1962-11-26

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1963, was presented by Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
on 1961-62 pool
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make to the house with regard to the 1961-62 oats pool. The 1961-62 oats pool has now been closed and the government has authorized distribution of the final surplus on producers' deliveries of 24,911,122 bushels of oats to the 1961-62 pool. The final surplus is $4,301,349.92. After deducting the Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy and final payment costs, and after adding estimated additional interest earnings, the final payment on the 1961-62 oats account will be 17.26659 cents per bushel. This compares with an average final payment of 14.094 cents per bushel in the case of the 1960-61 pool.
The final payments for the principal grades of oats delivered to the 1961-62 pool are as follows:
Final Payment (cents per
Grade	bushel)
No. 1 Canada	western	17.024No. 2 Canada	western	17.024No. 3 Canada	western	16.777No. extra 3 Canada western	17.024Extra No. 1 feed	16.777No. 1 feed	17.767No. 2 feed	19.747No. 3 feed	21.727
The first cheques with respect to this pool will be issued tomorrow, November 27.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-85, to limit the hours of work for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a statutory working week of 40 hours in works, undertakings and businesses coming under federal labour jurisdiction in order to combat unemployment and automation. With a view to reducing the length of the working week and the citizen's working lifetime still further, the bill gives to the governor in council the power to make regulations from time to time applying to the industries coming under the bill to implement further reduction in the working week, with a view to the eventual establishment of a 35 hour working week.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. Davis: Has the government, or any of its agencies, directly or indirectly, purchased or assisted in the purchase of parity bonds issued by the province of British Columbia?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: No.
(Translation):


TRUCKING FIRMS PURCHASED BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Cook: 1.	How many private trucking firms have been purchased by the C.N.R. during the last five years?
2.	What are the names of the private firms which have been purchased?
3.	What amount was paid by the C.N.R. for the purchase of such firms?
4.	Are the minimum wage rates set by the truckers' association complied with by the trucking services of the C.N.R.?
5.	Are such trucking services operating at a loss and, if so, what is the annual operating deficit?


Mr. McBain:: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1 and 2. 100 per cent share ownership in the following: Sydney Transfer and Storage Limited, Eastern Transport Limited, Toronto-Peterborough Transport Limited, Hoar Transport Limited, East-West Transport Limited, Empire Freightways Limited, Wacos Holdings Limited, Montalta Holdings Limited; 49 per cent-Midland Superior Express Limited; agreement to purchase 100 per cent shares of Husband Transport Limited.

Questions
3 and 5. Information concerning these questions with respect to the last year of financial record may be found on pages 10 and 12 of the Canadian National Railways annual report for 1961.
4.	The railway complies with appropriate minimum wage legislation in all cases and where applicable wage rates are negotiated through collective bargaining.
(Text):


TRENT CANAL LOCKAGES
Mr. Fisher: Were monthly statistics of lockages available from the Trent canal offices last summer and, if not, for what reason?


James Alexander McBain: The monthly statistical reports on lockages normally available from the Trent canal headquarters during the navigation season were seriously curtailed during this past summer due to a shortage of staff created by the prolonged illness and subsequent retirement of the office supervisor. This resulted in the Trent canal headquarters being understaffed throughout the busiest season on record.
This personnel problem has now been adjusted and should result in the normal issuance of statistical information on Trent canal traffic during the 1963 season of navigation.
Statistical information for the 1962 season is now available.


TRENT CANAL
Mr. Fisher: Is it the policy of the Department of Transport to place toilet facilities on the Trent canal and, if so, how many have been provided, and at what total cost?


James Alexander McBain: The department has, and plans to continue to construct sanitary facilities, where justified, for use by the boating public in conjunction with the present reconstruction and rehabilitation program of the Trent canal system.
At present the Trent canal has seven lock stations equipped with flush toilets for use of the general public. These facilities have been incorporated with new lock office construction. The cost of providing these additional toilet facilities for use of the general public was approximately $10,000.
It is expected that the department will have nine more lock stations equipped with flush toilets within the course of the next three years. In addition to these it is proposed to construct, as part of this year's winter works program, 30 prefabricated earth

toilets at a cost of $7,000 for use at various other lock stations along the Trent canal system.


HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS UNDER CRIMINAL-CODE
Mr. Matheson: Has the government received any request or recommendation to restore the right to appeal any habeas corpus proceedings under section 691 of the Criminal Code since May 20, 1959, and, if so, from whom, and when were such requests or recommendations received?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: 1. The government has received recommendations to create or restore a right of appeal in habeas corpus proceedings under section 691 of the Criminal Code since May 20, 1959.
2.	Such recommendations were received from the chief justice of the high court of Ontario and the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada.
3.	Such recommendations were received in 1959.
(Translation):


PILOTAGE SERVICE, LES ESCOUMINS
Mr. Dumont: 1.	Has the vessel Citadelle been withdrawn from the pilotage service at Les Escoumins and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Have the boilers in the said vessel been certified to be in good working condition?
3.	Was the vessel sold by the Department of Transport and, if so, to whom, at what price and under what conditions?
4.	Did the Department of Transport approve plans and specifications for the construction of motor boats No. 9-10 for use in the pilotage service at Les Escoumins and, if so, were tenders called, from whom were bids received, and what were the amounts of such bids?
5.	Have motor boats been introduced into service at Les Escoumins and, if so, have they required repairs and at what cost?
6.	Has consideration been given to the testing by Captains D. R, Jones and A. Cumyn of the performance of these motor boats in rough weather and heavy seas?
7.	What were the travel expenses of officials of the pilotage service in the province of Quebec for the years 1957-58-59-60-61?
8. What language is used by officials of the Department of Transport in communicating with the pilots' corporation of Quebec and Montreal?
9.	If correspondence from the department is in one language only, will arrangements be made to ensure the use of both official languages?


James Alexander McBain: 1. Yes, the Citadelle was withdrawn from pilotage service at Les Escoumins on December 22, 1961 and replaced by a new vessel constructed for the pilotage service. The Citadelle was obsolete and unduly expensive to continue in service.

2.	Inspection certificate on these boilers expired December 31, 1961. No further certificate issued.
3.	Yes, the vessel was sold through crown assets disposal corporation to Mr. Theode Robidoux, Yamaska, P.Q. for $11,000 on "as is, where is" basis.
4.	Yes and tenders were called with the following results.
Canada Pilot No. 9: Kingston Shipyards (awarded contract), $149,100; Russel-Hipwell Engines Limited, $187,909; Halifax Shipyards, $189,508; Canadian Vickers Limited, $226,173; Geo. T. Davie & Sons Limited, $240,261; Saint John Shipbuilding Dry Dock Co. Ltd., $260,000.
Canada Pilot No. 10: Ferguson Industries Ltd. (awarded contract), $209,872; Dominion Steel & Coal Corporation Ltd., $243,315.
5.	Yes the boats have been put in service at Les Escoumins and repairs required at a cost of $26,853.33.
6.	Both these vessels were tested on voyages through the gulf of St. Lawrence and at Halifax, Nova Scotia.
7.	1957,	$739.08;	1958,	$782.06;	1959,
$2,160.26; 1960, $3,026.36; 1961, $3,928.89.
8.	Language used is that of the letter being replied to.
9.	Arrangements already exist to ensure correspondence being conducted in either French or English, as appropriate.
(Text):


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION NET INCOME
Mr. Malheson: What has been the percentage rate of change of net income of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation each six months since the granting of television rights to C.T.V. Television Network Ltd.?


Thomas Miller Bell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the reduction of net income after the first six months was 6 per cent and after the second six months 9 per cent. These percentages are based on using 100 per cent as the revenue figure at the approximate date of commencement of C.T.V. Television Network Ltd.


* TRENT CANAL COSTS
Mr. Ryan: 1.	What were the total costs of operation of the Trent canal system for each of the years 1956 to 1961 inclusive?
2.	Are the entire operative costs borne by the government of Canada and, if not, by whom?
Questions


James Alexander McBain: 1. The total operation and maintenance costs of the Trent canal system for the period 1956-1961 are as follows:-
Fiscal Year
1956-57	$539,298
1957-58	$578,944
1958-59	$637,207
1959-60	$661,227
1960-61	$765,685
1961-62	$849,898
2. The entire operation and maintenance costs are borne by the government of Canada.


PORTABLE PENSION LEGISLATION
Mr. Cameron (High Park): 1.	Has progress been made with regard to the portability of pension benefits to the extent that the government is prepared to proceed with complementary legislation to deal with industries under federal jurisdiction?
2.	If not (a) what is the nature and extent of any progress made to date (b) what steps, if any, are being taken to promote progress in this regard?


Mr. Monteiih:: 1 and 2. Progress is being made, in that the government has under active consideration the question of legislative measures required at the federal level when adequate progress in this field has been made by the provinces. Any announcement with respect to this matter of policy will be made in the usual manner by the government, at the appropriate time.


PAYMENT FOR WHEAT SOLD TO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Has any agreement been concluded under which Canadian wheat has been sold to communist China and, if so, (a) who were the parties to the agreement (b) on what date was it entered into (c) how much wheat was to be delivered (d) what was the currency of payment (e) what were the terms of payment (f) have these been varied in any way since the original agreement was made (g) when does the next payment become due?
2.	Have there been any instances in the past of default being made in payment for agricultural products sold to communist countries and, if so, what countries, and in what amounts?


Mr. Jorgenson:: 1. (a) A long term agreement and individual sales contracts have been concluded by the Canadian wheat board and the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation and its accredited agent, the China Resources Company.
(b)	Apart from the information with respect to volume and credit terms, it is contrary to government policy and not in the public interest to reveal details of the commercial sales contracts and agreements entered into by the Canadian wheat board.

Questions
(c)	The agreement calls for the purchase and supply of up to 5 million tons of wheat (187.6 million bushels) and 1 million tons of barley (46.7 million bushels) for shipment during the period June 1, 1961, to December 31, 1963. Individual sales contracts under the long term agreement are negotiated periodically as to quantity, price and credit terms. Six individual sales contracts have been concluded to date under this agreement, totalling 111.6 million bushels of wheat and 26.9 million bushels of barley for delivery prior to December 31, 1962.
(d)	The agreed currency of payment for the individual sales contracts negotiated to date is convertible sterling.
(e)	The terms of payment for the individual sales contracts negotiated to date are 25 per cent cash and 75 per cent on 273 days credit with interest.
(f)	No.
(g)	The payments become due 273 days from date of shipment of each cargo, and the next payment is due on November 28.
2. No, there has been no instance of default in payment for agricultural products sold under government sponsored credit arrangements to communist countries.


INTERRUPTION OF TRAFFIC, WELLAND CANAL
Mr. Sams: What damage, if any, resulted to the Welland canal and/or bridges carrying highway traffic, and what interruption, if any, in the operation of the canal resulted from the accident involving the ocean vessel Captain Theo on November 13 last?


James Alexander McBain: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
The vessel Captain Theo was not involved in any accident on the Welland canal on November 13. However, on November 12 the Captain Theo struck railway bridge No. 15 which is owned by the New York Central Railway Company who estimate the damages at $15,000.
The Captain Theo also struck the tie-up wall above lock 7, causing damages estimated at $1,200. As a result of these accidents, the Captain Theo was delayed one hour in the Welland canal and ten hours at Port Weller.
No delays were caused to other vessels nor to highway traffic.


* TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS, JET AIRCRAFT NOISE
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	What are the present regulations of the Department of Transport concerning the control of noise levels of jet aircraft?
2.	What are the methods of enforcement of these regulations?
3.	What improvements to these regulations are being considered?
[Mr. Jorgenson.)


James Alexander McBain: 1. Section 516 of the air regulations states in part that "the pilot in command of an aircraft operating on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome should conform with any directions made by the minister relating to noise abatement".
The aforementioned "directions" are set forth as a part of the operating certificate issued in respect of each commercial air service and in notices to airmen (NOTAMS); aircraft operating on or in the vicinity of certain aerodromes are required to conform with certain laid down procedures calculated to reduce the noise level.
2.	(a) By keeping visual and radar watch on all aircraft operations and by monitoring the noise levels created by turbine powered aircraft, particularly in noise critical areas, and
(b) By continual liaison with the operators to ensure their co-operation and compliance with noise abatement directives.
An operator who does not comply with the laid down noise abatement procedures can be said to have contravened not only section 516 but also sections 813 and 814 of the air regulations. Section 813 states in part that "neglect on the part of any person to whom any licence, certificate or permit has been issued under these regulations of any precaution that may be required by the ordinary practices of the air or by the special circumstances of the case, or the contravention of these regulations or any direction of the minister thereunder is cause for suspension of such licence, certificate or permit." Section 814 states that "failure on the part of any person to whom any licence, certificate or permit has been issued under these regulations to observe or comply with the conditions of issue of such licence, certificate or permit shall be deemed to constitute a contravention of these regulations by such person".
3.	No changes to these regulations are being considered at this time; however, noise abatement requirements are under constant review by officials of the department and operating standards and procedures may be changed from time to time in the light of experience gained.


BROADCASTING APPLICATIONS BY MR. ROGER SEGUIN, OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 827
Mr. Tardif:: 1. Did the B.B.G. receive an application for a television licence approximately two years ago from Mr. Roger Seguin, barrister of the city of Ottawa, and others and, if so, (a) what were the names of the persons associated with him in the said application (b) what was the name of the company which made the application and (c) what disposition was made of the application?

2.	Was an application lor the licensing ol a radio station in the Ottawa area recently received from Mr. Seguin and others and, if so (a) what was the name of the company making the application (b) who were its directors and (c) what disposition was made of the said application?
3.	Did the B.B.G. request a legal opinion or opinions concerning the activities in the province of Quebec of "L'Institut Opino de Recherches et d'Opinions, Inc.", and, if so (a) was such opinion sought from its own legal counsel and (b) was a legal opinion obtained from Mr. Seguin?
4.	Did the government recently appoint Mr. Seguin as a director of the C.B.C.?


Richard Albert Bell: 1. Yes. (a) Associated in the application with Mr. Seguin were Messrs. Richard Bennett Coates, Joseph Feller, Clayton A. Fitzsimmons, Pierre Gendron, Charles H. Hulse, Lucien Masse, Reuben Palef, John E. Robbins, and Mrs. Beryl Alice Plumptre. (b) The application was made by a company to be incorporated as InterCity Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. (c) The application was recommended for denial by the board.
2.	Yes. (a) The application was made by a company to be incorporated as Radio Prestige Ltee. (b) The directors of the company were listed as radio station CKVL Limited-represented by Mr. Albert Cloutier, Messrs. Jack Tietolman, Marcel Provost, Martin R. Carabine, Maurice Rousseau, Corey Thomson, Roger N. Seguin, Aimi Arvisais, Jacques Leduc, and Benjamin Michaud, (c) The application was recommended for denial by the board.
3.	Yes, the board requested and received a legal opinion from its own legal counsel and from Mr. Seguin.
4.	Yes.


TRANSPORTATION TO CONFERENCES OF INDIAN -ESKIMO ASSOCIATION
Mrs. Hardie: Since 1957, did the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources provide any transportation for Eskimo delegates to annual conferences of the Indian-Eskimo association of Canada and, if so (a) how many delegates were provided with transportation in each year (b)
Questions
what are the names of the Eskimos who asked for transportation and (c) what departmental official approved the said applications?


Mr. Dinsdale:: The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has not provided transportation for Eskimo delegates to the annual conferences of the Indian-Eskimo association of Canada.
No request has ever been received from Eskimos for assistance with transportation to these conferences. However, several Eskimos did attend the conferences in 1959 and 1960 at their own expense.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR LAND USE COMMITTEE
Mr. Nicholson: Has the Vancouver harbour land use committee, announced by the Minister of Transport in October 1961, been established and, if so (a) has a fulltime chairman of the committee been appointed, and who is he (b) has the committee formulated any long-range plans for maximum development of lands fronting on Vancouver harbour, and are copies of such plans now available for interested members of this house, and (c) has the committee submitted an interim report?


James Alexander McBain: The national harbours board advises:
When the announcement concerning the Vancouver harbour land use committee was made, it was anticipated that the appointment and work of the committee would proceed expeditiously. However, it has been considered expedient to await the results of another intragovernmental proposal to avoid any areas of conflict with the original concept of the committee. It is hoped that a decision in this regard will be rendered shortly, which will enable us to proceed with the studies involving the harbour of Vancouver.


EXPENDITURES UNDER ATLANTIC PROVINCES POWER DEVELOPMENT ACT
Mr. MacEachen: What sums have been paid out for each fiscal year since January 31, 1958, under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act for (a) transmission lines (b) thermo plants, and (c) any other purpose?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Fiscal Year
(a) Transmission (b) Thermal Lines	Plants
April 1, 1957-March 31, 1958 April 1, 1958-March 31, 1959 April 1, 1959-March 31, 1960 April 1, 1960-March 31, 1961 April 1, 1961-March 31, 1962 April 1, 1962-August 31, 1962

520,772.20
1,000,849.00
5,320,013.30
4,171,965.20
3,280,143.87
951,343.49

2,588,520.57
281,927.99
81,243.99
1,299,636.49
(c) Coal Subventions $
1,903,328.42
1,444,233.36
1,752,127.72
1,552,056.63
Total

520,772.20
2,904,177.42
9,352,767.23
6,206,020.91
4,913,444.49
2,250,979.98
15,245,087.06
4,251,329.04	6,651,746.13
26,148,162.23

Questions


ASSISTANCE TO INDIA
Mr. Kelly: 1.	Has India requested assistance from Canada with respect to (a) personnel (b) material (c) technical assistance (d) otherwise?
2.	What assistance, if any, does Canada propose to extend?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: If this question refers to military assistance in connection with the Chinese-Indian border conflict, the answers are:
1.	(a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No.
2.	As stated in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on November 20, Canada dispatched six Dakota transport aircraft in response to an urgent Indian request and has also arranged to supply the Indian Red Cross with a quantity of knitting wool. The Indian government has advised Canada of its need for further assistance of various types, including winter clothing for its forces. These requests are under consideration by the government and decisions as they are taken will be announced to the house.
As regards economic assistance to India, our Colombo plan program is proceeding normally and includes technical as well as capital assistance. The relevant details are reported to the house from time to time through the external affairs committee.


