obvious the items placed on this list because they come under the section of the act which deals with short supply or because they should be controlled in accordance with intergovernmental agreements should be removed from this particular list. There are only six items that have been placed there for that purpose, and the remaining 166 have been placed on the export control list because, in the judgment of the government, these goods have potential strategic or military value. Support, Mr. Speaker, for the claim that these 166 items have that strategic importance comes from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) speaking in this house when he was minister of trade and commerce. I quote from page 3649 of Hansard for August 16, 1958, and this is what the minister's predecessor said in respect to this matter:
The export control list, moreover, serves an important function in indicating those items which are regarded as strategic, and an endeavour has been made to set forth the list in such form that traders may use it for this purpose.
Now, that is clear and unequivocal language. The minister went on to say this:
This means that if items are not on the export control list, permits will be readily available for export to any Soviet bloc destination on application .. . Our new export control list will serve as a clear lead as to strategic control policy.
Presumably the latest export control list will serve the same purpose. Then, Mr. Speaker, in a subsequent debate in this house about this matter on December 15, 1960, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-this can be found on page 820 of Hansard of that date-pressed for information about the relationship between the export control list and the extent to which it includes strategic material. The minister of trade and commerce of that time said, and I quote from page 820 of Hansard for December 15:
It covers not only strategic materials but other goods which from time to time may be in short supply or should be subject to control.
It covers not only strategic material, as the minister told the house, and that goes for the 76 permits which have been given. The minister tried to tell the house that the 76 permits that have been given do not cover that part of the list for which permission is required because they are of strategic value. Do they cover only those that are

Export Credits Insurance Act of short supply or because of intergovernmental agreements? The minister knows that 76 of those permits are covered in this section of the act which deals with strategic material and goods in short supply. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce, in an effort to clarify this situation said on December 16, 1960, and he was talking about the export control list:
The list includes arms and ammunition, military and related equipment, and raw materials which are of strategic significance.
Then, he went on to say at that time no permits have been or will be issued for the export of these goods to Cuba. You will find those words on page 867 of Hansard. Well, we know now, notwithstanding what the minister has said, that under this section of the act 166 permits have been issued in the last year-no, not 166 and I am not sure of the exact number, but the minister will know. There has been a considerable number of permits issued that come within this very category.
The minister may say yes, we have issued permits for goods placed on the list under the authority given to us by this particular paragraph of the section, but he may say these goods are not strategic. But they were put on this list, Mr. Speaker, and covered by order in council in this section because they were either arms, ammunition or goods of a strategic character. This was a decision which the government took and that is why these categories of goods were put under this act. They were of potential strategic importance. If these goods which are now going to Cuba, and which are on this list, are not of any potential strategic importance, why are these categories kept on this list for which permits are required and over which control is enforced?
All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, to convince yourself that these indeed are things of a potentially strategic character and put on the list for that reason, is to look at the permits themselves. I am not going to take the time of the house to go through the list. The list is there for those who wish to read it, in so far as we have been able to secure information in the house about that list. This seems to me to make the position in regard to this matter quite clear. The government has, by order in council under the act which we are considering today, established a list of goods which, because of the fact that they may have strategic importance, require a permit and are brought under control. We know now that item after item of goods on that list have been given a permit for export to this particular country we are now concerned with, Cuba. We also know that an item like dynamite, which is going to Cuba,

does not presumably require a permit because it is not now, whatever may have been the situation once, on that list.
This, Mr. Speaker, seems to us to be a matter of very great importance in which an important principle is involved. If these orders in council establishing these lists under this act mean what we have been told, they mean, then the greatest possible care should be exercised in issuing permits under the act to cover export of any of these categories of goods to sensitive areas, especially to an area like Cuba which is now under a communist government which has caused a great deal of anxiety and worry in the United States and in the Latin American countries. Surely we should be particularly careful in this country not to take any action which on political grounds would add to these difficulties and where the commercial and trade advantages would not be compensated by the increased political difficulties.
No one in this house wishes to see the operation of the particular act we are discussing limited in any way that would encourage genuine export trading. But we do wish to be absolutely certain, before we agree to a $100 million increase, the amount involved, that this act will be so operated that goods of a strategic and military character will not be permitted to go to areas of the world which are sensitive areas, where the political troubles caused by sending goods to those areas, will not be compensated by any commercial advantage obtained from their export.
When the minister winds up the second reading debate perhaps he will be able to relieve our anxiety in this field. So far anything the minister has said has only added to that anxiety.


Mr. Brunsden:: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? In view of the great exception he takes today in respect to this particular matter may I ask him why the government, of which he was a member, permitted the export of thousands of tons of scrap iron to Japan before the second world war?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That question is very easy to answer. I was not a member of the government at that time. My hon. friend said I was, but he is about 15 years out in associating me with the government of that time. The export at that time, which I gather was approved by all parties in this house, was not covered by an export control list of any kind. It was an export from Canada, without any permit being needed, to a friendly country. It may have been wise or unwise, but it certainly was not covered by order in council

or government action dealing with such exports. If my hon. friend feels the government of that day was negligent in sending material of a strategic character, like scrap iron was, then he should be all the more worried about the sale of aircraft, helicopters, base metals and explosives to a country now under communist government 90 miles off the shores of the United States.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate. The Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sir, you say that if the hon. gentleman speaks now he will close the debate. The debate is not closed.


George Harris Hees: As nobody else got up, I rose to speak.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Speaker got up and asked if any hon. member indicated rising.


An hon. Member:: Oh no.


Léon Balcer: The minister was up.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex East knows I have given a warning to the house and then called on the minister. If the hon. member wishes to speak perhaps the minister is prepared to give way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, seeing the minister was recognized we shall have an opportunity to discuss this matter in committee of the whole.


George Harris Hees: I would like to answer some of the questions asked and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we can go into committee stage, when the hon. member for Essex East can speak as many times as he wishes and as long as he wishes. First of all the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) asked once again regarding the sale and the insuring of sales to China, and asked whether or not that had been done in a legal way. I am glad to assure him once again that it has.
In the case of grain transactions with mainland China the Canadian wheat board simply borrowed from the banks in a perfectly normal way to pay Canadian producers for the grain. These loans were guaranteed by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the government, as is clearly provided in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I am advised that the Chinese grain transactions involved nine months credit. That kind of short term paper is appropriate to finance through the chartered banks.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made reference to the election of the new
Export Credits Insurance Act director, which is proposed here. The reason we are proposing that a new director be added is simply to make it easier for the board of directors to operate. The five directors and the two members of the corporation who also sit as directors of the corporation are all top civil servants, and are among the busiest people in Ottawa. A number of them have to travel quite often and are extremely busy people. As the quorum of the board is four it is often difficult to get a meeting of the board, and therefore it has been decided to ask parliament for the right to add another director. The hon. member for Skeena also suggested asking the Bank of Canada to nominate someone to act as the additional director, and I am glad to be able to tell him that is what we have in mind.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the insuring of sales to communist countries. As the Leader of the Opposition knows very well Canada, since the inception of the act in 1944, has always insured sales to all countries, including communist countries and, as he knows very well, many millions of dollars of sales to communist countries were insured while he was a member of the previous government.
With regard to strategic materials, the export control list includes the strategic list and other items not on the strategic list, that is, goods which are in short supply in Canada and which, from time to time, it is considered not advisable to export from Canada because the needs of Canadians are very great for those materials. Other materials are added from time to time, materials which it might be considered not desirable to be shipped to certain countries or certain parts of the world. Those goods are also included in the export control list.
In the statements I have made regarding Cuba I have made it very clear that with regard to Cuba, goods of a strategic nature are considered to be those on the COCOM strategic list made up at COCOM by representatives of all the NATO countries, with the exception of Iceland. We have considered that that list is the appropriate list of strategic materials to apply to Cuba.
As I have said, we have not granted export permits for the export of any goods on the strategic list, nor have we granted permits for re-export of goods originating in the United States. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that I have now made clear what we export and what we do not export to Cuba.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister permit a question?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I would be glad to.

Export Credits Insurance Act


Lester Bowles Pearson: What, then, did his predecessor mean when he said that the export control list-and he was not talking about the COCOM list; he was talking about the export control list under this act-served an important function in indicating those items which are regarded as strategic?


George Harris Hees: The export control list includes the strategic list. Have I made myself clear?


Mr. Broome:: Could I ask the minister a question arising out of the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). Would the minister confirm that at least the Canadian export list does not include "invasions"?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Board of directors.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, there are several aspects of this matter about which we might seek further clarification. I have been examining the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the year 1961 on the operations of the Export and Import Permits Act and I find that in the report it is stated that no additions or deletions were made to the export control list in 1961. That is the statement made in the minister's report.
The Leader of the Opposition has directed our attention to an order in council that was passed by this government in Quebec. That order in council states that the present export list is effective February 5, 1962. An examination will show that the present list contains 172 numbered items, and my information is that the export control list which the government adopted in August, 1958, contained 228 items. There were, therefore, a number of deletions from the 1958 list by amendments made on September 13, 1960.
In August of 1958 the present government revoked the previous list and established its own export list. I think this is important in the discussion in which we are now engaged. The present government amended that list in September of 1960 and also issued a new list last December, to which our attention was directed by the Leader of the Opposition when he made reference to the Export and Import Permits Act export control list, P.C. 1961, passed at the Citadel, Quebec, Thursday, the twenty eighth day of December last.
Therefore this government-and this is significant, I think, in the light of what the minister has just said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition-has on three occasions
TMr. Hees.]

taken formal action in regard to the definition of goods which have a strategic and military potential. This is a part of the record that cannot and must not be overlooked.
During the course of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition the minister repeatedly said the Leader of the Opposition was confusing two lists. He was seeking to give the impression that the Leader of the Opposition was relying upon the COCOM list, the list of strategic goods which is made applicable to all NATO members; but no one had suggested that the government of Canada had permitted the export to Cuba, in this sensitive period, of goods that were covered by COCOM. The Leader of the Opposition was not speaking of a strategic list that had been devised by NATO members; he was speaking of a strategic list devised by the government of Canada itself. That is the point to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not direct our attention.
Of the articles that have been exported to Cuba, all of them but six come under that portion of section 3 which has to do with ensuring against any military potential that might be used in the country to which the goods have been exported. It is also important to recall once more exactly what is said in section 3 of the act respecting the export of strategic and other goods. The Leader of the Opposition has put this section on the record but I think it bears repetition. We are not talking about COCOM. We accept the minister's word, although we have not the list before us. He says it has never been made public and consequently, without in any way suggesting that we do not accept his word -because we do, if he makes that statement -we have no way of ascertaining whether or not his statement could inadvertently not conform with the facts and this would be, of course, merely by way of mistake.
The minister says that is a secret document that has never been made public. However, we are not talking about that. We are talking about the strategic list which the government of Canada itself has devised and, as I say, in regard to which it has taken special note on three occasions.
Section 3 of the act respecting the export and import of strategic and other goods says:
The governor in council may establish a list of goods, to be called an export control list, including therein any article the export of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purposes-
The purposes are three. I will deal with the second and third first, because they do

not apply to our argument, and then come back to the first. First, (b) says:
to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment; or
(c) to ensure that there is an adequate supply and distribution of such article in Canada for defence or other needs.
The important subsection is that the governor in council may establish a list of goods which he deems it necessary to control; and for this reason:
(a) to ensure that arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war, naval, army or air stores or any articles deemed capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof or otherwise having a strategic nature or value will not be made available to any destination wherein their use might be detrimental to the security of Canada;
Nothing could be clearer than that. The government itself has set out the area of definition of what is a strategic material. Last evening the minister said that the articles to which I had directed his attention, synthetic rubber, aeroplane parts, certain electronic goods and the like, were not strategic. I was tempted at the time to suggest, and perhaps there would be no harm in suggesting, that the conclusion one must draw from that observation of the minister is that if we are to take him at his word he is leaving to the Cuban government the determination as to whether or not articles of this kind are in fact strategic, as to whether or not, in fact, they may be used for purposes that could tend to undermine the security of this country or the defence of this continent.
It is not a question of whether or not the minister believes underwear is in the same category as airplanes, airplane parts, electronic machines or motor and military vehicles. It is not a question of whether or not there is a difference. The fact is that the government of Canada itself has said what is strategic. The government has given authority to sell those goods which under this act it says are strategic. Those sales are being made to Cuba which is a sensitive area at the present time. That is the indictment we make against the government.
We started out by saying that certain commodities such as airplane parts, synthetic rubber, helicopters, dynamite, explosives and the like are commodities of a kind that should not be sent to a country such as Cuba under present circumstances. We took the position that those were strategic materials. We did not argue, at first, that those were strategic in law. We said they were strategic by their very nature in the context of the situation attending the country to which they had been exported.
But now, after consideration, we add the further argument that the goods complained
Export Credits Insurance Act of cannot be regarded as anything but strategic not only within the context in which the word is used but in the light of what is the law of Canada, a law which this government itself established pursuant to authority given to it by parliament.
The minister has recommended to his colleagues that certain goods should be regarded as strategic. Authority has been given for the export of those goods to Cuba. The government in this order in council, pursuant to the authority given to it by parliament, says that these goods are strategic. Can there be anything clearer than this?
The minister takes the position that the goods covered by COCOM are of a kind which it is presumed could cause greater devastation and destruction than the goods covered under the Export and Import Permits Act. We would say that that might be an arguable position, and it likely is. We might also, for the purposes of argument, agree that many of the articles covered, particularly in item 8-43 of the list under the Export and Import Permits Act might not have the same destructive quality or potential as articles covered in the strategic list devised by NATO. However, the minister cannot escape the fact that the goods which have been sent to Cuba with the government's approval under item 8-43 are strategic not only because of the meaning of the word "strategic" in relation to a particular commodity, but in relation to section 3(a) of the act concerning the export and import of strategic and other goods.
The conclusion is irresistible. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out it is clear what this government has done. Exercising judgment it has allowed goods to be exported to Cuba at a time when there is great concern about developments there in relation to the North American continent and the general situation that prevails in the world, goods which in fact could be used by anyone desiring so to do for the purpose of prosecuting the exercise of force. If there was any doubt about that, the doubt is removed as a result of confirmation by the government itself and the very terms of section 3(a). The minister may nod his head in disagreement. I can understand his embarrassment.


George Harris Hees: No embarrassment whatever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister cannot, however, under any circumstances, remove the clear justification for the argument we have made here today. The government has allowed to be exported to Cuba goods which it has said are strategic. That is a fact, and no words of the minister can serve to deny this circumstance.

Export Credits Insurance Act


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, once again I shall try to explain to the hon. member what I have been attempting to explain for approximately a day, but it is very difficult to get people to understand if they do not wish to understand.
I will say once again that the NATO countries, our allies, including the United States, have decided, after a great deal of consideration, what in their opinion are strategic goods. I have explained to the Leader of the Opposition that our export control list includes the strategic list I have just mentioned plus other items which for one reason or another-and the previous government also did this-we consider should not be sent to certain countries in various parts of the world, and in addition items which because of their being in short supply in Canada makes it not a sensible course to have them exported.
As I have said-and I shall say it once again-we do not permit and have not permitted the shipment to Cuba of goods which have been considered strategic by all of the NATO countries including the United States. That is the position we have always taken and that is our position today. We do not believe in shipping to Cuba any goods which our allies and ourselves consider to be strategic. Other items on the export control list are there because for one reason or another we do not think they should be shipped to certain parts of the world. The goods we do not think should be shipped to Cuba are those on the agreed strategic list. I hope I have made myself clear.
I say again that hon. members of the opposition are making it very obvious that they are doing everything in their power by their many virulent, misleading speeches, to create the greatest possible misunderstanding between Canada and the United States. I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that that is a very high price to pay for a headline. It represents a course of conduct of which hon. gentlemen opposite should be thoroughly ashamed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has come back to his old and slanderous charge that because we are trying to elicit the facts in this matter we are exacerbating differences between Canada and the United States.


George Harris Hees: That is exactly what you are trying to do in order to achieve a headline.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister must have a very guilty conscience in this respect.


George Harris Hees: I am just a little fed up with the tactics of hon. gentlemen opposite in trying to create difficulties between Canada and the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the most extravagant headlines about this matter which have been seen in the press in recent years have been headlines provoked by the minister's own statements about relations with Cuba-


George Harris Hees: That is utter nonsense.