ERADICATION OF MERGANSER DUCKS, MIRAMICHI AREA
Mr. McWilliams: 1.	Is the Department of Fisheries presently conducting a program to eradicate the merganser duck from Miramichi salmon spawning areas and, if so, how many persons were engaged in 1962 on this program and in what areas?
2.	Is the merganser duck considered the most serious threat to young Atlantic salmon before they reach the smolt stage?
3.	What are other serious threats to young Atlantic salmon?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1. No. Eradication was not carried out in 1962 but a census of birds was continued to see if the populations would rebuild.
2.	The degree of seriousness of threat depends on populations and environmental conditions. The merganser could not be designated as the most serious.
3.	Other serious threats to young salmon include, amongst others, pollution, spraying for forests, insects and other agricultural pests, predation by trout, and log driving activities.


SALMON FISHING, MIRAMICHI AREA
Mr. McWilliam: 1. What are the figures for each year from 1957 to 1961 inclusive, for salmon angling in Miramichi waters for (a) number of salmon taken (b) number of rod days?

2.	What are the figures for each year from 1957 to 1961 inclusive, for salmon taken in Miramichi waters (a) drift-net fishing (b) set-net fishing?
3.	What are the estimated landed values for each year from 1957 to 1961 inclusive, of salmon taken (a) by angling (b) drift-net fishing (c) set-net fishing?


John Angus MacLean: 1.
		No. of Fish	Rod Days
1957	29,972	40,9651958	45,067	58,1351959	20,531	42,1081960	14,064	34,1421961	16,571	32,364Drift-	Gill Trap	net.	Nets Nets	Total1957	127,400	155,400	282,8001958	121,100	300 255,800	377,2001959	351,600	500 107,900	460,0001960	219,900	6,100 98,100	324,1001961	251,700	500 64,900	317,100
N.B. Average weight of fish, 10 lbs.
3. It is assumed that landed value of salmon in Miramichi area is intended. The figures are submitted on this basis and are usually lower than the catches in (2) since some were sold outside.
It is impossible to estimate the value of the angling catch. Anglers indicate each fish may be worth $5 to $100. To estimate at the commercial buying price is impossible since no average weight can be accurately obtained.
Commercial landings and landed value salmon-Miramichi area-1957-1961
Landings (lb) Value ($)
1957	289,000	123,9001958	240,000-	104,9001959	354,000	153,8001960	269,700	158,1001961	266,800	145,100


CHATHAM, N.B., AIR FORCE STATION PERSONNEL
Mr. McWilliam: Has the R.C.A.F. station at Chatham, New Brunswick, recently increased the scope of its station activities that require additional air force personnel, increased personnel accommodations and other increased facilities and, if so, what does the increase entail?


Mr. Harkness:: Yes, resulting in an increase of 367 personnel, the construction of a 10,000 ft. runway, together with additional workshop, storage and hangar facilities.


TENDERS FOR GOVERNMENT PROJECTS
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	On projects for which tenders exceed $10,000, how many tenders are required by any department of government before a contract is awarded?
2.	What are the provisions in respect to tenders under $10,000?


Mr. Graffley:: 1 and 2. For works projects the government contracts and regulations provide for the invitation of tenders by public advertisement except where
(a)	the work is one of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest,
(b)	the work can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the employees of the appropriate contracting authority, or
(c)	the estimated cost of the work is less than $15,000 and it appears to the contracting authority, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders by public advertisement.


FISHERIES PROTECTIVE WORKS, PUNTLEDGE RIVER, B.C.
Mr. Davis: Has the government taken any action with regard to the construction of protective works for the fisheries on the Puntledge river in British Columbia, along the lines recommended by the Angus royal commission early in 1962?


John Angus MacLean: As soon as the report was made available for perusal in the commission's office the department's Vancouver office communicated with the British Columbia hydro and power authority regarding implementation of the recommendations. In reply the department's area director was advised that as the report was made to the provincial government action must await the views of the government. These were immediately sought and a communication from the
Questions
provincial minister received on November 21, is receiving serious study.
*	CANADA SAVINGS BONDS REDEMPTIONS


Mr. Benidickson: During 1962 to date, what amount of Canada savings bonds has been received for redemption?


William Heward Grafftey: Amount of Canada bonds redeemed January 1, 1962 to October 31, 1962 was $1,429,158,300. This includes $442,131,300 of Canada savings bonds but does not include redemption of non-market securities issued to unemployment insurance commission.
*	APPOINTMENTS TO SENATE OF DEFEATED


CANDIDATES
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many persons who were candidates in the federal election of June 18, 1962, and were defeated, have since that date been appointed to the Senate?
2.	What are the names of all such persons?


John George Diefenbaker: No. 1. Three. No. 2. Senator Jacques Flynn, Senator Edgar Fournier, Senator Clement O'Leary.


INCOMES OF PURCHASERS OF N.H.A. HOMES
Mr. Scoil: During the year ended December 31, 1961, in each province in Canada how many approved purchasers of houses built under the National Housing Act earned (a) less than $2,000 per year (b) between $6,000-$6,999 per year (c) between $7,000-$7,999 per year (d) between $8,000-$8,999 per year (e) over $9,000 per year?


Mr. McCleave:: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
January 1, 1961 - December 31, 1961
Area	No.	of N.H.A. borrowers and purchasers in income groups	selectedUnder $2000	$6000- $6999	$7000- $7999	$8000- $8999	$9000 and overN ewf oundland	36	20	5	18Prince Edward Island	-	5	3	5	2Nova Scotia	-	134	78	25	35New Brunswick	-	100	58	39	52Quebec	1	1,478	773	399	514Ontario	1	2,561	1,335	696	846Manitoba	-	234	163	78	102Saskatchewan	-	316	151	87	115Alberta	-	843	439	198	262British Columbia	-	555	223	120	162Yukon	-	6	1	3	4Northwest	-	2	-	-	-Canada	2	6,270	3,244	1,655	2,112
27507-3-126

Questions


INCOMES OF CANADIAN TAXPAYERS
Mr. Scoli: 1.	In the year ended December 31, 1961, how many Canadian taxpayers earned (a) between $1,000-$1,999 per year (b) between $2,000-$2,999 per year (c) between $3,000-$3,999 per year (d) between $4,000-$4,999 per year (e) between $5,000-$5,999 per year (f) between $6,000-$6,999 per year (g) between $7,000-$7,999 per year (h) between $8,000-$8,999 per year (i) between $9,000-$9,999 per year (j) over $10,000 per year?
2.	If the information is not available at present for the above period, what is the breakdown as above set out for the latest year in which such information is available?


Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: 2. The
breakdown showing the earnings of Canadian taxpayers (individuals) by classes as set out in (1) above for the year ended December 31, 1960, and relating to the taxation year 1960 is as follows:
(a)	Between	$1000-$1999	per	year,	629,747(b)	between	$2000-$2999	per	year,	876,235(c)	between	$3000-$3999	per	year,	998,741(d)	between	$4000-$4999	per	year,	805,264(e)	between	$5000-$5999	per	year,	451,522(f)	between	$6000-$6999	per	year,	225,279<g>	between	$7000-$7999	per	year,	122,162(h)	between	$8000-$8999	per	year,	69,454(i)	between	$9000-$9999	per	year,	45,468(j)	over $10,000 per year	141,721.	EXPORTS	CREDITS INSURANCE	USE	BY


GARMENT INDUSTRY, TORONTO
Mr. Ryan: 1.	What loans, guarantees or advances have been made under the Export Credits Insurance Act to manufacturers, exporters and importers in the garment trade In the city of Toronto?
2.	What importers outside of Canada, if any, have obtained assistance under the Export Credits Insurance Act to enter into contracts with the garment industry of the city of Toronto?


Mr. Nesbitt:: 1. None.
2.	None.


ASSISTANCE TO SAWMILLS AND WOODWORKING PLANTS
Mr. Fairweather: How does the forest products research branch assist small sawmills and woodworking plants which comprise such a large portion of the forest products industries of Canada?


Hugh John Flemming: The
F.P.B.R. assists individual firms, regardless of size, by undertaking research on problems of direct interest to industry. Then publications are prepared on the results obtained and given wide distribution. Industry is encouraged to seek technical information either by visiting the laboratories or by correspondence.
In addition, the branch maintains an industrial liaison service in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba-Saskatchewan, and

Alberta. Its industrial liaison service officers periodically visit the wood manufacturing and wood using industries in their respective regions and assist by bringing to the attention of industry pertinent research information.
(Translation):



NEW CAPITAL ISSUED BY BANKS


Mr. Cole: 1.	For each of the years from 1951 to 1961 inclusive, what is the amount of new capital or credit issued or created by the chartered banks?
2.	What is the amount of foreign capital which entered Canada each year during the same period?


William Heward Grafftey: 1. See Bank of Canada statistical summary October, 1962, page 598, 1961 Bank of Canada statistical summary supplement, page 16, and statements of assets and liabilities of the chartered banks published monthly in Canada Gazette.
2. See page 66 of dominion bureau of statistics "The Canadian Balance of International Investment Position" and page 12 of dominion bureau of statistics "Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments Second Quarter, 1962."
(Text):



PEACE RIVER DAM, HUDSON HOPE, B.C.

Mr. Davis: Has the government of the province of British Columbia or any of its agencies applied for a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for permission to construct a major hydro-electric development on the Peace river near Hudson Hope in British Columbia?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No.



*BABY FORMULA &quot;S.M.A.&quot;

Mr. Howard: 1.	Has any examination been made of the baby formula "S.M.A." produced by John Wyeth & Brother (Canada) Ltd.?
2.	If so, what has been determined with regard to the weight and measure of the said formula?


Jay Waldo Monteith: 1. Samples of "S.M.A" concentrated liquid food formula manufactured by John Wyeth & Brother (Canada) Ltd. have been examined in the laboratories of the food and drug directorate.
2. They have been found to comply with the label claim in respect to weight and volume.



*CANADA-CHINA TRADE    REFERENCE TO ANSWER TO QUESTION

Mr. Benidickson: Did the "two groups of Chinese traders" referred to in reply to question No. 754, Hansard, page 1750, include officials of the Chinese government?


Mr.   Nesbill@: 1. The communist Chinese mission which visited Canada late in 1961 included a Chinese government official. Mr. Chen Ming, head of the bureau in the ministry of foreign trade responsible for trade with western countries, acted as leader of the group.
The communist Chinese group which visited Canada earlier this year did not include any government officials.



*FRENCH LANGUAGE BROADCASTS, CHANNEL 13, OTTAWA

Mr. Beaule: Did the recommendation of the B.B.G. to the Minister of Transport respecting the granting of a licence to channel 13 Ottawa, specify or suggest that French language programs would be broadcast and, if so, to what extent?


Richard Albert Bell: The answer to the first part of the question is no, and to the second part, not applicable.



EXAMINATION FOR POST OFFICE ASSISTANT, BARRAUTE, QUE.

Mr. Laprise: 1.	On what date and at what place was the examination held for candidates to a position of assistant class 2 in the post office at Barraute?
2.	What are the names of the two inspectors designated by the civil service commission for the said examination or examinations?


Richard Albert Bell: 1. On October 4, 1962, at the Barraute post office, written and oral examinations were held for the position of assistant 2, revenue post office, at Barraute, P.Q.
2. The persons who conducted these examinations were: Mr. C. Chales, (chairman of board), civil service commission officer, civil service commission, Montreal, P.Q.
Mr. Jacques Cinq-Mars, postmaster, post office, Amos, P.Q.



* WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION, RED BANK RESERVE, N.B.

Mr. McWilliam: Did the Indian band fund of the Red Bank reserve, Miramichi agency defray or undertake to defray, all or any part of the cost of the water services installation contract awarded in 1962, and, if so, what is the percentage of the cost and the amount?


Mr. McGee:: Yes; $2,766.44 was contributed from band funds, which represents 25.15 per cent of the contract price.



PROPORTION OF TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PERSONAL INCOME

Mr. Maiheson: What was the proportion of federal transfer payments to total personal income in the years 1956 and 1961?
27507-3-I26J
Questions


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Federal government transfer payments (excluding interest on the public debt) as a proportion of total personal income: 1956, 5.6 per cent and 1961, 7.2 per cent.



SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION EQUIPMENT, DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Mr. Dumont: Is the Department of National Defence still in possession of the simultaneous interpretation equipment used during the universal postal convention and, if so (a) has it ever been used for federal-provincial conferences or other national meetings
(b)	where and when was it used (c) is any further use to be made of the equipment and on what occasions?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Equipment used at the congress of the universal postal union for simultaneous translation is in the possession of the Canadian army.
(a)	Yes.
(b) (i) Universal postal	union-August-October 1957. (ii) Second world conference on adult education in Montreal-August 1960. (iii) Department of reform institutions in Toronto-May 1961. (iv) North Pacific fur seal commission in Ottawa-February 1962. (v) World meteorological organizations technical commission for agricultural meteorology in Toronto-July 1962.
(c)	Yes. To date, the equipment has been booked for the North American forestry commission meeting in Ottawa in June 1963.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS ON LAMBS

Mr. MacEachen: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture received representations from the eastern agriculture conference that the deficiency payment support program for lambs be applied and calculated for each quarterly period and, if so, has the department decided to adopt this suggested technique?
2.	If a decision against has been taken, what considerations were involved?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: 1. Representations have been received from the eastern agricultural conference to the effect that the deficiency payment price support program for lambs be calculated and administered on a quarterly basis rather than on an annual basis as presently provided for. Deficiency payments calculated on a quarterly or seasonal basis have not been made effective for any agricultural product.
2. This suggestion, in general principle, is still under review for several products.



CROP LOSSES, MARITIME PROVINCES   ASSISTANCE RECOMMENDED

Mr. MacEachen: Were representations made by the eastern agriculture conference to the federal government that

Questions
special measures of assistance be undertaken for farmers in the maritime provinces to compensate for crop losses due to weather conditions in the summer and fall and, if so, has the department given consideration to this proposal, and what are the results of such consideration?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Yes, a delegation from the eastern agricultural conference of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented its views on November 6.
Since this meeting officials of the Department of Agriculture have been keeping in close touch with the livestock feed situation, particularly forage crops, in the maritime provinces.
Federal assistance to meet localized crop losses due to weather conditions has, in the past, been limited to cost sharing agreements with the provinces concerned, and to date no requests for such assistance have been received from the province referred to.



CUSTOMS TARIFF REMISSIONS UNDER IMPORT SURCHARGES

Mr. Peters: What is the estimated loss in tax revenues in the 1962 taxation year as a result of the ex gratia customs tariff remissions made pursuant to the surcharge on imports order of June 24,	1962
(SOR/62-233) ?


Hugh John Flemming: No loss of revenue is anticipated as a result of the surcharge on imports order.



BUTTER PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION

Mr. Matheson: 1.	Since the government established the 64-cent support price for butter, what to date, by provinces and years, has been the production and the consumption and the total excess of one over the other with respect to butter?
2.	During this period, by provinces, what has been the surplus or deficit percentage of production over provincial requirements?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1.
Creamery Butter, Canada, 1958 to 1962
1958 '000 lb.
(a)	Production
Prince Edward Island	6,053
Nova Scotia	4,856
New Brunswick	8,314
Quebec	133,542
Ontario	89,452
Manitoba	26,657
Saskatchewan	29,509
Alberta	34,327
British Columbia	3,280
Total production	335,990
(b)	Total domestic disappearance2 312,255
(c)	Production in excess of
domestic disappearance2	23,735
(d)	National average rate	lb.
of per capita consumption2	18.32
1January to October inclusive.
2Not available by provinces.
2. Lack of complete data on interprovincial consumption statistics on a provincial basis.
1959	1960	1961	19621'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.	'000 lb.5,859	5,237	5,808	5,2994,490	3,613	3,926	3,3937,831	7,238	7,571	6,646127,127	123,731	138,789	131,25387,381	85,396	95,036	88,13725,630	24,778	25,278	23,22028,671	28,012	28,393	24,77334,322	37,338	40,917	34,9584,267	5,060	5,880	5,794325,578	320,403	351,598	323,473303,059	289,889	287,688	259,85722,519	30,514	63,910	63,616lb.	lb.	lb.	lb.17.38	16.27	15.77	14.10shipments	make it	impossible	to provide



DOKIS INDIAN DAY SCHOOL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Godin: Since 1960, were Mrs. Fraser and Mrs. Lester appointed to the Dokis Indian day school in the district of Parry Sound, province of Ontario, and, if so, what was (a) their period of employment (b) their duties (c) the monthly and total salary received?


Frank Charles McGee: (a) Neither Mrs. E. L. Fraser nor Mrs. L. Lester were appointed to duties at the Dokis Indian day school. Mrs. E. L. Fraser was transferred from the Sagamook [Mr. MacEachen.l
Indian day school to the position of teacher counsellor with headquarters at North Bay on August 7, 1962 and continues in that position. Effective September 1, 1962, Mrs. Letitia Lester was transferred from the Knob Lake A.C. Indian day school to the position of teacher of an upgrading class conducted in North Bay and she is continuing in that position.
The programs conducted by Mrs. Fraser and Mrs. Lester are not carried out as part of the

program of a particular school. For accounting purposes, expenditures for these employees are charged against the Dokis Indian day school which is the one closest to North Bay.
(b)	Mrs. E. L. Fraser's duties as teacher counsellor are:-
1.	To assist the students with problems related to their school work.
2.	To exercise general supervision of the students with respect to study hours, attendance problems, etc.
3.	To act as liaison between the schools attended by the students, the homes and the department.
4.	To assist in locating suitable homes for the students.
Mrs. L. Lester teaches an upgrading class of twelve Indian students from the northern Ontario region who left school before reaching an academic level which gave them the prerequisites for vocational training and employment.
(c)	The monthly salary rate for Mrs. E. L. Fraser is $430 and gross salary payments from August 7 to October 31, 1962 were $1,255.27. The monthly salary rate for Mrs. L. Lester is $390 and her gross salary from September 1 to the end of October was $780.



MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE, WARREN-ST. CHARLES, ONTARIO

Mr. Godin: Is the Post Office Department contemplating changes in the delivery of mail between Warren, Ontario, and St. Charles, Ontario, and, if so, what are these changes and what are the reasons for the changes?


John Angus MacLean: (a) Yes.
(b)	This has yet to be determined but the following are being considered: (i) Changing the starting point of Warren rural route No. 1 from St. Charles to Warren; or (ii) establishing a supplementary stage service to operate between these two post offices.
(c)	To eliminate the 24 hour interval presently occurring in the delivery of mail addressed to patrons residing on the western portion of Warren rural route No. 1; also to advance delivery by 24 hours of outgoing mail posted by patrons on the eastern portion of Warren rural route No. 1, patrons of the St. Charles post office and by patrons of the three rural routes operating out of St. Charles.



FISHERIES LIMITS AND DISCUSSION OF CONSERVATION

Mr. Mather: Has the government taken any recent steps toward the establishment of (a) a 12-mile fishing limit off Canadian shores (b) the discussion of a four-power pact in the Pacific to regulate fishing and fisheries conservation?
Questions


John Angus MacLean: (a) The government is continuing to explore all possibilities of this and related questions.
(b) No. Canada is now a party to a tripartite convention which is in effect and under which fishing and fisheries conservation in the north Pacific are regulated.



COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. Denis: For each of the fiscal years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, how many inquiries have been received by the Post Office Department concerning (a) delays (b) non-delivery, of mail matter?


John Angus MacLean: (a) Delays (b) Non-delivery
1961-62	32,803	45,8581960-61	30,918	49,1751959-60	32,258	42,3831958-59	27,887	42,392



REMISSIONS OF DUTIES UNDER IMPORT SURCHARGES

Mr. Knowles: 1.	From June 24, 1962, to October 31, 1962, how many remissions of customs duties were made under the provisions of section 2 of the surcharge on imports order, P.C. 1962-902, as based on section 22 of the Financial Administration Act?
2.	How many of these remissions were for amounts of $1,000 or more?
3.	To whom was each remission of $1,000 or more made, and what was the amount in each case?


Hugh John Flemming: 1, 2 and
3: The information requested is not available as detailed statistics are not maintained pertaining to the application of the surcharge on imports order. To present a complete answer would entail a careful examination of approximately 2,205,235 import entries passed at 276 ports of entry in Canada.
(Translation):



FREIGHT COST OF FEED GRAIN, FORT WILLIAM-QUEBEC

Mr. Dumont: 1.	What does it cost per bushel or per hundredweight to ship feed grain by rail from Fort William to Quebec city?
2.	What subsidy, if any. is paid by the government with respect to such feed grain shipments?


Mr. Pigeon:: 1. The freight on grain shipped by rail from Fort William to Quebec city is 66 cents per hundredweight. However, over 90 per cent of the domestic grain is shipped by waterways from Fort William to points in the province of Quebec.
The average cost of water transportation, based on the volume of the various kinds of western grain sold in the province of Quebec, plus the additional charges by elevators not associated with rail movement, is approximately 27.5 cents per hundredweight.

Questions
2. The shipping subsidy paid on grain shipped to Quebec city as a final destination is 25 cents per hundredweight, whether it is carried by boat or by rail.



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Dube: Is the government considering a change of policy with respect to the retention by borrowers, from the Farm Credit Corporation, of lawyers of their choice?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The Farm Credit Corporation inform us that, at present, borrowers are free to retain the services of lawyers of their choice to handle their share of the legal work concerning corporation loans. The corporation also entrusts its share of the legal work to a lawyer of its choice and no change of policy is contemplated in that connection.
(Text):



*U.S. TESTS OF COAL BURNING GAS TURBINE LOCOMOTIVE

Mr. MacEachen: 1.	Has the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys received any reports on road tests being conducted by the Union Pacific railway in the United States on a new coal burning gas turbine electric locomotive?
2.	If so, have such reports provided any information which would cause the government to consider the revival of the Mordell project at McGill University discontinued four years ago?


Mr. McGrath:: 1. No formal reports have been received but the department is aware of the tests.
2. Coal burning gas turbine under test by Union Pacific is different to the type used in the Mordell project, but certain features of the Mordell project are under investigation in an experimental unit in the departmental combustion laboratory.



CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN RESERVE GOLF COURSE

Mr. Boucher: 1.	What is the term of the lease governing the golf course located on the Indian reserve at Caugh-nawaga?
2.	What sums are being paid out each year in consideration of that lease by the golf course owners (a) to the government and (b) to the members of the Caughnawaga Indian reserve?


Frank Charles McGee: 1. Seven leases were negotiated to provide land for the golf course on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve, all of which expire on September 30, 1995.
2. The combined annual rent for these seven leases is $1,764.47, and is all payable to band members who are in lawful possession.



BUTTER STORAGE, CHATEAUGUAY-HUNTINGDON-LAPRAIRIE CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Boucher: Has any quantity of federally owned butter been stored within the limits of the constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie during 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962, and, if so (a) what quantity (b) what sums were paid out for such storage services and (c) to whom?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, during 1960. (a) 276,808 pounds; (b) $10,993.84; (c) Barrington Food Lockers, Ormstown, P.Q.



GROSS REVENUE, DOMESTIC PARCEL POST

Mr. Denis: During each of the fiscal years 1960-61 and 1961-62, what was the gross revenue of the domestic parcel post service?


John Angus MacLean: Estimated: 1961-62, $31,357,690. 1960-61, $22,733,861.



FREEZER EQUIPMENT, PACIFIC TUNA FISHERIES

Mr. Laing: 1.	What total sum of money was expended by the government on freezer equipment to permit Pacific coast vessels to engage in the tuna catch?
2.	To date, what is the delivery, in pounds, of these vessels to (a) Mexican (b) Californian (c) B.C., canners?
3.	Will the government extend this type of assistance in the current year?


John Angus MacLean: 1. $81,530.27.
2.	(a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) Landed in Canada 230 tons-20 tons to B.C. canners, 210 tons transshipped to Oregon.
3.	Not planned, but technical advice and assistance will be given on installations if required.



COST OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO CROP INSURANCE

Mr. Forbes: What has been the total cost to the federal government of assistance to crop insurance in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and any other province that has participated in crop insurance?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The total cost to Canada for assistance provided to the province of Manitoba under the provisions of the Crop Insurance Act is $493,115.86. This covers the cost up to September 30, 1962. No claims have been received covering the period subsequent to that date.
The provinces of Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island are both operating crop insurance programs but as yet have not submitted any claims for shareable costs.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Belanger: Has the government been advised that certain contractors holding government contracts in the

constituency of Charlevoix are hiring workers on a basis of their political affiliation and, if so, what action does it intend to take to end such practice?


Thomas Miller Bell: Return tabled.


FREIGHT RATES ON VARIOUS PRODUCTS
Mr. Laing: On January 1, 1890, and at each decennial anniversary thereafter, what was the rail freight rate in cents per 100 lbs. on the following items from shipping point to destination as indicated:	(a)
wheat (export and domestic), Winnipeg to Port Arthur (b) wheat (export and domestic), Winnipeg to Montreal (c) wheat (export and domestic), Regina to Vancouver (d) lumber, Vancouver to Toronto (e) lumber, Prince George to Buffalo (f) steel (sheet), Hamilton to Vancouver (g) coal, Jasper to Toronto (h) canned goods, Leamington to Vancouver (i) apples, Penticton to Toronto (j) farm machinery, Toronto to Regina?


REGULATIONS RESPECTING CHEMICAL PESTICIDES
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	What are the regulations of the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding the sale of chemical pesticides?
2.	What special measures are taken to protect the Canadian population from the highly dangerous organic phosphate group of chemicals used in pesticides?
3.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare have a bureau of enforcement to see that these safety regulations are observed?


APPOINTMENTS OF DEFEATED CANDIDATES
Mr. Knowles: Since the compiling of sessional paper No. 230, have any persons other than those named therein, who were candidates in the federal election of June 18, 1962, and were defeated, been appointed by the federal government to positions to which emoluments or allowances are attached and, if so, what are their names, their positions and their emoluments or allowances?


DOUBLE DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Stewart: 1.	On what date did the policy of allowing double depreciation in respect of capital expenditures in areas of chronic unemployment, announced by the minister of finance on December 20, 1960, come into effect?
2.	On what section of what statute is this allowance based?
3.	What areas in the Atlantic provinces have been designated as chronic unemployment areas?
4.	What companies in each of those areas have applied for the double depreciation incentive?
5.	Which of these applications have been refused?


FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS OF DEFEATED CANDIDATES, 1957 ELECTION
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many persons who were candidates in the federal election of June 10, 1957, and were defeated have since that date been appointed by the federal government to positions to which emoluments or allowances are attached?
2.	What are the names of all such persons?
3.	What are their positions and what are their emoluments or allowances?
Orders for Returns


FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS OF DEFEATED CANDIDATES, 1958 ELECTION
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many persons who were candidates in the
federal election of March 31,	1958, and were
defeated have since that date been appointed by the federal government to positions to which emoluments or allowances are attached?
2.	What are the names of all such persons?
3.	What are their positions and what are their emoluments or allowances?


DEPORTATION ORDERS, RESIDENTS OF CHINA AND HONG KONG
Mr. Howard: 1.	With respect to the 22 people whose country of last permanent residence was China and the 30 people whose country of last permanent residence was Hong Kong who have been ordered to be deported since January 1, 1957, what was the reason in each such case for the order of deportation having been made?
2.	With respect to the four people whose country of last permanent residence was China and the seven people whose country of last permanent residence was Hong Kong who have been ordered to be deported since January 1, 1957, but on whose behalf the order was cancelled or reversed, what was the reason in each such case for the order of deportation having been made in the first instance?
3.	With respect to the nine people whose country of last permanent residence was China and the six people whose country of last permanent residence was Hong Kong who have been ordered to be deported since January 1, 1957, but who have been allowed to remain subject to review, what was the reason in each such case for the order of deportation having been issued in the first instance?


Frank Charles McGee: Return tabled.


GRAIN HANDLED BY VARIOUS PORTS
Mr. Cantin: 1.	What are the quantities of (a) wheat (b) oats
(c)	barley (d) rye (e) flax and (f) the total amounts, delivered in each of the following ports: Vancouver-New Westminster, Victoria, Prince Rupert, Churchill, Fort William-Port Arthur, Toronto, Kingston, Montreal, Sorel, Three Rivers, Quebec, Baie Comeau, Saint John, West St. John, and Halifax, for each of the crop years from 1950-51 to 1960-61?
2.	What quantities of each of the above mentioned grains were exported from each above listed port during the years 1950-51 to 1960-61?
3.	What quantities, for each above listed port, of each of the above mentioned grains were retained for domestic consumption?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With regard to this question, No. 887, it was made to stand, but after discussing the matter with my colleague the hon. member for Provencher I should like to ask that it be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO QUEBEC FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING
Mr. Beaule: 1. Have any payments been made by the federal government to the government of the province of

Inquiries of the Ministry Quebec under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and, if so, what amounts were paid and for what specific projects were such amounts paid?
2. Was the federal government requested by representatives of the government of the province of Quebec to make the said act applicable to training centres under the jurisdiction of the provincial Department of Labour and, if so, what reply was given by the federal authorities, and on what grounds was such reply based?


FEED SCREENINGS
Mr. Laing: 1.	In each year since 1950, what has been the (a) value (b) tonnage, of all grades of feed screenings exported from Canada?
2.	In the same years, what has been the value and tonnage of feed screenings sold for livestock consumption in Canada?
3.	Has the Department of Agriculture encouraged the retention of this feedstuff in Canada and, if so, by what means?


*COST OF PLANE TRIPS TO EUROPE
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Aboard what plane, at whose expense, and on what date, did members of the Canadian NATO parliamentary association leave for Europe?
2.	Aboard what plane, at whose expense, and on what date, did the Associate Minister of National Defence leave for Paris in connection with the Montreal world's fair?


Mr. Sevigny:: Return tabled.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government expects at an early date to issue a writ for the election in St. John's West in order to complete the general election.


John George Diefenbaker: When the government is in a position to advise as to this matter, the house will be informed.



SUGGESTED CHANGES IN VOTING PROCEDURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Rodney Berger: May I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any communications recently from one George Hogan regarding suggested voting procedures in the House of Commons?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question on a subject of which the Prime Minister has direct and personal knowledge. In view of the continuance of what some would call the inutile situation with respect to the Sons of Freedom problem in British Columbia, would the minister consider offering the cooperation of the federal government to the government of British Columbia with a view to joint action toward a permanent solution of this long-standing and unique social enigma?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I will take the question as notice.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. In view of the absence of the Minister of Justice, which I had not observed, and the presence of the Prime Minister, would the Prime Minister be able to answer my question?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is certainly an exponent of belief in the saying that hope springs eternal in the human breast when he looks forward to this problem being ultimately settled. I know this has been the desire of all people in my own province and, latterly British Columbia because of those who migrated there. As far as co-operation with the government of British Columbia is concerned, as has been made perfectly clear on a number of occasions, this problem is inherently one for the provincial authorities, and it is only when for financial or other reasons the provincial government is unable to cope with matters such as this that the federal government is called upon and then gives consideration to the question of cooperation.



FOOTBALL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace):: After my question has been asked I trust, Mr. Speaker, you will know my county a little better. My question is based on reports carried in today's press to the effect that the Edmonton Huskies defeated the Notre Dame de Grace Maple Leafs to win the Canadian junior football championship yesterday in Hamilton. I wish to ask if the hon. member

for Edmonton West will accept the congratulations of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, together with his assurance that things will be different next year.


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of the other members from the city of Edmonton I accept the congratulations of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, notice of which has been sent to him. In his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary might be able to answer. In 1957 Mr. and Mrs. Zanoskar made their escape to Canada from Yugoslavia and left their two year old son with a friend there. They are now anxious to get their child, and it has been reported that the government of Yugoslavia is asking $700 before they will allow the child to leave the country, which the Zanoskars are willing to pay, but fear other-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While it is permissible for the hon. member to refer to certain facts in order to establish his question, perhaps he would come to his question without giving us a whole recital.


Hubert Badanai: My question is, can the minister indicate to the house if he could offer to help by holding the stakes until the child is safe in Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: This particular case is being looked into, and when that has been done an answer will be given to the hon. gentleman.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you.
(Translation) :



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Following a meeting with woodlot owners, in the Levis, Bellechasse and Montmagny-L'Islet counties, could the minister tell the house whether he could lend an amount of $6,351,000 in order to set up a paper mill in that area, as was done for Pakistan?
27507-3-127
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am afraid I was a little slow on the draw that time. I should therefore like to take this question as notice and answer it tomorrow.



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question of which I have given him notice. Some time ago I inquired of the minister in regard to a tobacco trade mission to Europe, and I was informed that this was being looked after. Because of the now critical tobacco situation I should like to ask the minister if any such action as I suggested has yet been taken.


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I wish to assure him that I have been kept informed daily of the tobacco situation in Canada by our two very alert members from Oxford and Elgin. I appreciate the hon. member having also drawn this matter to my attention.
My department has been working actively and closely with the tobacco industry in connection with a number of avenues of approach which we hope will be useful and which we hope will ultimately solve this difficult problem. I can assure the hon. member we shall continue to work hard in the future in connection with this matter.


Mr. Eugene F. Whelan (Essex Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. I am sorry I did not have time to give him notice. Due to the unfavourable marketing conditions of tobacco, is he aware that in South Essex approximately 800 people will be laid off on Wednesday?


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex Easi):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex South asked a question, and before the Minister of Labour had decided to rise and reply you gave the opportunity to another hon. member to put a question. I think we should now ask the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to answer what is obviously a very important question in this area, 800 people being put out of work.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the reason I did not reply was that the hon. member was giving me information.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the way this government always has to be informed.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Do the supplementary estimates which he tabled today include provision for unfreezing the civil service pay increases and, if not, will he be attending to this matter shortly?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: The answer to the first part of the question is no, and the answer to the second part is, of course, that the Minister of Finance is always attending to all such details.
(Translation):



APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR, TAXATION DIVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is further to one I asked the Minister of National Revenue two weeks ago. I wanted to know then if he intended to appoint a bilingual official as director of the taxation division in Ottawa.
In view of the fact that the appointment will be made tomorrow or the day after, I would like an answer, if possible.
(Text):


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, the appointment
about which the hon. gentleman inquires is made by the civil service commission. I have no knowledge of any appointment being made tomorrow.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the air transport board recently submitted recommendations to the minister concerning the subsidization of regional air services in different parts of Canada?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time I do receive reports from the air transport board about various regions in Canada. I do not know to which region the hon. member refers.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he could tell us when he will make the recommendations of the air transport board available. I am talking about the recommendations respecting the prairie air services.