William Moore Benidickson: They are wonderful
people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Also, Mr. Chairman, the headlines that have been provoked recently have been provoked by the government's policy in regard to this matter. The minister throws up the old smokescreen about the NATO COCOM list. He said that we sent nothing on that list to Cuba. We accept that statement. He told us that last night. But the minister also will not tell us about other items on a list which is designated by the government itself in the legislation covering this matter, as strategic; and I will repeat it again, articles of a strategic nature. This is not a NATO definition; this is a Canadian government definition. The minister will not say whether this government will or will not continue to supply goods under that list category to Cuba.
As a matter of fact, the minister has said- and I hope I am quoting him correctly- that unless an item is on the COCOM list, it will go to Cuba. He has done that. They have given permits for such goods and those goods have included radioactive materials, helicopters, aircraft and indeed dynamite. The minister takes the responsibility for the decision in respect of certain goods of this character sent to this particular country at this time. In view of the situation in that country and in view of relations between that country and its neighbours, including the United States, the minister takes the position that it is perfectly all right and that if you apply for a permit for goods of that kind, you will get it. That is the position the minister is taking.
He has also said that in respect to these items, they may be strategic or they may not be strategic, in accordance with the use to which they are put in Cuba. I ask the minister who decides that question. Who decides what use dynamite is going to be put to in Cuba? Who decides what use an aeroplane is going to be put to in Cuba?


George Harris Hees: I will tell you that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it the minister said "We will decide".


George Harris Hees: I said that I will tell you. The hon. member is asking the question and I shall be very glad to tell him the answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who decides?

Export Credits Insurance Act


George Harris Hees: It will be the NATO countries. Mr. Hees: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: According to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East the United States and other countries that form NATO know nothing about anything. We say the people who are most fit to judge what are strategic materials and what are not strategic materials, as far as Cuba is concerned, are ourselves and our NATO allies, and we are abiding by that decision, not any decision by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Essex East or any other member of the opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister falls back once again on the NATO list. He should know that this NATO list was drawn up long before there was any difficulty with Cuba at all, and long before the Castro revolution in Cuba. The COCOM list was in existence at that time.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are talking about a situation which has developed in Cuba and which had nothing whatever to do with the COCOM list, because that situation did not then exist. I therefore ask the minister to forget about NATO for a moment and to come back to Canada and tell this committee who makes the decision whether a permit will be given for the export of dynamite, helicopters or aircraft to Cuba. Who makes the decision whether those materials will be used in a way which will make them dangerous to peace and security in this hemisphere? Who decides that they will be used for peaceful purposes and that therefore it is quite all right to let them go forward? Who makes that decision?


George Harris Hees: The NATO countries committee called COCOM.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: You asked me the question and I gave the answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister this question? He said that the NATO members made the decision. What about the order in council that was amended at Quebec on December 28? Was that decided on by the cabinet? Or did the members of NATO have representatives at the cabinet meeting, and was that amendment not made entirely, as it should have been made, by the members of the government of Canada? Is the minister trying to tell us or trying to suggest to this committee that the government decided that matter or that it was decided for the government of Canada by some group of countries outside?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the government or the minister does not expect the committee to be so credulous as he seems to imply.


George Harris Hees: That decision was made by the government. This government makes its own decisions instead of allowing them to be made by other countries as was the case when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office. I am telling the hon. member for Essex East that the government made that decision. In that list are included three categories, and I will say this over again as the hon. member is extremely dull this afternoon. The three categories are the strategic list as was decided-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The strategic list.


George Harris Hees: I am telling the hon. member the three categories. He sits there giggling like a gaping ape instead of listening.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The strategic list.


George Harris Hees: The three categories on the list that my hon. friend asked about are as follows. There is first the COCOM list decided by NATO. Then there are items which we do not want exported at the present time because of their short supply in Canada, and other items which, for one reason or another, we do not think it would be desirable to have shipped to certain parts of the world. Those three categories make up that list.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is only getting himself into greater difficulty in his laudable effort to explain the matter. If the first list he talks about under 3(a) is only the COCOM list-and that is what he calls it-how does he explain the fact that there are 166 items in that list and that there is a much smaller number of items than that on the COCOM list? Then if the COCOM list is the only list that really matters in connection with this matter or is the only list which governs the export of these materials to areas like Cuba-why not restrict this strategic list to the 3(a) list or the COCOM list? Why add all these additional items to it as strategic materials?


George Harris Hees: I have said that there are three categories and that in one of these categories are items which for one reason or another, we do not wish to see exported at this time to certain parts of the world. The items that we do not wish to see exported to Cuba, a certain part of the world, at this time are the items that have been declared by NATO to be strategic, and we are not exporting them. That is the list we do not export to Cuba.
958	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister will not go beyond the statement he has made. However, that statement is completely contradicted by the act.


George Harris Hees: Nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Section 3(a) of the act does not even mention COCOM. Section 3(a) of this act was in effect before the COCOM list was drawn up. Now the minister says it is a NATO list in a Canadian piece of legislation that matters. He says there are three categories and one is the NATO category. There are two other categories, one dealing with intergovernmental agreements and the other dealing with short supply. The minister asked us to believe that there are only three categories of goods in this act, namely the NATO COCOM list, the short supply list and the intergovernmental list. The act itself completely denies what the minister has said.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


George James McIlraith: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The 3(a) list about which we have been talking under category 9-1 of that list, deals with goods originating outside of Canada, whether in bond or cleared by Canadian customs. Is it a fact that 100 export permits have been issued in 1961 for the sale to Cuba of goods in this category? If so, can the minister give us any particulars about these goods and where they come from?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a completely different act from the one with which the hon. member is dealing. I am very happy to speak in general terms on general matters of export. However, inasmuch as this is a completely different act that we are dealing with at the present time, I, of course, do not have these specific details at my fingertips. If the hon. member wishes to put the question on the order paper I shall be glad to answer it. However, as that is not the act with which we are dealing at the present time, I naturally have not available the specific information that he has asked for. We are dealing with an act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act. I shall be glad to answer in detail any questions about that act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister admitted last evening that under the act in question the government was insuring certain exports to Cuba. He admitted that last night. We are trying to find out whether, in respect of those goods that have been insured for export to Cuba, 100 permits have been issued for the sale to that country of goods originating outside Canada under category 9-1 of the


Export and Import Permits Act. We have been talking about that for the last hour and a half.
The Depuiy Chairman:	Shall clause 1
carry?


George Harris Hees: No, I should like to give the hon. member his answer. I am advised that in the past 12 months goods going to Cuba have been insured in the amount of $270,000 and I am also advised that the two categories of goods that have been insured are pharmaceuticals and supplies for making paper. Does that satisfy the Leader of the Opposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it I will have to be satisfied because the minister will not give us any information.


George Harris Hees: I have asked the chairman of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, and he has given me that specific answer. I cannot give any additional information because there is none. I have given the hon. member the complete answer as given to me by the chairman of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation who is sitting right in front of me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to elicit from the minister his understanding of 3(a) which does use the word "strategic". The minister says that all he follows is the COCOM list and he seeks to establish by implication that there is no other list by which the government of Canada is bound. We have on record in answer to questions put by the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Ottawa West the character of the goods which have been sent to Cuba. The great bulk of these goods are goods that come under 3(a). Are we to understand now that the government interprets 3(a) in a manner different from what is suggested by the actual wording? If so, will the minister explain why in 3(a) it reads this way:
-to ensure that arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war, naval, army or air stores or any articles deemed capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof or otherwise having a strategic nature-
What are we to understand is the government's position? Does it regard the use of the word "strategic" there in a different sense from what it does when giving consideration to the COCOM list?


George Harris Hees: If you want me to answer I will answer. We consider that the definition given to "strategic" by the COCOM list is the one that applies to Cuba as far as we are concerned.


Peter Francis Martin: I am not asking that. I am not asking what meaning the minister attaches to the list devised by

COCOM but to the list which has been devised by the government of which he is a member and on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Harris Hees: That is correct, and in order to ensure that the kinds of items listed here are not shipped to Cuba, we have taken the definition and list made up by the 12 countries concerned and we do not ship to Cuba items of that kind which are considered to have a strategic nature as defined here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But then you do ship synthetic rubber. You do allow the shipment of electric transformers, motor vehicles-


Mr. Pugh:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do allow industrial chemical specialties and explosives.


David Vaughan Pugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do allow aircraft engines and parts.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary is raising a point of order.