Léon Balcer: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order. In conformity with rulings I have given in the past, questions which have reference to subject matter already fairly well covered on the order paper by a written question-and here I refer to 
question No. 932-should await reply in the normal course.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, might I also ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I ask it of him because I understand that he is the one to whom this was initially directed. Has he received a telegram asking for the early establishment of bulk loading and storage facilities for ocean going vessels at Kitimat, British Columbia and, if so, what action has he taken with respect thereto?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With the greatest respect to the experience in this house of the hon. member, I think he will recognize that representations by telegram, letter and so forth with respect to loading docks, air fields, and matters of that nature, are not a subject matter for answer on orders of the day. If the hon. member wishes to pose a detailed question with regard to the matter, he can do so on the order paper.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday I told the house that my department was investigating a newspaper report from Britain concerning the drug preludin. To bring the house up to date, I should like to advise that on Friday afternoon my department received the item that apparently led to this public interest. It consists of one letter in the latest issue of the British medical journal, referring to a patient who was unfortunate enough to lose a child in 1958 and another in 1960 after having taken this drug. By that time we had

asked for reports from London and Washington, though we had no indication that either Britain or the United States felt there was cause for concern. While the United States food and drug administration is investigating the matter, it has not produced any incriminating evidence that would justify action being taken.
The Italian ministry of health has informed us that the decision to ban the drug and similar preparations pending the outcome of study it has just initiated was taken as a result of the medical journal article, and not because of any reports that these medicines have been associated with infant deformities in Italy. We are continuing to investigate this situation, and if any action should seem appropriate it will certainly be taken. In view of the drug's history in wide international use, though, I do not believe there is reason to be alarmed solely by one report of what may be a medical coincidence.
The attending doctors in the British case make it clear that they are recalling this case because of current examination of the general problem, and I am sure they would be surprised to see the weight that has been attached to their letter in some quarters. On the other side, we must remember that the drug has been on sale under prescription in Canada for six years, with no reports of such problems having arisen.



POSTAFEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has anything to say on behalf of his department concerning the drug postafen. Is it on sale in Canada at all?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker. I noticed the press report in this morning's paper and, having checked the matter, I can say that it is not on sale in Canada.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, perhaps to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his capacity as house leader. In view of these latter references to the effects or possible effects that some of these drugs may have, would the minister not think it wise to proceed soon with consideration of the third reading of Bill No. C-3, and have it referred to a committee so that these questions can be gone into?

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
27507-3-1274
Interim Supply



INTERIM SUPPLY

['Yes he did. If you read your Hansard you will find he said that in the last three or four days perhaps some civil servants provided this answer to parliament. Parliament asks questions of the ministry and the ministry is responsible for the answers and they cannot pass off that responsibility.\nAs a matter of fact, with this debate coming up, I was surprised that we would get this naive answer; but we did get it and it\n\nis in conformity with the expectation I raised in debate last week when I said that this act could not possibly be stretched for the purposes of the June 24 order in council by the cabinet because I envisaged that it would involve recognition of these hundreds of thousands of customs entries and an equally binding obligation under the same section of the act to give to parliament, in the public accounts, a report of anything that involved a remission of $1,000 or more of duty.\nThat is the issue. In June, during the emergency, the government wanted to impose customs surcharges ranging from 5 per cent to 15 per cent on hundreds of items in our customs tariif, and from some source which they will not divulge to parliament, the government obtained some fancy legal opinion that section 22 of the Financial Administration Act could be stretched for this purpose. It cannot be stretched one way if it is not to be used in the other way to report to parliament as parliament has asked.\nEveryone in the house knows why there was a necessity to report to parliament. The point was that under the first part of section 22 the governor in council, which is the cabinet, was given the authority on recommendation of the treasury board to remit a tax that would otherwise be legally payable. Now, no one in the house would want the cabinet to have that permission without limit, so parliament put a limit upon it and said it did not want political favours to be given by\nBusiness of the House\ntax remission, and it limited this executive action to cases where the treasury board felt that something that parliament had basically established as a tax should be remitted because of special circumstances, and when that was done it should be reported to parliament in the public accounts if the value was over $1,000.\nThese things are not now being reported. I do not think they can be reported in public accounts despite the assurance of the minister.\nWe are not going to conclude this debate tonight. I want the minister tomorrow, or when we continue this debate, to present us with some examples from the customs entry forms which will establish and demonstrate that it would be possible for the administration to go back on those 2,205,235 import entries that have passed through 276 ports of entry since the executive decided to impose $200 million of taxation by executive order in council.\nProgress reported.']
George Clyde Nowlan: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $449,473,276.60 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of
the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, finance item 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources item 10, public works items 5, 45,	125,	190 and 200, Royal Canadian
Mounted Police items 5 and 25, loans, investments and advances item L-20, $303,189,049.67;
(b)	an additional two twelfths of the amounts
of public works items 145, 163 and 170, transport items 35, 222 and 225, of the said revised estimates, $3,652,165.67;	.
(c)	an additional one twelfth of agriculture items 25, 100 and 160, finance item 45, northern affairs and national resources items 30, 50, 55, 85, 80, 95 and 100, public works items 10, 20, 115, 120, 140 and 150, transport items 55, 100, 125 and 185, loans, investments and advances item L-70, of the said revised estimates, $12,122,533.34;
(d)	nine twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (A), for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $121,079,360.25;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, of the said supplementary estimates (A), $9,430,166.67,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.


Mr. Chevrier:: I hope the minister will have a statement to make in this regard.


George Clyde Nowlan: I intend to make a very brief statement at this time. These items which you have read, Mr. Chairman, are the items on which further supplementary estimates are being asked of this committee. The proportions in the bill are intended to provide for necessary services up to December 31 of this year. In no instance is the total amount of any item being released by the bill. The form of the bill, of course, is the usual one for interim supply. The passage of this bill will not prejudice the rights or privileges of hon. members to criticize any estimate when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passage of this measure.
As appears from the wording of the resolution which you have read in full, Mr. Chairman, so that all hon. members could hear it, we are asking for only 30 days' supply at this time and it will be my proposal-and I give this undertaking-that the next request for interim supply will also be for 30 days only; not, I hope, to follow the expiration of this vote, Mr. Chairman, because that would take us into Christmas, but I would

Interim Supply
expect to bring forward a further interim supply bill within the relatively near future and for a further 30 day period. Of course there will be ample opportunity to debate that bill or any item at that time as there is, of course, this afternoon, if hon. members so desire.
However, I would hope that we might pass this supply bill. I may say frankly that it is necessary to get this vote through so that we can make payments at the end of this month. I would hope the committee would co-operate with me in the passing of this supply bill this afternoon, after such discussion as it sees fit, so the matter of the payments for the monthly accounts can be cleared up. Then, as I said, a further supplementary item will be brought in during the course of the next few days or within the next week or .so, at any rate, and matters can be further discussed at that time. However, no item is being closed and, as I said, the usual undertaking is given.


Lionel Chevrier: As the minister has stated, Mr. Chairman, this is the usual motion that comes before the house from time to time for interim supply. On this occasion the government is asking for a 30 day interim supply with the understanding that later this month or next month, I take it-


George Clyde Nowlan: I hope this month.


Lionel Chevrier: -the minister will come before the house-


George Clyde Nowlan: Next month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: December.


Lionel Chevrier: -with a similar motion. While the opposition under these circumstances has the right to discuss grievances or other matters that might be of particular interest to those of us who sit on this side of the house. When a similar motion was brought before us some time ago the Leader of the Opposition, after having made a few brief statements, took the position that he would not oppose the motion. On behalf of the opposition I propose at this time to follow a similar pattern. However, there are one or two things I think I should say before the motion is allowed to go through.
The request of the government for this supply is necessary in order to carry out certain activities of which we have received formal notice from you, Mr. Chairman, and also more particularly by the further supplementary estimates that were tabled this day. At the very beginning I draw attention to the fact that on the last occasion on which interim supply was requested we did not take advantage of the motion to discuss matters which, as I said earlier, were of particular

interest to our members. We took this decision in the interests of getting on with the business of the house. We took this decision in order to assist the public interest and the public business and in the expectation that the government would bring on, in an orderly fashion, its legislative program.
We have now been sitting in this House of Commons for over two months. When we came here in the month of September I think we had every reason to anticipate and expect that we would be dealing with at least two things which we thought were of importance. The first was the long term measures and long term program which the government had in mind, having to do with the economic position of our country, as was stated by the Prime Minister during the campaign and was stated also by government members and the Prime Minister thereafter. We also anticipated that we would be dealing with the budget.
However, the expectation we held at that time has not been realized. We are not satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that the work of the house is being properly organized and that the program of the government is being brought forward in a systematic fashion. Instead, we have been asked to deal with a series of measures which I would not dare say were unimportant; however, they certainly were not our conception of what was described by the government as matters of urgent importance.
I have here a summary of the legislation we have dealt with thus far. It includes the national health act-the Food and Drugs Act. We have still to have third reading of that measure. Had this act been referred to a committee, as was suggested from this side of the chamber, I am sure that it would have been through in no time. Certainly it would have gone through by this time. Then there were the Farm Credit Act, the Export Credits Insurance Act and the tax bills.
The three tax bills took no time whatever. What took a long time, of course-and the committee will remember this-was the general debate which was agreed upon by all parties and which was inaugurated on the first resolution. However, I should like to point out this fact to the minister and to the committee. Instead of having a general debate without a budget, if the government had brought down a budget the budget would have been through in less than the time taken on the general debate, because the rules of the house would have so prescribed. We disposed of the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, and the Estate Tax Act went through very quickly. The Customs Act, of course, did not take an undue length of time. As the

committee knows, an amendment is still pending at the present time. There are a number of other items which are now on the order paper. I think of those having to do with the Judges Act, the Department of Transport and the Freight Rates Reduction Act which, as the committee knows, expired on April 30 last. Still there has been no attempt to deal with that matter.
As I read the further supplementary estimates that were tabled by the minister today the first thing that struck me was vote No. 213a, $50 million for interim payments, related to the recommendations of the royal commission on railway problems. It is the same vote in the same amount with the same wording as vote No. 590 tabled in the house some time earlier. This is an indication that thus far the government has not yet been able to make up its mind with reference to these recommendations.
The responsibility for organizing the work of the house and the business of the house rests fully with the government. That responsibility can only be discharged by the government; consequently it must accept the chief responsibility for the lack of legislative output.
We have examined our participation in most of the debates that have been held thus far during this session. I believe we can demonstrate that we have not taken nearly as much time in proportion to our numbers as the other opposition groups or the government members. We wish to urge upon the government the necessity of following a more certain and systematic course in arranging and forecasting the business of the house. I should like to refer here to a few examples.
The leader of the house has from time to time called a number of items. He has called items which the house has never dealt with. He has called items which were dealt with on one day and then held up for a period of days or even weeks; then we would come back to them later. I refer, for instance, to the motion to establish an electoral boundaries commission. Although it was called on several occasions it has not yet come before us, even though it should have been done a year ago according to the constitution.
Another example is the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act. It has been in and out of the house with intervals of time between each stage and, indeed, intervals of time within each stage of the bill. Without going into details, let me simply make this statement. The resolution, which was first brought before the house on Thursday, October 18 and Friday, October 19, took only a very short time, I believe two and a half hours of discussion on the latter day. Then the bill stood for a whole
Interim Supply
week. In fact on Friday, October 26, it was discussed for an hour and 25 minutes and discussion was not resumed on it until some time later.
Finally, the most flagrant example of them all is the tariff bill giving effect to changes proposed in the budget of the last parliament. That measure, as the house knows, is not yet completed, and it has been withdrawn from the house since Monday of last week even though an amendment had been moved and was under discussion. Two weeks before that the house leader stated that these measures were of great urgency. With regard to the tariff bill particularly, one can well understand why it has not been brought before the house again, and here I do not want to get into anything that is of a contentious nature because I want to make a proposal to the government which I trust the government will consider and accept in the spirit in which it is made. But there is no doubt that the tariff bill was not brought before the house again for obvious reasons which I need not go into at greater length at this time.
I reiterate that it is up to the government to take the lead in cleaning up the confusion which its own uncertainty has created. We on this side are ready to co-operate with the government and the members of the other parties in an effort to make considerable headway before the Christmas recess. Here I should like to call to the attention of the minister whose motion this is, and the Prime Minister who is in the house, parts of two editorials which have appeared fairly recently. One is found in the Globe and Mail of November 14 last, a paper which is not particularly favourable to this party. From its leading editorial on that date I read only this paragraph:
The voters were conditioned to expect great things by the currency crisis, by the introduction of austerity measures, and by the Prime Minister's appeal for a national effort to correct the faults in the economy. They will not lightly forgive a government which fails to act decisively. Nor will they accept the explanation that Liberal obstruction is wholly to blame, when there is nothing of substance for the Liberals to obstruct.
I refer also to a like editorial headed "Sobering" which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, November 24, the last paragraph of which reads in part as follows:
Yet the government apparently is in no hurry to introduce those long range measures of which the ministers spoke so vaguely last summer. The latest trade figures should be a warning to Mr. Nowlan that the government's business as usual approach is not good enough.
I bring these matters to the attention of the government on a motion of this character, and I should like to remind the minister as well as the Prime Minister and the house leader that

Interim Supply
on a not dissimilar occasion some time ago when there was a motion before the house for the extension of the hours of sitting we on this side, after having given careful consideration to the whole problem, made a proposal to the government, which was that from the time of that motion until the end of the session the government would submit to the opposition the urgent and important legislation it had in mind and we would undertake to facilitate and co-operate in the passage thereof. The answer to that proposal was complete silence. I trust that the answer to the proposal which I am now about to make will not be of the same character.
It seems to me that if from now until the Christmas recess we are to deal with matters of urgent importance, the government must first tell us what its detailed legislative targets are for the next several weeks. Once we have these targets in our possession we are ready to discuss in detail the allocation of time for each stage of each measure that is part of the pre-Christmas menu. In most instances it should be possible to agree upon a timetable that would ensure that all points of view were presented with the minimum loss of time.
I repeat my proposal to the government. First, I ask the government to tell us in detail their legislative objectives until the Christmas adjournment. Next, after that is done we on this side of the house are ready to sit down and discuss the apportionment of time for each stage of each measure in order to facilitate the public business and ensure that by Christmas we may return to our constituencies with the assurance that a goodly share of whatever public business the government brings before us is disposed of.
I would hope that the spokesmen for the other parties will agree with this proposal. If so, we can dispose of these estimates in a very short time. I trust that the government will accept this offer in the spirit in which it is made.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to note the conversion-if I may use that expression-of the hon. member for Laurier, who wants to settle down to legislation, though he was ready, the other day, to start an urgent discussion on the Grey cup game. Now he is quite prepared to deal with useful legislation for this country.
We, in this corner of the house, think that the most important matters are not exactly football, but unemployment, problems facing our farmers, and other problems.
We are in no way surprised by his behaviour. On the other hand, we all noted that the business of the house is not progressing.

Right from the start of the session we noticed a rather extraordinary situation. We have seen the Conservative party, the present government, and the official opposition, the Liberal party, devote as much time as possible, not to a discussion of the problems this country has to face, but to a search for procedural points to an examination of every possible handbook of procedure in order to find precedents.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen the Liberals trying with every possible means to introduce a non-confidence motion and make us lose valuable time on at least five different occasions. And why? They were trying to ask questions of some personalities or individuals, to locate some records.
(Text):


Mr. Matheson:: May I ask a question? May I ask the hon. member why it is that his group, in proportion to the number of people they have in this house, make longer and more extensive contributions to every discussion than any other group?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to see that the hon. member for I do not know which riding has noticed that we from this side of the house have spoken often and on different subjects. We have really tried to deal with those subjects, while the Liberals have contented themselves with talking nonsense in this house.
Mr. Chairman, the Liberals have taken the time of the house in trying to question certain experts, certain advisers, certain personalities, or in trying to obtain documents so as to see, as much as they possibly could, whether the Conservative government, and more especially the Prime Minister, had misled the people before the last election by keeping secret the coming crisis and its effects, such as our decreased foreign exchange reserves.
As far as we are concerned, we knew very well what was coming: we did not have to question anyone. We knew all about it, and we are satisfied that the government knew all about it, just as they knew about the austerity program they would have to bring about. It is a fact that the steps that were taken a few days following the election should normally have been taken several months before that, for we could tell that the crisis was constantly worsening. We were foreseeing the crisis which we would have to face and which would bring about austerity, credit restrictions, tariff surcharges, the freezing of the salaries of civil servants, etc. We were aware of all that. Even though the

Prime Minister refuses to admit it, it is a fact that, for the last several years, Canada was heading towards this crisis that we are now facing.
Mr. Chairman, we are now being asked to approve interim supply. We are ready to agree to the proposal which the hon. member for Laurier made a moment ago, concerning the legislation to be brought down between now and the Christmas recess. However, I should like to mention that we have to consider expenditures which have not yet been dealt with nor accepted. The budget itself was brought down several months ago-eight months I think-and today a supplementary budget is submitted to us. Now, we have not considered nor accepted those budget estimates. In fact, we are asked today to vote amounts of money, including the 1962-63 supplementary budget, that have been spent, namely, for instance, as indicated on page 8 of supplementary estimates, in the last line:
(Text):
Expenses of the royal commission on banking and finance, $166,630.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, that amount has been appropriated for the royal commission on banking and finance. We had asked that experts, advisers and representatives of our party be present at the examination of Messrs. Coyne and Towers.
The money was spent and we did not have our say in the matter. Those expenditures were made without anyone taking the least notice of our suggestions that representatives of the four parties be allowed to attend the sittings of that commission. Therefore, the government has spent the money, and there is almost nothing left of those estimates submitted today.
I feel that this is rather abnormal, but in an attempt to hasten the introduction of important measures that might be brought before the house, the members of our party will refrain from discussing any further this interim supply introduced today.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is quite usual when a government asks for interim supply to request that it be granted with a minimum amount of debate. It also happens fairly often that the house agrees to such a request. We are witnessing that request and that kind of response in general terms again today. I am sure that we understand the situation in which we find ourselves, and I am sure too that we are ready to be co-operative.
Interim Supply
However, I believe we do have to take a moment to look at the way in which we are, in effect, painting ourselves into a corner. By the time the bill based on this interim supply resolution has been passed we will have voted nine twelfths of all the money in the main and supplementary estimates for the 1962-63 fiscal year. In some cases we will have voted ten twelfths and in some cases eleven twelfths. Yet, Mr. Chairman, at this point we have not passed a single item of the main or supplementary estimates. In fact, so far as this parliament is concerned we have had discussion on only one of them, namely the first item in the Department of Agriculture.
Now, where are we going? The Minister of Finance says that within a few days he will bring down another request for interim supply for another 30 days. By that point we will have voted ten twelfths of everything and eleven twelfths of many items. If this trend continues, before we know it we will be approaching the end of the 1962-63 fiscal year. I can see a point coming when the minister will say, "Now we are almost at the end of the year. This year is gone, so what does it matter? Let us look at next year and pass these items expeditiously." The committee will be given several hundred items of the main and supplementary estimates and will be asked to put them through. If we want to talk on any which may be important there will be members of the government or of the Liberal or Social Credit parties who will say we will be wasting time.
We feel we should give very serious consideration to the kind of position that parliament is being put in by this shoe-horning method under which the government is getting its money for this fiscal year.
I think the hon. member for Laurier is perfectly justified in saying that a similar situation has developed with respect to legislation. Debate has started on a number of items on the order paper, but frequently when a debate waxes warm or when it looks like there might be a crucial vote, the debate is adjourned. Therefore we have quite a mixture of estimates that have not been dealt with and important items of legislation which have not been put through, at a time when we are coming to the end of the calendar and fiscal year, the end of the time during which this session of parliament should deal with its business.
I believe something along the line suggested by the hon. member for Laurier should be considered by the government, namely that there should be some kind of conference at the top level of all four parties in the house to consider where we are going with respect to the estimates for this fiscal year and with

Interim Supply
respect to this session's business. It is obvious that the government has not been able to give the kind of leadership parliament needs in order to get measures passed through the house, and I suggest that it is time the government called together representatives of all the other parties to try to plan the business of this session with respect to both estimates and legislation.
I can assure the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that if any effort is made along that line we shall do our best to cooperate in getting important measures through the house. However, I must say that although we are quite firm in our offer to co-operate, this does not take away the responsibility that rests upon us to draw to the attention of the government, the house and the country those things which we think the government is doing that are wrong.
I know my hon. friends across the way, judging by remarks made by the hon. member for Red Deer the other day, think it is a waste of time to indulge in procedural debates on some of these things, but on my desk right now there is an answer to some questions that appeared on today's order paper which disposes of that contention. My question No. 900 read as follows:
1.	From June 24, 1962, to October 31, 1962, how many remissions of customs duties were made under the provisions oi section 2 of the Surcharge on Imports Order, P.C. 1962-902, as based on section 22 of the Financial Administration Act?
2.	How many of these remissions were for amounts of $1,000 or more?
3.	To whom was each remission of $1,000 or more made, and what was the amount in each case?
I asked that question because this sort of thing has been questioned in the house and because I wanted to be sure that the provisions of the act were being carried out. The Minister of Finance, when he was questioned about this the other day by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said, as recorded on page 1788 of Hansard for November 19:
All I can say in reply to that question is that I am no longer minister of national revenue, but I am quite certain I do not have to assure the committee that the provisions of the Financial Administration Act are being complied with by the Department of National Revenue.
What is the provision of the Financial Administration Act on which my question was based? It is section 22, subsection 8 which reads as follows:
A statement of each remission of one thousand dollars or more granted under this section shall be reported to the House of Commons in the Public Accounts.
Mr. Chairman, that is the reason I worded my question as I did. I did not ask for lower amounts. I asked only for those of $1,000 or more because that is what the act requires

and because the Minister of Finance said the other day that the committee could be assured that the Department of National Revenue was complying with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act.
This is the answer I got today and which will appear in today's Hansard:
The information requested is not available as detailed statistics are not maintained pertaining to the application of the surcharge on imports order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a clear breach of the law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is just as clear a breach of the law as we had on other occasions in the past.


Mr. Benidickson:: The Auditor General will comment on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I must read the whole answer.
The next sentence presents an excuse, but I submit that an excuse is not satisfactory when the law is being broken. The rest of the answer reads as follows:
To present a complete answer would entail a careful examination of approximately 2,205,235 import entries passed at 276 ports of entry in Canada.
I grant that it is a tall order to keep track of all these things, but, Mr. Chairman, the law is the law. This is the place where we make laws. This is the place where we talk about the rule of law, and this is the place where we say the law must be kept. This is the place where, a few days ago, the Minister of Finance said he could give us the assurance that the Department of National Revenue was complying with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act.


William Moore Benidickson: And nobody should question the deputy attorney general.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, we must not do things like that, but this is a provision of the act. It is crystal clear; and the surcharge on imports order, at least half of it, is based on section 22 of the Financial Administration Act. We were assured the other day that the law was being complied with, but when I asked for this kind of information I was told:
The information requested is not available as detailed statistics are not maintained pertaining to the application of the surcharge on imports order.
In other words, this government has not only seen fit to pass an order in council, which in my view has no validity at all, but having passed it, it now refuses to carry out the provisions of the section in the Financial Administration Act under which it claims it had the right to pass that surcharge order.


William Moore Benidickson: Shocking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the word "shocking" is on Hansard. As a matter of fact I wish Hansard could record the stillness there was in the house a moment ago when I first read that answer. No matter what our views might be about the government in power today, we did not think this of the government. We did not think that having passed an order in council based on a section in a statute of parliament it would then not only refuse to carry out that instruction but would have the gall to say so without a moment's hesitation in answer to a question on the order paper.
I put my question on the order paper only a few days ago and I was surprised that the answer was given today. I thought the question would have to stand for a few days to enable the department to get the information, but this was not the case. The government in effect stated it did not intend to carry out the provisions of the statute. However, we do now know how many import entries there were. There have been 2,205,235 during the period under review, but the government has not kept statistics for the purpose of complying with the provision in the statute on the basis of which the order in council was passed.
I say to my hon. friend from Red Deer, because I was chilled the other day about the things he said; that we were taking up too much time in discussing these things-


Mr. Malheson:: Vital constitutional matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are talking about the same thing. We are talking about getting to the bottom of the legislation on which the imports surcharge order was passed. We are talking about whether it was brought in with proper validity, and now we know that the government is not complying with the statutory provision under which it claims the right to pass that order in council. This makes it more necessary to sit down with the government to discuss how to get along with the business of the house, but I say to the government that if we do sit down together we will want some pretty frank answers to questions about this kind of thing.
This is not leadership in a democracy; this is not leadership of the House of Commons. It is not getting on with the business of the country to treat parliament in this way. This is why we have been painted into a corner, to use a phrase I used a few moments ago, in terms of the estimates of this house, in terms of the legislation before us, and other such matters. It is because there does not seem to have been a facing up to what is required, under the rule of law, with respect to the leadership of parliament at this time, that I urge, before parliament gets into
Interim Supply
greater disrepute because of this kind of thing, that there should be a more realistic approach to what is necessary in order tc put this session on the rails.
There are one or two more things I want to say, but since we are in committee of supply and we can speak more than once there will be an opportunity of raising these other matters later. I want to urge, now, that this House of Commons should realize where we are in terms of the grant of money we are being asked to vote. Before we vote we should realize where we are in terms of the legislation of this session-a session which is fast moving on-and in terms of how the government is treating a matter as important as a provision of one of the statutes of parliament itself.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not intend to deal with the particular matter which was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That will be dealt with by the Minister of Finance. I will only say that in so far as the legality of what has been done in putting into effect the surcharges is concerned, I would prefer the opinion of the law officers of the crown to the view of the hon. gentleman on the subject. It is perfectly clear to us that we must accept this legal opinion that what was done was done within the powers granted by parliament to the executive; and in the discharge of those powers we acted as we did.
I rise for the purpose of discussing in general a charge which I think has become perennial and continual. As far back as I can read, and on every occasion for the past 25 years or more, whenever a vote has been asked of parliament in this way the argument has been advanced that there is something wrong, that there had not been on the part of the government that leadership which would assure the proper and effectual operation of parliament. I intend, first, to deal with what has taken place.
Governments propose, and oppositions dispose. There is only one way in which a government can carry through its legislative program if an opposition has its eye on certain objectives desirable for the opposition but not desirable from the point of view of an effectual operation of parliament, and that is through the medium of closure. That is something to which, on the basis of the experience of the past, this government does not intend to resort. I wish to make that very clear. I listened with interest to the statement made by the hon. member for Laurier-his offer of co-operation. I welcome that offer of cooperation now, although I point out that for

Interim Supply
the past 41 days there has been nothing indicative of an attitude of co-operation on the part of the opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentlemen must feel the pangs of conscience or they would not be interrupting. They recognize their guilt. Recognizing that guilt, they start making observations from a seated position which often, in the case of the hon. member, is representative of the most intelligent things he does.
I go back. I intend to review what has happened. The longer I see parliament in operation, the more I hold the view that reforms are necessary in order to assure a greater acceleration of its business. That has been so throughout the years. Let us examine the change of rules which we brought about. Parliament sits from 2.30 p.m. until ten o'clock at night. Of this time, from 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m. is spent on government business and from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. on private members' resolutions. From 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. the house again considers government business. In the result, we sit five and a half hours a day, four and a half of them on government business and one on private members' resolutions.
I am not criticizing private members' resolutions, for out of the discussion of those resolutions legislative enactments are often ultimately introduced. They educate; they place before the people viewpoints which otherwise might not receive attention. But the fact remains that actually, in the operation of government, with the exception of the debate on the address, the total length of time we sit is from 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m., that is, two and a half hours, and from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., or a total of four and a half hours a day.
I recognize the difficulties for private members in this regard, and also for ministers, but I believe we may well have to consider an extension of the hours of sitting of parliament. When one considers that in a five day week we sit some 30 hours-I have not totalled it up-a reform in this direction would, it seems to me, be beneficial and helpful.
All of us have had this experience: we sit short hours when there is work to be done and then, when we come toward the end of a session, we expand and expand those hours of sitting to an extent which denies members-and I am speaking of the private members-the opportunity to fully consider the various measures which come before the house.
It is all very well to say that there is a failure on the part of the government to give leadership. I am going to refer to the orders

of the day. Legislation is ready; we want to proceed. Let us just examine an ordinary day. More and more, with the passing years, longer and longer periods of time are being taken up by questions on the orders of the day. What about the British parliament? It does not operate on that basis at all. It sits longer hours. In addition, questions are not asked before orders of the day without notice. The questions which are asked must appear on the order paper and then there can be supplementary questions. When I first came to this house-and the hon. member for Essex East, the hon. member for Laurier as well as the leader of the New Democratic party were here in those years-one or two questions might be asked on the orders of the day, and that was the limit. But as time has gone on, it has expanded. We finally arrive at the point when, by 1945, if we had three questions on one day we thought we were par on this course.
And so it has expanded to the point where today we spend 45 minutes, 50 minutes, and even 60 minutes on questions. I like questions which are penetrating. They may hurt my personal sensitivities at the moment, or those of the government; but if you examine the questions asked on an average day-and I criticize no one member-there is not one in a carload which would embarrass anybody. This is being developed more and more. I am not here to mention what his honour Mr. Speaker has done in order to keep these questions within the rules of parliament, but if we set an average sessional year of 140 days, with an hour a day for questions, that is 140 hours spent on questions. If we sat 35 hours a week instead of 30, there you have four weeks of questions; four weeks of the sittings of this house spent on orders of the day. I am not here speaking of questions on the order paper. No wonder there has been an expansion in the time of sittings. Furthermore, a government, and parliament itself, is in the grip of rules which deny any real action being taken in the early days of a session.
Now let me deal with the 41 days on which we have already sat. The speech from the throne took 10 days. That is the regular period. There is nothing we can do about that excepting agree not to talk and to bring on the vote at an early date. Ways and means took nine days. A supply motion took two days. There are 21 days in which no legislative action could be taken.
What about legislative action? Seventeen days have been spent on legislative action. Three days were spent on the Export Credits Insurance Act. No amount of leadership on the part of the government can get legislation

through earlier. Hon. members want to express themselves and they should have that opportunity. There is only one control within the rules over the length of time an hon. member speaks, and that is his own conscience in determining how much shorter a period he can speak and still bring the message and the viewpoint he wishes to put before parliament. The Farm Credit Act took six days. I am not placing the blame on anybody in that regard because everyone wanted the Farm Credit Act. Everyone wants action; and yet we spent six full days on discussing that matter. The Food and Drugs Act, which concerns the Department of National Health and Welfare, is one that naturally mobilizes the thinking of members, their fears and desires to do what they can to help. That took two days. The Combines Investigation Act has taken one day. The resolution on industrial change and manpower adjustment has taken one day. Budget bills took four days. There you have 17 days on those matters.
Hon. members say, why do we not bring the legislation forward? It is ready; it is drawn. But we find ourselves in a position where there are only so many hours in a day, and we have reduced those hours to such a minimum that we are not effectively carrying out our responsibilities. There is no reason in the world why we should not sit longer hours. I know it might be difficult for some hon. members who live close to Ottawa and in the adjoining two central provinces, but the rest of the hon. members are here all the time. They cannot get home when they want to at any time. So I think the suggestion of the hon. member is one which deserves consideration. By agreement we could extend the period of sittings. I do not think there would be any strong opposition to action in that regard, particularly between now and the Christmas holiday.
There used to be a time, not so very long ago, when some hon. gentlemen were predicting that parliament would be out in a week, or out in two weeks. One hon. gentleman, who is a profound student of constitutional development, said that in his opinion we would be out within 30 days, and he said: "I'll bet my shirt on it." Well, he still has his shirt and we still have parliament. But we do not hear so much about those predictions any more; so we can get away from infighting on the question of the dissolution of the house and down to infighting on the question of legislation, and let us get this legislative program before parliament.
What about the rest? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that we had not got down yet to any of the estimates. All we
Interim Supply
have discussed is agriculture, for a period of two days. Then there was one day, Wednesday, October 17, when we did not do any business at all, when arguments went back and forth on an appeal from the Speaker's ruling.
There is the record on this forty second day of the session. The legislation is available. We are ready to present it. If hon. members do not think so, just let them pass this supply, and pass these bills one after the other, and they will get them fast. That is all I ask.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It is all right to say: "We do not know about that". Just place us in the position of not having the legislation available. But it is here; it is ready.
Now let me point out that there are 29 pieces of legislation ready. I am not one of those who argues that there should be any interference with the right of hon. members to express themselves, but I do agree with the hon. member that if the house leaders of the parties could get together and apportion the time, it would be a most effective and welcome expedient in order to achieve a high degree of efficiency in parliament. They do it in the United Kingdom, but we have never been able to do it here. It becomes more difficult-this is not a matter of criticism- when there is a multiplicity of parties. That means a multiplicity of viewpoints, and it becomes more difficult to achieve. But if out of this discussion today we can bring about agreement to apportion the days between now and the Christmas adjournment, we will have made a tremendous advance in parliamentary reform of our own volition.
I would add to what the hon. gentleman said about an agreement, providing the party leaders could be brought to agree that, as we do not have very long between now and the Christmas adjournment, we sit in the mornings. There is no reason in the world why we should not. Again, on Wednesdays we could sit in the evenings. We could increase the time of sittings by eight or ten hours a week. No one would be harmed and all of us would have made that little sacrifice which always brings warmth to the hearts of those who participate by agreement.
Mention has been made of the long term plan. If we get this legislation through we will get the long term plans in addition to what is already before us in connection with those budget items which will be beneficial.
I am asked by the hon. gentleman what we can proceed with. Mention was made of redistribution; it should have been a year ago. I will not get into an argument on that.