David Vaughan Pugh: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we are straying a little far from the actual bill under consideration. You more or less made a ruling before, but we keep coming back to this same question, the export of strategic materials, which has nothing whatever to do with the subject before us at the present time. I think there is plenty of opportunity to debate this other matter at the proper time, but certainly that time is not now. It is not part of the subject before us. Could we have a ruling?


George Harris Hees: In answer to the hon. member for Essex East may I say I am advised that the items we have shipped to Cuba under 3(a) are quartz crystals for aircraft radio receivers, certain aircraft engine parts, a cobalt bomb for hospital use and radioactive cobalt for hospital use.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister suggesting that these are the only-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Essex East but the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary has asked for a ruling on the matter of relevancy. I find that to some extent I am inclined to agree with him and I only measure my agreement by the precedents to which I listened when we were in the house a short time ago and the Speaker was in the chair.
26207-1-61i
Export Credits Insurance Act This has made it difficult for me to be very stringent in holding the debate to a narrow sphere.
I should point out to the committee that clause 1 of the bill merely increases the number of members of the board of directors from five to six. I realize that on clause 1 of a bill the scope of debate is a little wider than normal, so I can only seek, before taking my seat, the co-operation of members on both sides of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the care with which you have expressed your views as to the situation. May I assure the Chair that we have the fullest confidence in the view he has taken as to what should be the course of discussion. The reply given by the minister a moment ago was surely a limited one. In fairness to the minister, I hope he is listening. I hope the answer he gave a moment ago was not intended to be an exhaustion of the list of goods which have been exported to Cuba pursuant to section 3(a) of the act because the reply he gave the hon. member for Ottawa West clearly indicates that much more was sent to Cuba with government approval than the list mentioned by the hon. gentleman. Among those things were aircraft and helicopters, piloted or pilotless aeroengines, all sorts of helicopter equipment. Then we have military crash helmets, parachutes used for combat personnel and the like. These kind of things are all covered in 8-1 and are capable of being sent to Cuba. Is the minister going to suggest to us that articles of this kind are not to be regarded in themselves as strategic?
But we do not rely on this for the validity of our case. Rather, we rely upon the act to which has been appended a regulation authorized by the governor in council. That is the point, and the minister keeps evading this aspect of the matter. He says that the only goods he has not allowed to be shipped to Cuba are goods which are regarded as strategic under COCOM. We accept that. We have no alternative because the COCOM list is not before us. But we say what we object to is the authorization for export to Cuba of goods characterized as strategic in the government's own legislation, and the minister has not yet dealt with that point.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to make the hon. member understand. I have explained it over and over again and I am afraid I just cannot explain it further.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a very simple question? Was dynamite on the 3(a) list before the revision of December, 1961?

Export Credits Insurance Act


George Harris Hees: I have no idea, Mr. Chairman. All I say is that it is not on the COCOM list.


An hon. Member:: What about bow ties?


William Moore Benidickson: I do not want to intervene if some members want to pursue the line of questioning that has been going on in this committee, but I do have some questions to ask before I, personally, would be prepared to see clause 1 carried. We had some discussion yesterday during which phraseology was used indicating that this financing was confined or related to capital goods. I am no expert on this act, but I have tried within the last couple of days, although I have had some other bills to look at, to find in the statute itself something which justifies people in saying that export credit facilities should be confined to capital goods.
Now, the Canadian Press in December put out a speculative story to the effect that we might have an amendment to this statute this session. They referred to the fact that there was a ceiling of $200 million on the amount available for export assistance such as that contemplated under the act. Events have proven this speculation to be accurate, and the government is recommending to parliament a large increase in the authority of the executive to grant export credit, under certain circumstances, so that the ceiling on government liability will be $300 million instead of $200 million. I am not clear as to why the phrase is used, "capital goods". I find that the Auditor General, when he reviewed the operations of this crown corporation for the year ending March 21, 1961, picked up this phrase "capital goods" on page 85 of his report when he was trying to give a short outline of the purpose of the crown corporation.
I know that some of the largest transactions, both under this government and the former one, when utilization was made of this statute which was introduced by a Liberal government, have been related to financing grain sales on longer terms than commercial banks would make possible. I am going to look at another reference in the Auditor General's report, but that is my first question. Would the minister be kind enough, after I conclude, to direct my attention to the statute which in his mind justifies the use of the phrase "capital goods" as being the basis for the legislation before us?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I will be glad to do so. It is not specified in the statute; it is simply done by practice because capital goods are the only type of goods to which long term credit can apply. The sale of wheat and things of that kind is insured, but it is not sold on long term credit. I am sure the hon.


member will appreciate that long term credit is only granted on capital goods because that is an asset that lasts.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad to have that explanation because I could not find anything in the statute that would justify the use of the term "capital goods", and yet reference had been made to it. The minister is saying, then, that when it comes to products like grain, which are consumables, utilization is made of the old, basic section 21.
Section 2 IB is relatively new, and I thought the hon. member for Ottawa West used a good definition yesterday in referring to it when he called it a guarantee of export paper.


George Harris Hees: Section 21 A.


William Moore Benidickson: Last session, there was an amendment and section 21B was added to the act. Hon. members will be aware of the fact that under section 21B there was a clearer obligation placed upon the government to report transactions under this act to parliament. My recollection is that under this amendment of last year, the government is obilgated to report within 30 days after the opening of a session, the decisions that the executive has reached under either section 21 or 21A, because they involve very substantial sums of money. The government is supposed to submit the orders in council to parliament. If parliament is in session when a transaction contemplated by these sections is agreed upon, the cabinet is obligated within 30 days to submit to parliament a record of the transaction.
We are here on February 16, and there are rumours that contracts have been entered into for the financing of wheat sales within the last week or so. This rumour was denied, I think, the other day.


George Harris Hees: Not under this act.


William Moore Benidickson: I take it from what the minister has said that part of the confusion arises from the fact that apparently utilization has been made of the Canadian Wheat Board Act rather than this act in connection with financing or facilitating the sale of grain to China. This is new information for us and, of course, comes as something of a surprise. Like the hon. member for Ottawa West I would have assumed that, having established machinery for export credit, that machinery would have been used to facilitate these sales. The opposition at no time has indicated any opposition to the sale itself. Indeed, it has pointed out that while a Liberal government was in power it facilitated, through this statute, sales of grain to countries behind the iron curtain. It is not on that basis that we have any objection to the actions of the

wheat board in connection with sales of grain to China. We do feel, however, inasmuch as there is a taxpayers' liability of considerable consequence involved, we as their representatives in parliament are entitled, at the earliest opportunity, to the fullest possible information, and that we have not been getting.
Now, in connection with section 21B, I want to ask whether we are going to find, as we have found on three or four important occasions I could name, that after we have adopted the legislation of a particular minister, have passed his bill, he provides us with the annual report for a 12 month operation. We are then in a position where the information was not available to us when an important statute under his administration was under debate. Perhaps the obligation to report any transactions under this statute within 30 days will not be up until Monday. However, I should like some assurance from the minister that parliament has already been informed of all transactions during the recess under the Export Credits Insurance Act and, in addition, although he is not obligated to produce them, he has entered into no transactions under section 21, 21A or 21B since parliament convened?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to assure the hon. member that all transactions I enunciated yesterday-the four of them-have all been tabled.


William Moore Benidickson: Then I come to the point that before we proceed with the bill it would be appropriate to have some further explanations from the minister. I indicated with reference to capital goods that this phrase was informally used. Although I cannot find it in the statutes the words "capital goods" were used in the Auditor General's report but in addition, as the minister is well aware, the Auditor General who only takes sample checks-he does not by any means audit every account-as a result of certain sample or test audits reports that he found that under the machinery of operation under this act there had been a fraud perpetrated to the amount of some $70,000. I think in his report he indicated that a claim was being made on the exporter who had been insured and who, under the insurance provisions, had received reimbursement from the government. Has the exporter acceeded to the claim advanced by the government and has he repaid the $70,000?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that there is nothing wrong with the exporter, and the agent abroad is being investigated at the present time.


William Moore Benidickson: Under its obligations our crown corporation did advance the $70,000.
Export Credits Insurance Act The Auditor General suggests that there was perhaps fraud on the part of some person to the extent of allowing the payment of $70,000 and there is some question whether it should have been advanced-


George Harris Hees: I understand-


William Moore Benidickson: May I just finish one short sentence. I take it the crown corporation is perusing the recommendation of the Auditor General but it has not yet completed its request to the exporter for reimbursement of a payment that may not have been properly made.


George Harris Hees: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman-


George Harris Hees: For heaven's sake.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know the minister is impatient but he must remember that we in the opposition have a responsibility-


Mr. Morris:: The same old line.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have the responsibility that the minister exercised when he was over here. The minister ought to remember that when he was in opposition he sought to discharge that responsibility with vigour and there were many occasions-


George Harris Hees: I would have been ashamed of myself if I had discharged it this way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -when he took a great deal of time. Now he is annoyed if members take time, but we recollect that the minister has set a very good example for us, an example which in some particulars we are seeking to emulate. I think the minister ought to take a look at the reply given by his parliamentary secretary to a question asked by the hon. member for Trinity. That question has not been put on Hansard during the course of this debate and maybe the minister has overlooked it. It was question No. 148 which asked:
1.	How many items are presently on the export control list.
The answer was:
One hundred and seventy two numbered items.
That is the list which in section 3(a) is regarded as having a strategic nature, notwithstanding the denial today by the minister.
The question also asked:
2.	Are any items on the export control list for the purpose of implementing an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment; and, if so, how many and what are they?
The answer was:
Yes, two numbered items.

Export Credits Insurance Act
Then the various items are to be found in the reported list. There is no argument about these two answers, but with regard to the third answer I think the minister should give us a greater precision in his reply than he has given thus far, because he says no strategic materials whatsoever have been shipped to Cuba with the authority of this government. The question by the hon. member for Trinity was:
3.	Are any items on the export control list for the purpose of ensuring that arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war, naval, army or air stores or any articles deemed capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof or otherwise having a strategic nature or value, will not be made available to any destination wherein their use might be detrimental to the security of Canada; and, if so, how many, and what are they?
If there had been any doubt about the nature of this discussion today on second reading, look at the reply which reads:
Yes, 166 numbered items. These are all the items in the export control list except those shown in part 2 and part 4.
Now we come to the fourth part of the question:
4.	Are any items on the export control list for the purpose of ensuring that there is an adequate supply and distribution of such articles in Canada for defence or other needs; and, if so, how many, and what are they?
The answer is:
Yes,...
The details do not concern us. Surely the answer to number 3 should put an end to the misunderstanding which the minister says prevails between us. I want to ask the minister, as we come to the end of the time for the discussion of this matter today, does he not realize he is being put in a very difficult position? It is not going to be resolved by his being angry and using intemperate language, language that is not characteristic of him. Will he not seek to approach a resolution of this problem in a contrite, humble, conciliatory manner-


Mr. Walker:: As the member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend says, as the member for Essex East is seeking to do. I will admit that today I used rather vigorous language against the minister, for whom I have the highest regard-


George Harris Hees: For heaven's sake.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am trying to urge the minister to be conciliatory and he now shows further signs of temper.


George Harris Hees: It is just boredom. You are just boring me.


Peter Francis Martin: He says it is boredom. That is an unfortunate remark.


George Harris Hees: It is very true when you talk all afternoon.


Peter Francis Martin: The people of Canada are vitally concerned about this problem.


George Harris Hees: And they are bored to death listening to you.


Peter Francis Martin: The minister says the people of Canada are bored to death-


George Harris Hees: Listening to you.


Peter Francis Martin: I can assure you they are not the least bored to death with our efforts seeking to elicit from the minister a full reply on this vital matter. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has stated our position with regard to ordinary commercial arrangements with a country like Cuba at the present time and we support that policy of the government. We have not expressed any opinions with regard to that. Indeed, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River spoke about the export of wheat which started long before this. There were many exports of wheat to the present communist government of China, and the Canadian government had provided for the sale of Canadian wheat to Czechoslovakia and to Poland.


William Moore Benidickson: And Russia.


Peter Francis Martin: And to Russia. That is not the point but what we are concerned about here is to ensure that we are not exporting to Cuba goods which could have a strategic value, that we are not exporting goods which under the law of Canada have a strategic nature, under the law which the minister himself has to administer. I say to him that the answer which his parliamentary secretary gave to the third portion of the question put by the hon. member for Trinity is a complete indictment of the position which the minister took here today.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Nonsense.


Peter Francis Martin: Goods of a strategic character have been exported to Cuba.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Nonsense.


Peter Francis Martin: That is the reply of the government of Canada through the parliamentary secretary. The minister's only reply to this is that we have not shipped to Cuba any goods that are contrary to COCOM, that is, contrary to the strategic list devised by the NATO countries. We do not take issue with that statement. What we do say, and I repeat it, is that the government by its reply to the hon. member

for Trinity and by the replies to the hon. member for Ottawa West has acknowledged that it did ship goods that are strategic within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Export and Import Permits Act. The government, rather than acknowledging this situation, seeks to give the impression that it has not authorized the export to Cuba of anything that is strategic. That is not borne out by the facts; that is not borne out by the replies of the parliamentary secretary.
If the government now takes the position that perhaps that should not have been done, that would be an understandable position to take; but for the minister to persist in trying to convey the impression that when we use the word "strategic" we are thinking of it in terms of the meaning within the NATO strategic list, I say that is not addressing oneself to the real argument.
If we have bored the minister; if we have persisted in this line of reasoning today, it is because it is our duty as an opposition to see that this government does not unwittingly-we know it does not want to do it wittingly-give assistance to a country with which we are not in concert in so far as foreign policy is concerned, having in mind our relations with countries on this continent and in the free world.
We do not accept dictation from any country, but we do recognize that we have an obligation to countries with whom we have so much in common, and while we do not pursue the same course in every particular, we are bound, surely, in the common interest to pursue a policy in regard to this matter that is not going to be detrimental to the integrity of our friends and is not going to be contrary to the very law which we ourselves have passed in this house.
That is the situation, and no abuse from the minister up to now or abuse which he may heap on me from now until five o'clock-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -is going to alter the position that he has not satisfied us by the replies he has given here this afternoon.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 1
carry?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I see that the minister is not going to answer that particular point, which I thought was a very good one. Without wanting to delay the passage of this legislation, I wish to ask the minister to tell us very briefly, inasmuch as he has said that seemingly authority for financing the sales of grain to China have come under the operation of the wheat
Canadian National Railways board act-and I know he is the minister in charge-under what section of the wheat board act he finds the authority for that action?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct the hon. member. I am not the minister in charge of the wheat board act.


William Moore Benidickson: Your predecessors used to be, but it is now transferred to the Minister of Agriculture; you are quite right.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-48, to amend an act respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Optic lake to Chisel lake, and the purchase by Canadian National Railway Company from the International Nickel Company of Canada Limited, of a line of railway from Sipiwesk to a point on Burntwood river near Mystery lake, all in the province of Manitoba-Mr. Balcer-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, this morning the hon. member for Laurier asked me whether I could give the freight rate on this new branch line. I now have the information. The freight rate is $2 per ton from Flin Flon to Chisel lake. This is a scale rate and it is made up in mileage blocks. When the new eight miles of branch line are opened a new mileage block will come into effect and the rate will move into the next mileage block. Therefore the published scale rate filed with the board of transport commissioners will be $2.25 per ton. Then there will be an additional surcharge by reason of negotiation with the company. This additional surcharge will be added to the $2.25 per ton, but the surcharge is part of the agreement; it was not filed with the board. As it is part of the agreement I am not in a position to give any more information on this agreed surcharge.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall I report the bill?

Canadian National Railways


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order in connection with the proceedings which took place this morning when we were discussing this bill. It has to do specifically with a point of order related to a comment made by the hon. member for Essex East about the chairman of the committee at that time. I tried to raise it, the committee will recall, earlier this day but was prevented from so doing because the matter had been referred by the committee to Mr. Speaker.
In point of fact, the hon. member for Essex East made the specific allegation about the person who was occupying the chair at that time, and said that he was guilty of improper conduct. An examination of the record will confirm, I am certain, my recollection of the circumstances which led up to that allegation. I hoped the hon. member for Essex East would be in his seat at this time because I am sure he would wish to withdraw the allegation, which was highly improper, made concerning the chairman at that time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I think it is a practice to first raise a point of order within the rules of the house. We are now beyond five o'clock and technically speaking-I am not making this point, as I will indicate in a moment-the hon. member is out of order. Second, the time to raise a question of privilege or a point of order is when the committee is sitting. The hon. member rose-


Frank Charles McGee: He was on his feet.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member rose after the committee had risen and a report had been made to Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker told the hon. member that he was out of order. Now the hon. member tries to raise this matter under other considerations, and I think he is still out of order.
The third point I make is that it is not up to the hon. member to raise the point, it is up to the Chair. If the Chair felt a reflection had been cast by any remark made by the hon. member for Essex East the hon. gentleman would have been called upon to withdraw and I am sure he would have done so at the time. I submit with respect that the hon. member is out of order on three grounds.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sure the record will speak for itself in relation to the point of order that has been raised. I now ask your leave to report the bill. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: We have passed the hour of
five o'clock but by unanimous consent we can proceed at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léon Balcer: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to a consideration of private members' business as listed on the order paper.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-10, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act.-Mr. Boulanger.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill has been stood twice.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house leader requesting that this bill stand?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker. It has been
stood twice.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the hon. member in whose name it stands this bill will be dropped to the bottom of the list, if it has already been called twice.