Interim Supply
I pointed out last April when the bill was before the house that it cannot be proceeded with until after the census is completed, and the census was not completed until the month of May, as I now recollect it. We have the legislation ready. That is something that should be done. We are going to place before you the names of those who we believe would constitute a commission on redistribution which will be acceptable to hon. members in all parts of the house and will put an end to the operations on constituencies without anaesthetic which for so long has characterized redistribution in this country.
As far as major bills are concerned, let us proceed at once to deal with item No. 12. The reason for any delay in bringing ahead the redistribution measure was simply the fact that we wanted to get some of these economic measures passed by the house. There is on the order paper item No. 12, an act respecting industrial change and manpower adjustment; item No. 19, to introduce a measure to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act; and item No. 20, to provide for the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations. If it is passed, it will be retroactive to April 1 and will meet a demand we have had through the years for a greater share of taxation being levied as against crown corporations, and also the removal of certain taxes which in the past have rested on provincial governments. Then there are the measures now before the house.
Mention has been made of long term plans. The national economic development board is a major one in the field of operations in this connection. In addition to that, there is the Atlantic development board. These are two measures which I would hope would receive immediate attention and be passed by parliament. These are measures which will cover the future or the economic development of the future while also having regard to the present. Then there is the item on the national productivity council and the amendments in connection therewith. When these measures have received attention as well as those that are to have third reading, namely items Nos. 1 and 2, we shall have further measures to place before you.
When I invite you to extend the hours of sitting, I do so with the recognition that we have the legislation available. In addition to that, of course, there will be other measures of a strictly economic and fiscal nature which will have to await the bringing in of the budget which I hope, as was stated some time earlier by the Minister of Finance, would be introduced at an earlier date than has ordinarily been the case. In other words, what we have been doing is placing before

you those things which can be done now, those subjects which are necessary now. They include some of our long term measures. In addition to those, we have measures to place before the house which we believe will be of great importance in meeting our problems, and in particular in the long run our payments difficulties which have been with us for years.
I wish to say to the hon. member for Laurier that I hope he and the other house leaders of the various parties will get together and that, in unanimity and that spirit of co-operation he advocated in his opening remarks, we do what we can to clear the order paper between now and the Christmas adjournment. Then, of course, the question will arise as to how long that adjournment should be. That is a matter which might also be given consideration.
I do not think there is anything more I wish say. I think we should set up the committee on procedure again and see whether they cannot make further changes. Some benefits have resulted from those meetings in the past several years. Further meetings are necessary. I do not say; imitate the British system. However, I say that, on the basis of their experience which extends over generations, we could learn a great deal as to determining the time for debate for these various subjects. If the hon. gentleman's suggestion today is accepted, I am sure that we will make large steps forward in clearing this order paper. We have available many other matters which can and will go on the order paper. Let us determine now that, as far as the order paper is concerned, we will clear it within a week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That will require sacrifice on the part of some who might desire to speak on the subjects. I will do my part to see that members supporting the government will co-operate in this regard. I am sure the hon. member for Red Deer will do the same as well as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I really do not see that there was any reason for cynical laughter at that statement. Today we have agreed that we have a problem. That problem is the problem of parliament. It is easy enough to say that the government is responsible, that it must organize the business. How can you organize something when those in other parts of the house prefer a degree of disorganization?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They do not intend that, I am sure, but that is the result. With regard to these questions, let us get together and determine a time. I shall be most happy to have the fullest co-operation on the part of the government and, on the rules as they are, we will make parliament as efficient as they permit us to make it. In addition to that, in the longer range we will bring about changes in the organization of parliament or changes in the rules. It is always a difficult thing because some, in the interest of expediency or for other reasons, would prevent members from speaking. That is a danger against which we must guard.
Having in mind the assurance that our purpose is not that but rather to get the legislation through, I shall be most happy to join with hon. members in all parts of the house to get the order paper cleared away. We will give you much more to do. It will also enable us to bring in the further matters of legislation which are necessary. I have not taken the view that it is other parties which are responsible. The rules are there. On the other hand, I resist any suggestion of failure on the part of the government to bring the legislation before the house. It is there; it is on the order paper.
As far as questions are concerned, it is not for me to suggest but I think that the number of these questions could be greatly reduced; and if we were also to have a self-denying ordinance that, under ordinary circumstances, we would not go over half an hour on questions before orders of the day we would save 15 full days in an ordinary session without, as I see it, losing any ground that might be gained through questions or in any way interfering with the rights of the opposition.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, as a rule when matters of this kind are under discussion it is the leader of the house who rises to put forward the position of the government. I am delighted that the Prime Minister, feeling that he was not only in an embarrassing position himself but that the government was also-


John George Diefenbaker: Neither.


Lionel Chevrier: -should rise to his feet and deal with the proposal that has been put forward. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for having accepted the proposal conditionally, and having regard to what I shall say in a moment perhaps we can give some consideration to the matters that were raised. But there is no doubt, no matter what the Prime Minister says or what embellishments he places on what he has said, that there is one
Interim Supply
responsibility and one responsibility alone for the conduct of the house and that lies on the other side of the house.
Thus far we have not had order and discipline in the proposals that are ordinarily put before the house. The Prime Minister said when he rose that it was a perennial argument that parliament was not operating properly. In the years that I have been here I have raised it twice. I have no doubt it was raised before but I do not think it is perennial as the Prime Minister says it is. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that we on this side of the house had every reason to expect that within the first two months at least we would be dealing with other legislation than that do which the Prime Minister has referred. We expected, as I said earlier, that we would surely have been dealing with the budget and with long term proposals; but in the list that the Prime Minister has put before us today I can see, with but one exception, nothing of a long term nature.
The Prime Minister says that the government proposes and the opposition disposes. That depends on the kind of legislation submitted by the government and it depends upon the manner in which it is submitted. I am not going to lay any blame on any colleague of mine who sits on the other side of the house, but when you have a piece of legislation that is called on Monday night or on Friday and discussed for an hour or two and then put over for a week or ten days and brought back again, how can that be considered as demonstrating order and discipline in the house?
We also have another piece of legislation -I refer to the tariff measure-to which an amendment has been moved, and it has been put off and not called for almost ten days. How can that be considered as demonstrating order and discipline? How can we get along with the business of the house if matters of importance, so called by the government, are dealt with in such a fashion? I submit that we cannot and that is why we on this side of the house are dissatisfied with the manner in which the government is proceeding. Not only are we dissatisfied, but I put on Hansard earlier two paragraphs in two editorials from leading newspapers in this country which condemn the government because of its lack of long term proposals to deal with the economic situation in our country.
The Prime Minister has spoken about the past 41 days and has said that for those 41 days there has been nothing indicative of an attitude of co-operation on the part of the opposition. Those are the words of the Prime Minister. I took them down. I asked our whip

Interim Supply
to obtain for me figures as to the time taken by the opposition and members on the government side on measures of importance. I ask the Prime Minister to note whether or not there was co-operation from this side or from the other side of the house. I have before me figures dealing with the throne speech debate. In that debate 27 members of the government took 14 hours and 16 minutes to deal with the throne speech and 25 Liberal members took 14 hours and 31 minutes. There is an indication of the length of time taken by members on the other side of the house. I am not saying that they had no right to do so. I am not saying that they should not have participated; but let the Prime Minister not rise in his place and tell us that there has been a lack of co-operation, particularly when members on his side of the house have taken as much time as we have.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman will admit, of course, that the time for that debate is fixed.


Lionel Chevrier: It may be that it is fixed but so is the time for the debate on the budget, and if hon. members will look at what happened when the budget was under discussion at the last session of parliament they will see exactly the same thing. Let us take the Farm Credit Act bill to which I referred earlier. It came up for the first time on Thursday, October 18, and on Friday, October 19, it was dealt with for two and a half hours. Thereafter it stood for a whole week. In fact, on Friday, October 26, it was discussed for an hour and 25 minutes. When the debate on the resolution was resumed 10 members of the Progressive Conservative party spoke for two hours and 48 minutes while 15 Liberals spoke for two hours and 26 minutes. On November 1, when second reading of the bill was moved, five Progressive Conservatives spoke for one hour and eight minutes and four Liberals spoke for 59 minutes.
What is far more significant is that on the last day in the committee stage, November 20, there was a filibuster by members on the other side of the house and by Social Credit members which lasted for an hour and a half when the house could have disposed of that measure in five minutes. Those are facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Hon. members say "oh, oh". Those are facts. If they are not correct, let hon. members contradict them; but I have obtained this information from the whip's office and I am sure it is correct.
The Prime Minister said, and rightly, that a great deal of progress has been made by

the committee on rules and procedure with reference to the time consumed in debates. So far as that committee is concerned, we have co-operated to the fullest extent, and we would welcome its establishment once again. There may be a number of instances wherein we on this side could be of assistance in curtailing the length of time taken on debates.
The Prime Minister also dealt with questions and he said that years ago there were only two or three questions on orders of the day but now we take an hour or three quarters of an hour. I say to the Prime Minister with all respect that I was here before he was and I remember that on many occasions when the previous government was in office quite as much time was taken on the orders of the day with questions as is taken now.
I go back to 1956, not to go back earlier, when we were in office. On January 26, 1956, 15 questions were asked on orders of the day; on February 7, 1956, 16 questions, and they can be found in Hansard for that day. On February 9, there were 13 questions asked and on February 10, there were 14 questions. I could go on to give some indication to the house and to the Prime Minister that on the whole and speaking generally, as much time was taken up in the recent past as is being taken up now. I do not believe it will be possible to curtail these questions unless the matter is referred to the committee on rules and procedure, which I would welcome, and perhaps there it might be possible to come to some understanding.
The Prime Minister had a lot to say about legislation being available. Here it is on the order paper, said the Prime Minister. He mentioned some of the things that are on the order paper, such as the electoral boundary commission. The Prime Minister is quite free to bring on that measure; it is in his own name. It has been called on at least three occasions and perhaps more, but still nothing has been done about it. Then, there is the measure to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. Is that one of the measures in the long term program to assist the economy of our country? Important as that measure is, and I have no doubt about that, I am asking the Prime Minister if it is a measure of the kind we had every reason to expect when we came to this house in September.
Then, the fourth one he mentioned was a measure to provide for the payment of provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations. Is that one of the measures that is of urgent importance and necessity? The Prime Minister says: The legislation is there, let us get together and co-operate so that we can get

along. Yes, we are quite willing to get together and co-operate with hon. members on the other side of the house. The Prime Minister has suggested an extension of the hours of sitting. I am not saying that is not possible, but before giving consideration to that I would want to see what legislative measures the government deems of such importance that they will assist in advancing the economy of our country. I do not believe we can give consideration to an extension of the hours of sitting until such time as we have had from the house leader a program of that nature.
There is also another matter that is being talked about very often, and that is the Columbia river treaty. It was signed, as the Prime Minister remembers, several years ago. It was to have been submitted to parliament on more than one occasion. It was mentioned in the speech from the throne at least once, if not twice. There is a measure to which the Prime Minister made little or no reference, but to which I trust consideration will be given when the house leader deals with these proposals.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words here about the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who complained about the time lost by the Liberals in moving non-confidence motions, etc.
Of course, the hon. member for Lapointe, who is seldom in his seat, who has so many interests in the province of Quebec and elsewhere and who, unfortunately, does not know what is going on in the house most of the time, may make statements which-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege and on a point of order I have just heard the hon. member for Laurier say that I am seldom in the house. I believe, on the contrary, that I am always in the house. In fact, I was absent three days last week, and those were the only three days I was absent. Apart from that, I have always been here. I would therefore ask the hon. member for Laurier to withdraw his words.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to learn from the mouth of the hon. member for Lapointe himself that he is regularly in his seat. Of course, I do not follow him everywhere, and I must, under the circumstances, accept his word that he is here regularly. But if he is here, he does not listen to what is going on in the house-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, again on a point of order-


Lionel Chevrier: -because-
Interim Supply


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


The Deputy Chairman:: Now, the hon. member for Lapointe will have the opportunity to reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier. It is not in order to interrupt the hon. member for Laurier. Even though his remarks may not be in keeping with the facts; they may later be commented upon by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I will add that, when the hon. member for Laurier says that I am not paying attention to what is going on in this house, he is reflecting on my behaviour, on the role I am called upon to play here. I therefore declare that I do pay attention, that I am aware of everything that goes on in this house. However, I must say that the hon. member's remarks are nothing but nonsense, just like many of his other statements.


Rémi Paul: The question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe and the preceding remarks may have been irrelevant, because the hon. member for Laurier was making certain comments and referred in particular to an hon. member's behaviour. It seems to me that the discussion is on the progress of the business of the house, and I feel sure that everyone will co-operate so that we may have a truly more efficient debate.


Lionel Chevrier: I am happy to note. Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member felt he was involved in this, because although he raised a question of privilege where there was no privilege at all, I intend to carry on with my remarks.
In reply to what the hon. member said when he stated that we, of the Liberal party, had lost time-


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Lionel Chevrier: -I should like to put on record exactly what happened in at least two debates which took place in this house. First, I refer to the debate on the budget resolutions in committee of ways and means which went on for several days, as the Prime Minister indicated. Here, I note that 13 Liberal members, in that discussion, took up 6 hours and 44 minutes-


An hon. Member:: They had nothing to say.

Interim Supply


Lionel Chevrier: -while 14 Social Credit members took up 6 hours and 19 minutes.


An hon. Member:: But they did not say much.


Lionel Chevrier: Which shows, Mr. Chairman, that hon. members on our left, who claim to be great defenders of a certain number of citizens of Canada, who do not like democracy-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Mr. Drury:: There is no point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: We spend all our time quarreling-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Rémi Paul: I have listened to the hon. member's remarks. I do not think they have any precise relation to the conduct of any particular member of any party represented in this house. Therefore, I wonder how the hon. member can rise on a point of order at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I now wish to talk about the debate on the resolution presented before the bill amending the Farm Credit Act. On that occasion, 15 Liberals spoke for 2 hours and 26 minutes, whereas 7 Social Crediters spoke for an hour and 14 minutes. The situation was almost the same with regard to the motion on second reading of the bill.


An hon. Member:: But the arguments were not of equal value.


Lionel Chevrier: As for the questions asked and about which the Prime Minister expressed some criticism, even though Social Credit members-


An hon. Member:: How many hours on football?


Lionel Chevrier: -are only 30 in number they asked 143 questions. So proportionately, they have taken much more time than we have.
I am now coming to the question of the football game that the hon. member for Lapointe mentioned a moment ago. It is obvious

and I was right in saying so a while ago-that the hon. member did not understand the meaning of the motion put forward by the opposition to request the adjournment of the house in that connection.
We moved the adjournment of the house in order to protect the rights of the C.B.C., not those concerning a football game.
We wanted to protect the rights of C.B.C. against the regulating council-that is the board of broadcast governors-which wanted to dictate a policy to the C.B.C.
If the board of broadcast governors succeeded in dictating a policy in that field, it could very well succeed in doing the same in other areas which would involve the provinces or the rights of the minorities in other parts of the country.
That is the reason why, Mr. Chairman, we moved that adjournment. Unfortunately, the hon. member did hot understand the meaning of our motion; otherwise he would have got on his feet to support it-
Mention has been made also of the time devoted to discussing Liberal amendments during the throne speech debate and in other instances. The hon. member seems to forget that the Social Crediters themselves moved two amendments which took a great deal of the house time; so, we could also complain about their attitude in the circumstances.


An hon. Member:: We have just lost 45 minutes.
(Text):


Mr. Pugh:: You only want to talk it out.


Lionel Chevrier: No. I can tell the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary that I have no intention of talking this measure out. At the outset I made it quite clear I had a proposal to make, and I took very little time. I doubt if I took more than ten or 15 minutes.


David Vaughan Pugh: That you did.


Lionel Chevrier: 
Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say briefly that we are very happy to see what has been done this afternoon, even though we did not accomplish that which we thought we would accomplish. While perhaps we have wasted some more time we have finally a statement from the Prime Minister that legislation is going to be brought before the house and that we are going to get down to something of importance. We have also finally a statement from the main opposition party that they are going to co-operate in seeing some work being carried out. That is all we have been trying to achieve in the house for a good many weeks, and I would like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on having so ably brought this issue to a head this afternoon.
We are ready to discuss a timetable for procedures, and I can assure the Prime Minister of that. I would remind the hon. member for Laurier, however, that the two amendments we brought in were brought in within a definite program and within certain time limitations concerning the debates, and we did not waste any time.
I would ask the government that when it does bring a measure before the house it will let us consider it and conclude with it, instead of dealing with it in dribs and drabs as we have been doing for the last few weeks. Let us make good use of the time we have here before we decide to add more time to our sitting hours. We are willing to co-operate in any way just so long as we can get something done. We hope we can deal with legislation that the country needs, and we hope we will come to grips with the basic issues in this house of minorities where we all share a corporate responsibility if we are to get ahead at all.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, tears were in our eyes and our hearts were bleeding when the Prime Minister went into all the problems this government has with decadent procedures and objectionable opposition. I cannot take time to deal with many of his points. Most of them have been covered, but one point he made covered the extension of sitting hours.
I had the unbelievable honour, several years ago, to introduce a motion in this house to extend the hours of sitting very early on in a session. Not only had I the honour of introducing it but I also had the honour of having it accepted by the government. This was a remarkable victory for a private member in opposition. It was to extend the hours of the
Canada Elections Act
house considerably, the whole idea being that it would speed up our business and we would get more legislation through and thus make a good impression on the country. But what happened? We had the longest, dreariest session in memory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In history.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, all I know is that it set a record in the number of pages and the number of words-


An hon. Member:: Most of them put there by Liberals.


Douglas Mason Fisher: -and I would just like to remind hon. members of that. I notice somebody has said it was the Liberals put all those words on the record, but I remember dozens of Conservative backbenchers getting up and extolling the virtues of that magnificent leader they had. I don't blame them for it, but you don't improve matters over a session by extending the hours of sitting.


Rémi Paul: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed with consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion as they appear on page 30 of today's order paper.



Mr. David Lewis (York South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, consideration be given to the advisability of introducing a measure providing (a) that specified expenditures in respect of television, radio, travel within his constituency, the printing and mailing of some literature about himself and his or his party's program incurred by or on behalf of a candidate representing a federal party in a federal election be paid out of the general revenues of Canada: (b) that any additional expenditures by a candidate or by any person or organization on his behalf be limited to a specified amount calculated on the basis of voting population; and (c) that every candidate, constituency organization or federal party and any person or organization acting for or on behalf of any one or all of them shall make full and accurate disclosure of all moneys received and of all expenditures incurred by them in respect of a federal election.
He said: When the discussion began this afternoon with regard to the business of the house I feared that by the time my resolution was called at five o'clock I might feel guilty about interrupting the work of parliament.