CRIMINAL CODE


Frank Charles McGee: the second reading of Bill No. C-12, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in bringing forward this bill again at this session following the acceptance by this house of a government measure which limited the application of the death penalty and established degrees of murder is to place on the record of the house, for future debates which may occur on the subject, certain information that has come to light in this country relating to public opinion and feeling with respect to this subject, information that has come to light in Great Britain as a result of analyses that have been made there of the pattern of murder and the effectiveness of the legislation which has been in effect in that country since 1957, and also information concerning an event which occurred in New Zealand in

October, 1961. This event is perhaps unique in commonwealth parliamentary history, an event which saw the death penalty in that country abolished again as a result of a free vote which took place in that assembly. I shall describe it in some detail later. At the moment I shall say only that it involved unique action on the part of members of the government party and in particular on the part of a member of the cabinet.
The bill introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) last year, as the house will recall, was not proclaimed until September 1, the reason for that, of course, being that the cases under consideration in the spring assizes in the various provinces were not to be brought under the act or else there would have been a retroactive pattern evolved. The act was proclaimed some time in September, as I recall, in anticipation of the fall assizes and cases of murder which occurred in the interval were brought under the new legislation.
One of the most interesting developments from my point of view in connection with public opinion about capital punishment and the abolition thereof has been the fact that for the first time in history the percentage of people who advocate the retention of the death penalty has dropped below the magic figure of 50 per cent.
There are those who claim that 50 per cent of the population, plus one, speak with the authority of the voice of God. I am not prepared to subscribe to that statement. However, it is interesting that in 1960 when this matter was the subject of extended debate in this house the percentages at that time were as follows: 51 per cent were in favour of retention of the death penalty, 41 per cent favoured its abolition and 8 per cent had no opinion on the matter.
Going back a few years, the figures for 1943, for example, were as follows: 73 per cent favoured retention of the death penalty and 18 per cent favoured its abolition.
Since the new measure came into effect and the number of categories of murders which are punishable by death was reduced, public opinion has undergone an interesting and perhaps understandable change. The figure for those favouring retention dropped to 47 per cent. The figure for those having no opinion or who were undecided on the question increased to an all time high of 27 per cent indicating in my judgment a "wait and see" reaction on the part of the Canadian people. This indicates to me that the public is willing to give this measure an opportunity to prove itself, to demonstrate its effectiveness or lack of it.
Criminal Code
I remind the house that when this new legislation was introduced I described it as representing a more intelligent and effective compromise than the attempt which had been made in 1957 in England.
In my view it would be meaningless to attempt to evaluate the experience under the new legislation in view of the fact that it has been in operation only a short time. Perhaps in another year we will be better able to conduct a more searching examination into the question of the effectiveness of the present legislation.
The experience in England which as I said is based on a far less effective attempt to reach middle ground between the abolitionist position and the retentionist position has produced figures which do not differ greatly from those I placed on the record last year and the year before. A report of a publication issued by the home office analysing the types of murder which have taken place during the past ten years in Great Britain stated in part that the publication-
-although it provides no heavy ammunition for those either in favour of or opposed to capital punishment. .. does give some fascinating statistics on murders, who commits them and why.
Let me deal with the fundamental point of the abolitionist argument. Those who contend that the death penalty is a unique deterrent-and this is the nub of the retentionist argument-argue that when capital punishment is abolished the expected and anticipated increase in the murder rate does not take place. I have always been careful to avoid falling into the trap of arguing in reverse fashion that if you wish to reduce the incidence of murder, one means of bringing it about is to abolish the death penalty.
However, as I have always done, I now challenge those who would retain the death penalty to demonstrate that, when it is abolished, the murder rate increases as they anticipate. As you know, Mr. Speaker, they argue that the murderer has selected his victim, accumulated his motive and planned his method and is only restrained by the threat of the death penalty in one of its many forms. They argue further-and it certainly follows from the first one-that if that threat of the death penalty is removed, then these people who have,selected their victims, accumulated their motives and worked out their methods will, when released from this restraint, proceed to commit their murders.
Last year I put on the record the most recent experience in the United States. In the state of Delaware which abolished the death penalty a few years ago the murder rate in the full year prior to the point at which it was abolished was 12. In the full year following that date the murder rate

Criminal Code
was 12, or in other words it was unchanged. In the year following that one it dropped to seven. Again I am not falling into the tempting trap involved in that statement. The point is that this simply does not happen where you have adjacent states, as you have in North Dakota and South Dakota in the United States. Certainly the murder rate there from year to year does not vary according to the state which has retained the death penalty, as opposed to the state which has abolished it.
This brings me to the question of New Zealand. The minister of justice of New Zealand presented to the parliament of that country a bill very much along the lines of the bill which was presented to this house last year by Canada's Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). The discussion apparently proceeded through second reading and when the bill was in the committee stage a member of the opposition moved an amendment simply to substitute, as my bill in this particular case attempts to do, the words "life imprisonment" for the words "death penalty" or "death by hanging" where they occurred. A rather extraordinary event took place at that point in the proceedings. The division bells were ringing. In the New Zealand house the pattern of voting is the same as in England. The vote was taken on the opposition amendment to substitute life imprisonment for the death penalty. From the reports I have been able to obtain it is not clear just what the sequence of events was which brought about the understanding in the house that this would be a matter of individual choice. However, that agreement was reached and the vote proceeded. The person who lead the members of the government who voted for the opposition amendment was the minister of justice who had introduced the bill.
I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that this event was unique in many respects. It certainly does violence to the notion of cabinet solidarity. It certainly is unusual that a minister or for that matter a private member introducing a bill does not usually support an amendment which in effect alters the principle of the bill. However, the event says something about the New Zealand house and about the healthy state of affairs in the New Zealand house.
This matter was the subject of an editorial which appeared in the Evening Post published in Wellington and which described the event as "a triumph for democracy". In addition to commending the members of parliament and the members of both parties in that house for the manner in which they had proceeded on this question, they noted with some relief that this question had now apparently been taken out of the political football category. When I spoke in this house a few years ago

I acknowledged the fact and pleaded in this house that this matter should not become a question of party politics, as it had been in the New Zealand house. This editorial, in passing, makes the following comment:
While Mr. Nash contended last night that Labour members had a free vote, the undeniable fact is that through the years it has been the rule for an individual to declare himself in opposition to capital punishment before he could be acceptable as a candidate.
I have contended that this is an unhealthy thing. This is the type of issue which should not become imbedded in party platforms. What had happened in previous years in New Zealand was that the death penalty was abolished by one government. On that government being defeated, it was restored by the government that succeeded it. Then that government in turn being defeated, the death penalty was abolished again. At that time I made the statement-and I make it again now; it is in agreement with the whole tone of this editorial-that it is an unhealthy state indeed where a change in government involves such a fundamental change in the law of the land. As I say, it may perhaps devolve further and this matter may again become the subject of party political partisan discussion. However, it is my hope and the expressed hope of the writer of this editorial and of others who have noted that situation, that this will conclude the matter and that it will be removed, as I mentioned earlier, from the category of a political football.
This is in summary all I have time to place on the record with relation to the question of capital punishment. It is encouraging in many ways. It is encouraging that the movement towards abolition has continued its pattern around the world with more and more governments and more and more jurisdictions taking the final step toward abolishing the death penalty. It is my hope and expectation that before too many years go by the Canadian parliament, supported by a growing body of public opinion, will abolish the death penalty in Canada.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) for his consistency and determination in furthering the abolition of capital punishment. When he first introduced the bill under discussion, there were a great number of people who felt horrified at the idea of doing away with the death sentence for murderers. While there are still well intentioned citizens who want the retention of capital punishment, an increasing number are gradually coming to the conclusion that capital punishment has failed as a deterrent in all cases where murder has actually been committed.

At every session in which the bill has been discussed I have taken part in the debate and each time I have been the recipient of letters for or against the retention of the death penalty, but it may interest some hon. members to know that the number of diehards in favour of the retention of capital punishment is diminishing. More and more people are beginning to realize that the real deterrent is life imprisonment. Indeed, I dare say that the change in public opinion during the past few years prompted the government to introduce an amendment at the last session of parliament which divided murder into capital and non-capital categories. It was a step in the right direction, one which should lead to the eventual approval of this bill.
The issue is still between two schools of thought, one thirsting after justice in a mood of vengeance and the other urging the practice of Christian charity and the rehabilitation of criminals. Notable figures in the religious life of this country have gone on record as being in favour of abolition. Still others have expressed opinions to the contrary. They hold to the belief that fear of the death sentence is a restraining force against murder. Personally I share the views of those who believe that there is no valid guarantee that the fear of punishment by death is a deterrent.
Consider the proportion of murders committed in circumstances of sudden passion which are not deterred by threat of the consequences. Crimes such as robberies from which murder may result are deliberately planned to avoid detection. Consider also the risk of executing an innocent person. To those who anticipate an increase in crimes leading to murders in the event of parliament approving this bill I would point out that the experience of countries where capital punishment has long been abolished is ample proof that such a conclusion is unfounded.
Here I wish to list some of the countries which have had no death penalty for years. Luxembourg has had none since 1822, Belgium since 1863, Portugal since 1867 and Holland since 1870. In Italy the death penalty was abolished in 1890, was restored by the fascist regime in 1931 and abolished again in 1948. It was abolished in Norway in 1905, in Sweden in 1921, in Denmark in 1930, in Switzerland in 1942 and has been abolished in dozens of other countries as well as several states of the United States.
I should like to quote now the following excerpt from the report of a British select committee on this subject:
Our prolonged examination of the situation in foreign countries has increasingly confirmed us in the assurance that capital punishment may be abolished in this country without endangering life or property or impairing the security of society.
26207-1-62J
Criminal Code
If and until the death penalty is abolished and if we are to retain capital punishment as at present on the statute books, then I would say that the very least that should be considered by the government is the substitution of the gas chamber or electrocution for hanging. In order to avoid the danger involved in a murderer sentenced to life imprisonment regaining his liberty after only 20 years because of good behaviour, the Criminal Code should be amended to make the penalty 99 years. Assuming that the person being sentenced for murder is 20 or 30 years old and would earn 20 or 25 years off his sentence for good behaviour, provided he lived to an unlikely ripe old age and had his sentence reduced he would still be close to 100 before he could be released and in that event no one would begrudge him the possibility of a respite of a year or two, which would probably be worse for him than being in jail.
Having supported the mover of this bill in the past, I am convinced now more than ever that I have done so in the best interests of justice and in the interests of humanity, and if it were possible for me to plead with greater force at this moment I would gladly do so. I take it that this question is being treated on non-party lines and above politics, as indeed any measure of humanitarianism should be dealt with, without partisan bickering. It is regrettable that questions of great importance to the welfare of the people are not dealt with more often on non-party lines because if this were so I believe the country would be the better for it.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking on the question of the abolition of capital punishment for some 25 years now. I have spoken on the subject at length at every session of the House of Commons for the past nine years. Therefore I can assure you that this afternoon I am not going to repeat all the various facets of reasoning and argument I have previously presented to the house with respect to the abolition of capital punishment about which I feel so strongly.
All I am going to do, in addition to what has been said and repeated so often before, it to express my thanks to the hon. member for having re-introduced his bill at this time. It is one that I think should be introduced consistently and continually until the House of Commons and the other place get rid of this system of punishment, retribution and revenge which is a relic of past savagery and barbarism.
If I could be convinced in any way at all that capital punishment is actually a deterrent to homicide or, in particular, that it is

Criminal Code
an added protection to the police forces of our country, undoubtedly I would have to give a second thought to the position I have consistently taken. But, Mr. Speaker, because of my interest in this matter I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to study government records and the writings and speeches of eminent criminologists throughout the world, and I have no hesitation whatever in saying that all the known facts demonstrate that capital punishment is not a deterrent to homicide.
In the past year in particular I have been most interested in trying to ascertain whether any further studies have been made anywhere in the world with regard to whether or not capital punishment is an added protection to police forces. I have been particularly interested in that phase of the matter because I have noted that almost without exception the police associations maintain that it is a protection, and that is the reason why they support the retention of capital punishment.
So, Mr. Speaker, no matter what communications I have had with other countries of the world or international agencies, I have only been able to find one study that has ever been made of this phase of the question of abolition or retention of capital punishment. I refer to an exhaustive study made a few years ago by Professor Thorstein Sellin of the United States who had questionnaires sent to the police chiefs of every town and city in the United States with a population of over 10,000. The results were tabulated by the senior students of the University of Pennsylvania. When the results were tabulated, it was found that there was no variation as between states of the United States that had capital punishment, those that had abolished it and those that had abolished it and brought it back in so far as the percentage of deaths of policemen in the course of their duty was concerned.
I say, therefore, that the evidence throughout the world, not just for one year but over the years, demonstrates that capital punishment is not a protection to the police forces of the country. It is not a deterrent to crime because if it were I would have to change my mind.


Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. member permit a helpful question? Is the hon. member aware that in the state of Delaware, following the abolition of the death penalty, the police forces within that jurisdiction were specifically asked to state their opinion as to whether they, in fact, regarded this as an additional hazard in connection with their duties. The results of that were along the lines just indicated by the hon. member.


Harold Edward Winch: No, I was not aware of that question being asked of the police associations in the state of Delaware.
May I just conclude in this way, Mr. Speaker? Changes were made in the Criminal Code last year. A great deal of publicity was given to the change and to the question of capital punishment. It is known throughout Canada that we still have capital punishment for the capital crime of murder. It is known that the hangman's noose is there if you take the life of another. Yet, Mr. Speaker, pick up your newspapers and day after day, week after week, what do you find? Most unfortunately, you find reports of premeditated murder; you find reports of the killing of innocent citizens during the course of armed robbery and, I do not know why, but in recent months you find reports of husbands killing their wives, wives killing their husbands and parents killing innocent children as young as a year old. However, Canada has the hangman's noose, and that is known by everybody. These things still occur and, in the majority of instances capital punishment is no deterrent. People do not think about it when they commit homicide during emotional passion or some other emotional feeling, such as fear. There is no thought about the fact they may hang for it.
I say, sir, for all the reasons that can be found throughout the world, capital punishment not being a deterrent or a protection for our police forces, it is high time we in this country got away from the spirit of revenge, got away from a penalty that does not do any good. If it did any good, there would be a reason for it. We should establish a principle that those who cannot be trusted because they are a danger to society should be put away so that they no longer endanger anybody else. We should not take the power unto ourselves to say that they should die. For all the reasons I have read and discovered over the years, I am still completely in favour of the abolition of the death penalty and support the bill which is now before us.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in complete accord with the principle involved in this bill as expressed by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), who has on this occasion once again presented this measure to the house. I must say also that, feeling this way, I still subscribe to the opinion that what the government did last year was the wise and proper thing to do at this particular stage of this emotion charged issue. This is a somewhat Pickwickian philosophy, but I hope later on to be able to develop the argument and to indicate the reasons behind my thinking.