Canada Elections Act
However, in view of what has happened this afternoon I believe the resolution I am about to discuss is perhaps the first concrete piece of work which has been placed before the house today. I hope that in consonance with the appeal made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and other members of the house this resolution can be expeditiously adopted.
I wish to say, first of all, that neither my party nor I claim that the suggestions in the resolution before us are by any means the last word on the subject. We appreciate fully that these matters ought to be carefully studied, that every aspect of them will have to be considered by a committee of the house and by other agencies which the house may decide to consult. Nevertheless, we urge that action on this question ought no longer to be delayed and that the subject is one which should be considered as soon as possible.
This resolution is divided roughly into three parts. There is, first of all, a proposal which is new as far as this house is concerned, involving the payment of certain election expenses out of general revenue. Second, there is a limitation imposed on election expenses and, third, there are proposals regarding full and accurate disclosure both of income and expenditure during an election.
I want first to set down a few of the principles which in my view underlie the proposals before the house. They are based on the belief which, I am sure, every hon. member shares, that the democratic system ought not to depend on wealth, that it should be possible in a society such as ours for every democratic idea to be heard, and to be heard as fully as every other democratic idea; that the decision by a citizen whether or not to be a candidate ought not to be governed by the extent of his means, whether his own financial means or those of his party or his friends. I believe we would agree that the proper working of a democracy ought to be entirely independent of the wealth of a person, or of a group of persons, or of any political party in this country. I submit that the only way in which our system can be successful and in which it can work with integrity and honesty is when this limitation of financial economic means is removed as far as it is possible to do so.
It is obvious-and I say this without pointing a finger at any hon. member or any party -that the need nowadays for inordinately large expenditures in am election necessarily opens temptation to trading intellectual freedom and moral integrity for financial assistance. This is a temptation which ought to be removed in order that individuals and parties may act without any debt, direct or indirect, 
to any person or organization of whatever type for the financial assistance which they or their party have received. Furthermore, when the money which a candidate or a party use comes from sources which are not disclosed and is expended in ways which are not made public, the temptation to which I have just referred is compounded.
The only way, in my submission, in which parties can act in a genuinely democratic manner in a country such as ours, is by so arranging their affairs that every Canadian who wishes to do so may know precisely where the funds of a candidate or of a party come from, and precisely where that money is spent. In that event, not only can he be told by partisans that people and parties are carrying out their duties independently and with devotion to principle, but he could also see from the actual record that this was a fact. The history of Canadian politics is full of facts produced before parliament by committees and by research people, showing that parties in Canada have received large sums of money from organizations in this country. It is impossible for the average Canadian, no matter how well meaning he may be, to escape at least the question whether a party or person, being the recipient of a large contribution from an organization, was in any way bound by some promise to that organization. Furthermore, whether we intend it or not, we often are morally affected.
We ought always to remember that we are human and that the associations which we make from the acts in which we indulge and the things we do, the environment in which we live and the way in which we conduct our political affairs, are bound to have an influence on our minds, our conscience, and our principles. It is, I think, an exaggeration of the extent of human self-control to suggest that if one is, in fact, the recipient of a large contribution from some source he will not subconsciously, if not consciously, feel obligated to that source for the contribution. It would be entirely false to a realistic consideration of the human behaviour not to admit that such a situation is bound to produce in us, and in our reactions, something that may be undesirable for the democratic system.
To put it very simply, it is impossible for a political party or for a candidate to take a large contribution from one source, particularly if that source is a corporate organization, or any other organization, without feeling, subconsciously or otherwise, under an obligation to that source and without adopting principles, possibly without realizing it, to the benefit of the source from which the contribution came.
I am doing my best to place this subject before hon. members on as non-controversial

and non-partisan a plane as I know how. That may not result in a lively debate where interruptions and catcalls take place, but I hope it will succeed in provoking a debate which is concerned with the basis of the resolution now before us. For this reason I say it does not matter what I, together with other hon. members, may think of the other parties in this house to which we do not belong, nor does it matter what we know of investigations which have taken place in the past and the results of those investigations. I am urging hon. members to acknowledge the inescapable fact that we must limit expenditures in elections so as to remove the economic barrier to democratic behaviour. We must, above all, disclose the source of the funds so as to remove the temptation of being morally and mentally obliged to those persons or organizations from whom or through which the funds came.
Another base for the resolution I have the honour to place before the house is my conviction that there is a collective responsibility to see that elections are properly conducted: that all means are taken to remove temptation from those in political office and in positions of trust toward the people of Canada; that the evils to which I have briefly referred are, as far as human beings can do so, removed. The entire society has that responsibility. In my submission it is not enough to say that the parties ought to behave; that the individual candidate or members of parliament have a responsibility. I believe it is necessary for society as a whole, and therefore for parliament, to recognize our collective responsibility to make sure that the objectives I have indicated are attained.
I submit that in the latter years in particular, when means of propaganda have multiplied, when radio and television have been added to newspaper and meeting, when, as a matter of fact, meetings are no longer fashionable, the actual exchange of ideas among spokesmen is becoming less and less common during elections. Most of us are given the chance, if we have the money, and also through time allotted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation without payment, merely to declare our own program and our own position without either the citizen or the opposing candidate having much opportunity to consult us or to heckle us or to question us. The assemblee contradictoire is infrequent in Quebec, and in the rest of the country it is even more infrequent.
I have noticed, as I am sure have other hon. members, that as far as the average citizen is concerned he quickly gets a surfeit of propaganda beamed and thrown at him, in which he is practically drowned. I have
Canada Elections Act
the impression as I go about during election times, that by the time election day arrives, the citizen's interest has actually been dulled, rather than sharpened, by the amount of propaganda in the newspapers, on the radio and television. In other words, I am suggesting that nowadays you can have an effective election campaign, perhaps a much more effective election campaign, through limitation of expenditure rather than through leaving expenditure unlimited, as does our present legislation. I Submit that it may well be the case-in fact I am convinced it is the case- that the average Canadian will have a much sharper interest and will know a great deal more what it is the parties are talking to him about if he listens to much less of the guff-and I am as responsible for it as any other hon. member; I claim no innocence on that score-to which he now listens, and if he has to read less of the material thrown at him, often indiscriminately.
These are the reasons why, in my opinion, the propositions in the resolution now before the house are exceedingly necessary, indeed urgent, and ought to be given the most careful consideration by parliament, and action taken on them as soon as possible after adequate study.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in the five minutes or so left to me about each of the propositions now before the house, and I want to deal with them in the reverse order to which they appear in the resolution. As far as disclosure of sources of funds is concerned, I point out that our present legislation requires the disclosure only of the sources of funds by the candidate and not by the party. It is frequently, if not in almost all cases, the habit of all of us in this house merely to say that we have received the funds from our local constituency organization. Mr. Speaker, I submit that that is not disclosure at all; that you must have legislation which requires the party, and the organization for which a candidate stands if he does not stand for a recognized party in the country, to declare the funds contributed to it as well as to him, if you are to have real disclosure of the source of the funds spent in an election. Furthermore, the provisions of our present legislation are inadequate in a number of other directions. I submit that it is more than time for this parliament to tighten up the sections of our elections act dealing with the disclosure of the source and expenditure of funds, for the reasons I have already indicated.
The limitation on expenditures is more and more accepted in the democratic world. In Britain the first limitation on expenditures was imposed in 1883. Ever since then these

Canada Elections Act
limits have been tightened up. As recently as 1948 the limits on the amount that a candidate can spend were made still more stringent in that country. In Quebec recently, the government there proposed legislation to the same effect although it has not yet been adopted and become part of the statute book of that province. That legislation proposes an expenditure by candidate and party combined of about 75 cents per voter, although there is a difference made between city and country. Seventy five cents per voter in Canada would mean over $5 million to a party and its candidates which is hardly a limitation at all, unless, of course, the Liberal party has such large sources of funds that $5 million or $6 million represents a limitation on expenditure for it. It does not represent that to my party. The limitation which ought to be placed on expenditure, without my attempting to give any figures, is one which would bring the expenditure within the reach of every citizen in Canada who has the confidence of his fellow citizens to be a candidate for election to this parliament. That is the limitation which should be reached, and only then will we have a limit which makes sense.
Finally, a word about payment out of the treasury for certain expenditures. I appreciate that that is something new in Canada, and the proposed legislation in the province of Quebec to which I referred suggests that the treasury repay 15 cents out of the 75 cents or 80 cents, as the case may be, expended per voter. As far as I know that is the first attempt in Canada to suggest payment out of the public funds.
I hasten to urge hon. members not to be too much disturbed by that suggestion, as if it were something terribly esoteric. I remind them, if they do not remember, that in Britain the candidates for a long time paid the returning officers' expenses, and it was not until 1918 that that requirement was removed and the returning officers' expenses were paid out of the public treasury. In our country, we accepted the notion that the public treasury pay for that kind of expense ever since Canada has been a nation. After all, what is now suggested is merely an extension of the same principle. May I hasten to add that I am fully aware of the necessity carefully to limit the items for which money from the public treasury could be made available, of the necessity carefully to limit the amounts and to confine them- it I may have one second I will finish my sentence, Mr. Speaker-within limits which the people of Canada will understand and approve. If that is done and the limitation

I have suggested adopted, I am confident that we shall have a much healthier democracy than we have now.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) upon his motion. I think that all of us must feel that he presented his case well and that there is some merit to his suggestion. Although I should like to go along with him in my heart, I feel some things must be said on the motion because, after all, this question is not just as simple as all that. When I listen to one of these socialists I always think that probably the error they make mostly in that they overlook the fact that they are dealing with human beings, who all react slightly differently to all different things. If we were all the same, probably if we had a plan-it does not matter what you plan- then it would work as well as they suggest for everyone. But because we react differently to various situations then I suggest at the outset that the plan which he offered to the house today will not work or is not nearly as simple as he might suggest. Of course, it is most refreshing to hear this proposal come from a member of the New Democratic party, particularly a party who now raise their funds by a method which I believe it is suggested by the union members is a deduction from their wages from time to time. Their answer to that suggestion is that you can contract out of that condition, situation or set of circumstances. Nevertheless there may be some coercion in that regard.


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has made-and I am sure he would not wish to do so-a misstatement to this house. There is no occasion on which any payment to the New Democratic party is deducted from anybody's wages anywhere in Canada. The hon. member ought to know that if he reads things as he ought to read them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not wish to get into an argument at this stage of the debate with my good friend from York South. However, the members of the unions in Bow River suggest that this is correct. Maybe they misunderstand what the deduction is for. Nevertheless there appears to be some form of deduction more or less made for the support of the New Democratic party.
The suggestion before the house is that a specified amount should be spent by a candidate in the election in reference to television, radio and travel and that this amount is to be deducted from the general revenues of Canada. Then I take it that the second suggestion is that in any additional expenditure

there must be a specified amount calculated on the basis of the voting population. Then I understand that the third suggestion is that there must be a control as to how much is spent and of course that a proper form be filed in that regard.
It is rather interesting, of course, to note that, no matter how you dish this argument out, the expenses for elections have been increasing over the years. For example, I have obtained some figures with regard to the matter. First, I will deal with the country itself. These figures refer to the cost of elections. In 1949 the country spent $4,328,118. In 1953 it spent $5,380,436. In 1957 the figure had jumped to $7,500,000. In 1958 it jumped to $9,800,000. When all the expenses are added in for the last election in 1962, it cost the country $10,250,000, and this figure is not yet complete.
I would ask hon. members to keep those figures in mind. The last election cost us at least $10,500,000 more or less. I ask hon. members to keep that fact in mind, then add the total candidate expenses to the cost the country pays and think what it will cost the taxpayers if we had ten candidates or 15 candidates running in each of the constituencies of this country-what would it cost the taxpayers of Canada?
Let us take a look at what the elections have cost or what the candidates say they cost. Of course, I go along with my good friend when he says we have no way of knowing, unless someone has caught up with whether they have filed the proper return or not. We must therefore take the figures that come from the office in question where the figures have been recorded; that is, the amount spent by each candidate, added together, giving the total amount spent on the election by candidates in Canada. I am going to start off with the year 1949, Mr. Speaker.
The total spent in 1949 was $2,213,000. In order to be fair, I wish to break it down per party. On that occasion the Liberals spent $1,001,049; the Conservative party spent $904,505; and the C.C.F. party, which, of course, now bears a new and more dynamic name, the New Democratic party, spent $176,830. The balance is made up by others. If at any time these figures which I give do not add up when I include the three groups, it means that others spent the balance.
In 1953, we find this situation. Again Mr. Speaker, you observe that, just as an election cost more money in organizing it in the country, so it cost the candidates more money. In 1953, the election in Canada cost the candidates $2,535,000. I will read the round numbers. In 1953, it cost the Liberals $1,287,000; the Conservatives, $890,000; the
Canada Elections Act
C.C.F. $159,000 and Social Credit $82,000. The balance is made up of others. Again in 1957 we observed that the costs are on the climb. Of course the population is increasing and we are moving into the era of television which costs at one time about $80 a minute; but if the candidate sneezes, it costs him $160. Hence, naturally, the costs go up. In 1957, the cost to candidates was $3,398,000. The cost to the Liberals in that election in 1957- and again, of course, they are ahead of everyone else in this regard up to 1957-was $1,669,000; to the Progressive Conservatives it cost us $1,261,000; to the C.C.F. $214,000; and to the Social Credit $141,000. In 1958, we observed again that the figures are increasing. In 1958, the election cost the candidates $3,275,000. Of that amount the Conservatives spent $1,894,000; the Liberals spent $1,108,000; the C.C.F. spent $201,000 and the Social Credit spent $69,000. All the expenses are not in yet for the 1962 election. However, the experts estimate that it will have cost well over $4 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member will permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. member give the source of his figures? Maybe he did so and I did not hear it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am pleased to do that. I obtained them from the office of the returning officer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member means the chief electoral officer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes; from the chief electoral officer of Canada. In fact, I obtained them this afternoon. In order to be fair with the hon. member, I may say that the figures were obtained over the telephone. I believe them to be correct as I read them back. With the leave of the house and just because I read them. I should like to file these figures. They are rather interesting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think they are extremely interesting.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the hon. member asked me that question.	[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member proposing to table these figures?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to do so?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to have them included in my speech, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: They are included in the hon. member's speech.

Canada Elections Act


William Moore Benidickson: Only in respect of the 1962 figures the hon. member indicated he did not perhaps have the equivalent information. On that basis I wonder whether perhaps the Conservative reports are not in comparison.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think the hon. member has made a good point. For 1962 I have not the exact figures. As for the others, I should like to table them. However, by leave, I should like to keep them on my desk as I intend to refer to them in the course of my argument and I should like to have them available in order to be accurate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member being a private member, I do not think he has any more right to table them than I have. However, he can have them included in his speech. That is what I think he has in mind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is what I mean.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure we should all like to have them there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the hon. member very much, I appreciate the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
Cost to taxpayers for elections in Canada from 1949 to 1958 inclusive 1949	$4,328,118
1953	5,380,436
1957	7,500,000
1958	9,800,000
Total cost to all candidates in elections from 1949 to 1958 inclusive 1949	Liberal	$1,001,049
Progressive-Conservative 904,505 C.C.F.	176,830
Others	....

1953	Liberal	1,287,138
Progressive-Conservative	890,177
C.C.F.	159,149
Social Credit	82,203
Others	....

 2.535,049
1957	Liberal	1,669,669
Progressive-Conservative	1,261,092
C.C.F.	214,431
Social Credit	141,796
Others	___

 3,398,302
1958	Liberal	1,108,608
Progressive-Conservative	1,874,083
C.C.F.	201,060
Social Credit	69,252
Others	....

 3,275,611
The reason I have outlined these figures is in order to point out that in 1949, it would have cost the country then, if they paid all expenses, approximately $6 million. In 1953 it would have cost the country about $8 
million. In 1957 it would have cost the country about $11 million; and in 1958 it would have cost the country approximately $13 million. With regard to the question of specified expenditures being paid out of the general revenues of Canada, I suggest we must realize that elections are now costing a lot of money, particularly the last three elections which in some instances have resulted in minority groups as in 1957 and 1962, and in addition we do not know what is before us at the present time. On that basis I say that I am opposed to such a large amount of money being paid out of the general revenues of Canada when the money has to be provided by the taxpayers of this country. That is the first point I wish to make.
The second point I wish to make, as I said at the beginning, is that every person is different and reacts differently to circumstances. May I also suggest that in this great country each of our 265 constituencies is different. What it might cost one candidate or a number of candidates in one constituency to conduct an election campaign might be an inadequate amount in another constituency and too much in another.
By way of example I want to refer to my own constituency of Bow River. Those few members of the house who have not visited the province of Alberta may be unfamiliar with the fact that in that constituency alone there are five distinct industries representing five distinct interests. In one part there is the lumber industry. Then we have the national parks. We have the anthracite coal area of Canmore and the subbituminous or soft coal area of Drumheller. We have a mixed farming area north of Calgary and a grain farming area surrounding Drumheller and Munson. One third of the city of Calgary is also in the constituency of Bow River and in the Thornecliffe area are the entrepreneurs and in the Forest Lawn area are the workers. I suggest that it might cost a candidate more to campaign in that constituency than in one where the only industry is farming or coal mining, or a constituency comprised solely of city people.
The second thought I would put forward with regard to setting a specified amount for this purpose, in addition to the fact that constituencies are different, is that today election, campaigns are different from what they used to be. Today we have television which is a very expensive medium, and if one party uses it the other party uses it. What would it cost the country if all election expenses were paid out of the general revenue fund of Canada?
I should like to ask the hon. member this question. How would we control the number of candidates running, for election? In the

constituency of Acadia which adjoins mine I believe that in the last election there were six or seven candidates. We might get 17 or 18 if this idea were adopted. In fact, it might encourage the very thing to which I have always been opposed in this country, the fact that we now have so many splinter parties. This does not only happen on the federal scene but on the provincial scene. The result is that when you look over the records of elections you will find that on most occasions the successful candidate has won with a minority vote simply because it was not a case of a straight vote against the government. I say that if we start to allow a specific sum for anyone who wants to come forward in Canada as a candidate the situation may very well be carried to the extreme and possibly all the 50,000 people in a constituency will want to be candidates. Where do you draw the line?
I said at the beginning that my heart was with the hon. member, but my mind tells me he is wrong. I know what he has in mind. His idea is the same as that in the United States where it is said that any citizen of that country can become president. I still think that in this land of ours anyone who really wishes to become a candidate for a party in an election can do so. When I listen to some people from the far corner of the house I sometimes think that they believe they have a monopoly on the fact that they have come from homes of a kind that do not have too much money to spend on the necessities of life and education. Many of us come from humble surroundings. Irrespective of what party we represent I believe under the free enterprise system in this land of ours any citizen who wishes to become a candidate can become a candidate in an election, be it federal, provincial or at the local level, and get elected. Therefore I do not believe that the system we have today is denying the right to any person to run as a candidate.
In fact, I will go further. The problem is not one of being a candidate but whether you can afford to be a member after you are elected. I think everybody will agree with me on that. Without any animosity toward the socialists I say to them that I believe there is a growing feeling in this country that not only is socialism evident in their own party but it is seeping into industry and is also seeping in the Liberal ranks.
It seems to me that this is another motion placed on the order paper by the socialists because they wish to control elections. They wish to control our elections. There is one country where people have only one candidate to vote for and no doubt in that country the
Canada Elections Act
state pays the cost of elections. I refer to Russia. It seems to me that when the state starts to control how much money will be spent in election campaigns and to whom it will be paid we are on the road to telling people who are going to run in elections, and I want no part of that in Canada.