Before doing so, however, I should like to say that I was greatly struck by something the hon. member for York-Scarborough said while reading a newspaper article from a New Zealand paper. He referred to the fact that the newspaper said the procedure which was then being taken there constituted a triumph for democracy. Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the way in which we have proceeded in this house over a number of years is an excellent example of the democratic process at its best. Here is an issue in which a great many people are involved, an issue which some years ago was referred to a special committee composed of hon. members from this house and from the other place. This committee undertook to hear a great many witnesses and upon completion of their proceedings brought in a report which, amongst other things, recommended the retention of the death penalty.
One might have thought, then, that would be the end of this issue for many years to come. On the contrary, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who, as he says, has lent his abilities to the promotion of the principle of this bill for a long time, and subsequently the hon. member for York-Scarborough having had a personal experience while serving as part of the judicial set-up, brought their minds to bear on the issue and introduced this measure. As a result of the persistence of these and other members, as a result of the debate which was of a high calibre and in which all members participated, the government in due course introduced legislation which was passed last year. I regard this legislation as a sort of halfway house on the way to a final solution. That is justification for my remark that here is an illustration of democratic processes in operation and still functioning in the hope that ultimately the desirable consummation many of us look forward to will be achieved.
I mentioned something about the proceedings of a joint committee. I have often been asked why it was that in the proceedings in that committee, and in other committees, so many of the law enforcement officials have been opposed to measures of this kind, and have been opposed to any interference with the retention of the death penalty as it now exists. There is a rational explanation for that. Those who are concerned with the enforcement of law in relation to offences of this kind are divided into a variety of groups, each one of which might be called a watertight compartment.
The police officers who investigate a crime of this kind, and who are possibly called as witnesses, have a definite and limited function. From there the matter is usually referred to an officer of the attorney general's
Criminal Code
department whose duty it is, if he performs it properly-and most of them do-to take the evidence which has been obtained by the police and, without passion or prejudice, to adduce that evidence before a jury and before a court. At the conclusion of the court the function of the crown prosecutor or agent of the attorney general ceases.
Then you have the jury whose function is limited to the simple-simple in terms of principle-task of determining whether an accused person is guilty. You have a judge whose duty it is to decide what is the law, to tell the jury what is the law and, if there has been a conviction, to pass the sentence. You have the courts of appeal and finally, over and above all, you have the cabinet which deals with the question of commutation. These are the various functions. Each one is fairly limited and very rarely do you find a case where there is the over-all picture presented, as it would be to one who acts as counsel for an accused person from the time he is first arrested until either acquittal, execution or imprisonment, as the case may be. That is the accounting I have given for the reason why law enforcement officers generally take the position which they do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I said we had come to the half way house. This is an emotional issue. It is my sincere belief that this is an illustration where a legislative body should not operate and should not act in advance of public opinion. This has been the case in other countries, in other states, in other units both geographical and political. Quite frequently, because of emotional involvement the death penalty has been discarded at a time when people are intellectually not prepared for it. This is frequently followed by a crime of a repugnant nature which has the result of invoking a clamour on the part of many people for the restoration of the penalty. Once it is restored it frequently happens that a long period of time may elapse before it is finally and irrevocably discarded.
For that reason I would not like to see the death penalty completely abolished unless and until it becomes quite clear that the people are ready for that particular issue.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) referred to the trend in public opinion. That is quite right. During the last few months I believe one of the churches in Canada has made a declaration of its view in regard to the matter, in the course of which, as I recall it, the statement was made that this church favoured the abolition of the death penalty.

Criminal Code
So far as I possibly could I have had occasion to examine a great many of the cases which have been tried since the introduction by the government of the new legislation, which was passed by parliament at the last session. As has been remarked, it is only since September that the amendment has been in operation and consequently it has not been possible to examine the citations in the law reports of decided appeals. I have not yet run across one although there may be some. So, we are pretty well limited to examining newspaper accounts of the crime committed and of the proceedings in court. Therefore my views may not be entirely correct because I followed that course; but I must say from what I have read and seen- and I have listened to one or two cases- I am convinced the legislation that was passed has been effective and good. It has had the result of removing that awful doubt which must persist in the minds of many people, when because of the variety of individual approaches, because of the variety of opinions which must operate on these particular crimes, we frequently find what might have been murder in one case is manslaughter in another. In one instance we find an acquittal but with almost the same set of facts in another circumstance it will result in a conviction.
I have read with interest some of the books on this subject, such as Marjoribank's autobiography of Sir Edward Marshal Hall, who is one of the most notable of English defence counsel and, on the other side of the coin, the biography of Sir Richard Muir, a tremendous advocate for the crown in England. From reading these books and closely examining the cases I am completely convinced that in some instances where a man with Marshal Hall's ability was defending, acquittals have been secured, or cases which involved elements of murder were reduced to manslaughter simply because of ability of counsel for the defence.
This has been my experience and for that reason the value of the legislation which was enacted and which is now in operation has been excellent and I believe it will continue to be most beneficial.
Under those circumstances I believe that if we can be permitted to have a continuance of this legislation for some years the people will come to realize that the half-way step which has been taken has not resulted in releasing a flood or deluge of crimes of this nature. Then I believe we shall ultimately come to the objective which the hon. member for York-Scarborough is seeking.


Mr. R. D. C. Stewart (Charlotte):: I had no
intention of taking part in this debate but, as I have spoken on similar bills in the past and expressed my opinion regarding the retention of capital punishment, I feel I should enter this debate for the purpose of reiterating my previous position. On several occasions I pointed out that under our criminal code, previous to the amendment made last year, certain protections were given to an accused person. Last year we divided murder into capital and non-capital categories. In other words, in effect we said that so many degrees of premeditation made a murder capital, and so many degrees less made it non-capital. I am very interested to see how this distinction will be handled by a jury when defence counsel points out that his client had only 14 ounces of premeditation and therefore it was not capital murder. We cannot have degrees of murder. We will probably end up with no verdict at all.
The house was probably interested to see the criticism made by a group of law professors from all across Canada in which they dealt with this point. They said that if you are going to reduce murder to various degrees it is going to be very difficult for a jury to determine just how many degrees of premeditation constitute capital murder and how many degrees constitute non-capital murder.
The bill now before the house is a very simple one. It attempts to remove the distinction that was introduced last year. In other words, it abolishes, except in a very isolated case, capital punishment for murder. In my previous remarks I indicated that no doubt there would come a time in the history of this nation when we could safely abolish capital punishment. I am not speaking of capital punishment now as a matter of deterrence. I do not think that under British law anyone has ever been hanged for revenge or for punishment. The instances are very rare when anyone has been hanged except after a fair trial and after due process of law. It is conceivable that there might have been errors. Nobody has a greater sanctity for human life than I, but I think other lives should be considered apart from the life of the man who will go out and shoot and kill an innocent victim. We had an instance of this the other day, as reported in the newspapers. A man was stopped on the street and asked to show his operator's licence. With that, he pulled a gun and shot a police officer. Happenings of that nature indicate that we still need some deterrent, some overriding power, in this respect. There is ample provision in the Criminal Code even as amended which provides

safeguards for anyone who has been the victim of circumstances or who may have been convicted unfairly.
I was interested in a statement made by the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Right Hon. William Grant, at a meeting of the Canadian bar association in Winnipeg last year. The newspaper report says this:
The Lord Advocate of Scotland said in an interview Monday that recent changes in British law restricting the death penalty were a mistake, and it is his belief that Britons share this view.
Right Hon. William Grant is in Winnipeg for the meeting this week of the Canadian bar association. He contended that the gallows is a deterrent to crimes of violence, and that relaxation of capital punishment is a threat to public safety.
"I have practised law and I know of cases where people engaged in the commission of crimes have not carried weapons because they knew it might lead to a capital crime. They would be willing to run the risk of five years imprisonment for theft, but not of losing their lives because they killed somebody in the commission of these crimes."
The experience in the United Kingdom has been detrimental to the abolition of the death penalty. I refer to an item which appeared in the Montreal Gazette last fall headed "Rising Murder Toll Is Cause For Concern In Britain". This article originated in London and says:
Concern is mounting in Britain over the rising murder toll, now averaging nearly one a day and twice what it was a year ago.
Conservative legislator Cyril Osborne told parliament Thursday night there had been 50 murders since December 1.
"There is mounting feeling in the country that the death penalty should apply to all people of sound mind who commit these awful murders", he declared.
The homicide act of 1957 abolished hanging for all but a few types of murder.
Business of the House
Further on the article says:
Public, police and legislators are particularly worried by the number of recent sex crimes and the terrifying spectre of a new outbreak of child killing.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the remarks that have been made. It is not possible, by any stretch of the imagination, to legislate positively or absolutely to deal with human conduct and human endeavour. There will be human beings who will defy any law under certain circumstances, but it is another thing to say that we should abolish and remove capital punishment from the statute books of this country. We can affix to the verdict of the jury certain safeguards, certain protections, rather than by abolishing capital punishment for all time and saying, "Regardless of the crime; regardless of whether it is premeditated; regardless of whether it is a crime of passion or a crime of violence, you are not going to have inflicted upon you hanging or some other form of capital punishment".
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the house leader would indicate the business of the house for Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On Monday the house will resume the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 19, 1962