David Lewis: What nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It may be nonsense but I am reminded of Bernard Shaw who before he died completed his works with a little satire in which he said that what the people really want is a system where what they wear is controlled, what they do is controlled, what they eat is controlled; and if you have not the personality to put up with such control by the state, then the authorities take you out and kindly execute you. I am against that kind of control. I do not want it in Canada in any form whatsoever.


David Lewis: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he realize that George Bernard Shaw-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a few moments left in which to make the remarks that I know the hon. member wants to hear me make.


David Lewis: Are you aware that when George Bernard Shaw said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would point out to all hon. members that they cannot force their way on to the floor. The hon. member who has the floor may see an hon. member for the purpose of a question but no one may insist on the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was talking about this socialistic control, and what is more dangerous to this country is that it is seeping into the grand old Liberal party. We have Thatcher who left the ranks of the socialists and is leading the Liberals in Saskatchewan. We have the hon. member for Assiniboia who left the ranks of the socialists and is now one of the agricultural experts of the Liberal party. Then we have the former provincial minister of health who left the C.C.F. party-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some difficulty in reconciling the hon. member's remarks with this motion, so if we can-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to bring them to the point. I may say that I believe that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is in favour of this kind of motion, and I suggest that the reason he is behind it is that socialism is seeping over from the New Democratic party corner of the house into the ranks of his party. That is how I bring them together.

Canada Elections Act


David Lewis: It is no longer creeping
socialism.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is no longer creeping socialism. May I suggest to my good friend that it has now got to the stage of galloping socialism. So far as election expenses are concerned, you have got to look at how some of the parties in the past have organized their great machines. The socialists, I believe, had and still have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for York South for bringing the motion before the house at this time. The measures he has advocated in his motion are taken for granted in many European countries, as has already been pointed out. There is only one part of his motion that is contentious, but I am prepared to support it in its entirety. First of all, there is the specific proposal relating to expenditures in respect of television, radio and travel incurred by or on behalf of a candidate representing a federal party in a federal election. It is contended these expenses should be paid out of the general revenue. This part of the resolution is contentious, and I should like to let it stand for the moment and proceed with part (b), which reads:
That any additional expenditures by a candidate or by any person or organization on his behalf be limited to a specified amount calculated on the basis of voting population: and (c) that every candidate, constituency organization or federal party and any person or organization acting for or on behalf of any one or all of them shall make full and accurate disclosure of all moneys received and of all expenditures incurred by them in respect of a federal election.
There really is not very much argument left today in respect of these two items. This matter has already been dealt with in England as the mover of the resolution has stated. Back as far as 1888, again in 1918, 1928 and 1948, severe limitations were imposed by the law of the United Kingdom. This measure should have been introduced into Canadian law and would have been long before now except for various circumstances.
For example, the Hon. C. G. Power, a well known Liberal now sitting in the Senate of Canada, was pleading for a limitation on election expenses in 1939.


David Lewis: What did his government do?


James Elisha Brown: I will come to that if I have time. It is all right for the hon. member to make these remarks, but I should like to point out that the matter before us is serious indeed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I

have a motion similar to the one proposed by the hon. gentleman, but mine goes even a little farther and was incorporated in the Liberal platform in the last election.
I was going to refer to the position taken by the Hon. C. G. Power back in 1939. Ten years later, in 1949, Mr. Power wrote an article in Maclean's magazine. He urged that a ceiling be placed, once and for all, upon the election expenses of candidates. The size of election expenses, he said, brings pressure for putting an end to the stupid and senseless federal election expenses of candidates. As a matter of fact, this measure of reform was introduced by Mr. Power in this parliament in 1938 and reintroduced in the session of 1939. It received extensive study in this house, and in committee, and was reported back to this house with approval and the recommendation that in the next session a bill be introduced. Before that bill could be introduced, the second world war commenced and this matter was pushed aside. It has not been discussed fully since. I think the hon. member must be commended for bringing it up now.
In England, the representation of the people act was passed in 1948 severely limiting the election expenses of candidates. In that connection, I may say that expenses of a candidate in a county constituency were limited to 450 pounds, together with an additional two pence for each entry in the register of parliamentary electors to be used at the election. In a borough constituency another ceiling was placed which made a sharp reduction in election expenses in 1948 as compared with the law of the United Kingdom as it existed before that date. The mother of parliaments, therefore, has taken a stand on this matter which is again before the Canadian House of Commons.
I do believe, Mr. Speaker, it is high time that parliament seriously considered this matter. There have been articles in newspapers and magazines in Canada from year to year on this subject. Mr. Blair Fraser wrote an article in Maclean's magazine-I have not got the year-urging that an end be put to the present system; that it is antiquated. I believe, therefore, it is up to the government to bring forward legislation to limit the expenses. I will not make any further comment on it because I believe such a step is necessary and I will support it. The hon. member is to be commended for bringing this matter forward.
I should like to deal briefly with the part of his motion which states that certain election expenses should be paid for out of the national revenue of Canada. This is a rather contentious matter, I do admit. I gave the

subject some thought, and I was rather surprised when I noticed it in the Liberal platform during the last federal election. I thought, well, if we seriously believe this, then the time has come when this ought to take place. I put a motion on the order paper, therefore, in similar terms to that of the hon. member, and I received a good deal of comment about it. I have discovered this matter should be seriously discussed in parliament before it is brought into effect. I incurred the hostility of my local newspaper when I set my motion on the order paper.
The Brantford Expositor of July 26, 1962 carried a lead editorial entitled, "Paying for Politics." I should like to quote briefly from it:
Like the curate's egg, the proposal of James E. Brown, M.P. for Brantford, that the law relating to parliamentary election expenses should be revised, is good in parts.
The editorial commends the first two parts of my motion which are similar to the hon. member's motion, that is to say, that election expenses should be limited and that the party should be required to give a strict accounting. This editorial was the most definite editorial against my proposal. The newspaper favoured these first two items, and in dealing with the other item the editorial said:
-that the government should pay the legally permitted expenses of any candidate who polls a "reasonable" proportion of the total vote cast, would carry the welfare state idea to a pitch that not even the welfare-minded British have ever thought of.
The government-that is the taxpayer-already foots a $12 million bill for organizing and running the voting machinery. That, no one will doubt, is a proper function of government in a democratic parliamentary system. But to expect every taxpayer to help pick up the tab for every candidate on the ballot, both the one he would like to see elected and those he wouldn't, is carrying things to absurdity.
That is what the Brantford Expositor said at that time. However I was very surprised to find a quotation, in the notes I made on this subject, from the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 9, 1962, which devoted an editorial to the cost of elections and took a divergent view from the Brantford Expositor. It was commenting on the government of Quebec leading the way in Canada to this type of legislation and was more or less praising that government for what it had done in this regard. It said:
The dominion government may be urged to follow the example set by Mr. Lesage, but the matter should be given thorough consideration before being rushed into practice.
It was this very point which prompted me to put something into my motion that is not in the motion of the hon. member for York South. I suggested that this matter be placed 27507-3-128
Canada Elections Act
before the committee on privileges and elections and I would have preferred had the hon. member done that also, because I must admit this is a matter requiring very serious and prolonged discussion. I would like to hear the views of various hon. members, who have considerable experience in the house, on this subject. I wish the hon. member's motion had asked that the matter be referred to that committee, where it would receive more than the one hour's discussion it will receive this evening. The subject is of paramount importance and the time has come to make a great change in Canada's electoral laws.
When the 1948 act was introduced in the British house of commons the home secretary, Mr. Ede, said it was the completion of a long line of reform extending back to the reform bill of 1832, and that the 1948 act was introducing true parliamentary democracy into a modern nation. We must have those reforms in Canada today. I believe these matters will come before the house, despite what is done in tonight's debate, and that in the not too very distant future. I also believe parliament will pass this private legislation and I am certain the hon. member's motion is quite in order at this time and should be considered.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I wonder would the hon. member yield the floor to allow a question. In view of Hon. C. G. Power's failure to get the Liberal party to accept the idea of electoral reform, does the hon. member for Brantford feel there is any chance of his own views regarding limitation of election expenditures being accepted by his own party?


James Elisha Brown: I can easily answer that question. They have already been accepted, as I understand it, by the Liberal party.
There have been a lot of broadminded men in liberal parliamentary democracies. I shall leave out the word "liberal" as I had not meant it in the context of a capital "L"; but in countries with parliamentary governments many leaders right across the world have been interested in this sort of thing, and none more than the President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, since his election in 1960. I now wish to quote from an article by Philip M. Stern which appeared in Harper's Magazine of May, 1962, where he quotes Mr. Kennedy and says:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy is no impecunious professor,-
He had just been talking about another member of the United States government who was a professor and supposedly did not have much money to spend on elections.
-he did not have to mortgage anything to contribute $60,000 of his own (as he has acknowledged) to his preconvention campaign. Yet two weeks after his election, despite the myriad

Interim Supply
problems confronting him, the new President-elect asked that work be started on 'a proposal to have the federal government pay for the cost of presidential elections so that we (can) discontinue having the candidates going around with their hats in their hands'.
This sort of legislation is in the air, Mr. Speaker, and I support the hon. member's motion.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I just rise to make the suggestion that if and when the committee on procedures is set up it should give consideration to the setting of a time limit on private members' speeches so that at least one representative from each of the parties would have an opportunity of presenting observations during private members' business. As it is now, it has reached the point where we are not able to do that.
With regard to the motion, we believe there are certain changes which must be made in our elections act, but there is a hurdle which must be surmounted. It is a constitutional hurdle in that we are elected not as representatives of parties but as individuals, and this resolution deals with certain expenses on behalf of candidates of federal parties. That is one of the reasons why in times past we were not able to put our political affiliations on the ballot paper, and that is a problem which must be taken into consideration now.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired the house will revert to the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Paul in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, when the committee reported at five o'clock, I was trying to get ahead of the Joneses over here and running into difficulty. But I did want to add one or two other points to the argument, that by extending the hours of sitting we would not speed up the business of the house.
Since the Prime Minister was good enough to give us what has become a rare entry, on his part, into the debate-if it is not impertinent to say so, he did a very fine job in presenting his argument-I thought it was up

to me as a member of this party to express one or two different views. I would turn to the words of the right hon. gentleman himself in order to suggest one of the solutions which is open to him as Prime Minister. I am reading from Hansard of February 1, 1958 where, as reported at page 4200, the right hon. gentleman said:
The present government is supported by 113 members out of a total of 265. Its position as a minority government has become intolerable. No other party or group in this house can possibly form a government: that I want to make clear.
Then there were a number of interruptions, and the Prime Minister went on to say:
At the outset of the present session in October last, assurance was given by the then leader of the opposition that the government might count upon the official opposition not to place obstacles in the way of the government in seeking to carry out the program which was approved by the Canadian electorate on June 10, 1957.
Of course, I point out here that in 1957-58 we had the same co-operative support from the benches of the official opposition. They were willing to go along for a period of time. Then the Prime Minister went on:
The present Leader of the Opposition clearly indicated in his speech in this house on January 20 that the government can no longer expect any continuance of the course announced by his predecessor. Indeed, there have been many statements from opposition sources indicating quite clearly that the government would be defeated in the house as soon as the opposition could contrive it, and that they would welcome a general election.
Then the Prime Minister went on to put on record the reasons for dissolving parliament and having an election. These are the reasons he gave. On January 21, as reported in Hansard on page 3570, when the minister of finance was speaking about lack of courage on the part of the opposition the hon. member for Laurier-the same fellow who was speaking here earlier today- challenged the government by saying: "Bring it on". And the then hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, now premier of Quebec, said "Hold it". On the previous day, January 20, as reported on page 3524, the Prime Minister said:
When we have the authority we shall do so.
And the hon. member for Laurier said:
Why don't you find out whether or not you have it?
Later on, the Prime Minister said:
Having regard to all the circumstances, the government cannot possibly hope to carry forward its long term program of the development of resources and strengthening of the Canadian economy and the building of a bright future for Canadians unless it can be assured of sufficient support in the house.
So I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister that there is one alternative which

is open to him if he feels he has an obstreperous house and one with which he feels he cannot deal. He has his own words to guide him as spoken on February 1, 1958.


Mr, Pickersgill:: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think the hon. gentleman would be much more interested after I have read the next part. I wish to draw the attention of the committee and the attention of the Prime Minister to another alternative which is open. This alternative can be found on page 3520 of the very same volume of Hansard. This debate took place on January 20, 1958. This is the leader of the official opposition speaking:
Needless to say, X hope the majority ot hon. members will vote for this amendment and I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. St. Laurent) :
"That all the words after the word 'that' be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In view of the fact that in the seven months His Excellency's advisers have been in office Canada's total trade has ceased to expand, export markets have been threatened and proposals for freer trade have been rebuffed;
That investment has been discouraged and unemployment has risen drastically;
That farmers and other primary producers have been disillusioned and discouraged;
That relations with provincial governments have deteriorated into confusion;
That the budget is no longer in balance, revenues, are declining, expenditures are rising and parliament has been denied a national accounting;
That there is growing confusion about defence and security;
That day to day expedients have been substituted for firm and steady administration;
And in view of the desirability at this time of having a government pledged to implement Liberal policies;
His Excellency's advisers should in the opinion of this house submit their resignation forthwith.''
I should like to suggest that here we have the second alternative for the Prime Minister to consider. He can take his own words used in January, 1958, or he can turn to that noble suggestion put forward by the leader of the official opposition on that fateful day, January 20. It seems to me that a decision in either of these respects would get him past the two difficulties about which he was fulminating this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to ask my question now?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Now, yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this: does the hon. gentleman think the government has any more of a long term program now than it had then?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to say to the hon. member-and I am not prevaricating-that a vision is an intangible thing. But I think it 27507-3-128J
Interim Supply
would be most unfair to read other than my own attitude and that of my own party into this and, frankly, we cannot see that long term plan.
So I would suggest that the Prime Minister has these two possibilities; he can dissolve parliament or he can respond to that grand suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition and resign and let the Leader of the Opposition take over. These are possibilities which are to be found in the records of their own statements. But I should like to add on behalf of this party a brief comment on one point which the Prime Minister brought up, which was that the western members, or the members from other distant points, tend to carry on the business of parliament while those from nearby do not. I think I agree that this is the case. I am always waiting for the day when some hon. members from the west, such as myself, can go home while the hon. members for Ottawa East and Hochelaga, and Russell, and others like them keep things going. However, I suppose this is really not practical, judging from past experience, and I suggest that members from the west and other distant parts of the country will always carry an inordinate burden until there is a different attitude not on the part of the House of Commons, but taken by the parties as expressed in their discipline.
On another point the Prime Minister made, I should like to suggest that the right hon. gentleman, when he talks about the British example, needs to put forward in much greater detail the advantages the British have with a unitary system of government, a simpler country to run and the kind of procedure which permits many more challenged debates.
This is the factor which I think is the most important one. In the British parliament the press, television and radio give a very skimpy coverage compared with our own country, and the fact is that most members of parliament there really do not speak with one eye on the press gallery or on the lobby for correspondents. The problem in Canada for members of parliament is different, particularly in terms of their own re-election and the role they must play. I have sat in the British house of commons very often, but I have never heard a constituency speech made in that house of the kind we hear here, where hon. members talk of having the constituency which produces the finest apples in Canada, or which has the most beautiful girls in Canada, or about the Kettle Valley railway and things like that.
But seriously, Mr. Chairman, on this particular point, if you are going to put forward the British model, you have to recognize the differences between us. For example, in

Interim Supply
Britain there is a much more adequate and efficient committee system whereby they break down into much smaller groups. Their committee work does not conflict with that of the house, and is looked on by some members as an alternative to the house. We do not have that, so in this particular argument it seems to me that the Prime Minister in a sense is doing a disservice to all hon. members who feel they have to speak. I know there are many speakers we are still waiting to hear from in this house, members in various parts of the house, and I really think that we cannot go along with the argument that it is necessary at this particular time to think about curtailing debate. I see one hon. member, the hon. member for York West, over there; I think the whole house is waiting to hear him, for reasons which are, of course, flattering to him. There are many other members in this particular parliament who have not yet had an opportunity to make their mark. Therefore, we feel that this afternoon we had somewhat of an exaggeration of the situation in so far as this house is concerned, and we should like to counsel everyone to have a little patience. If the house leader for the Liberal party and the house leader for the government are prepared to take the initiative in coming to some kind of arrangement which can be dealt with out in the open and arrived at very clearly, I know they will not go without co-operation and a spirit of friendly effort on this party's part to see if we cannot move more quickly into those items which the government seems to think are the most important.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to earth now. I want to talk about a matter which seriously concerns 200,000 Canadians in southeastern British Columbia. I want to raise a matter on which I have spoken previously in this house, and I do not apologize for speaking on the subject again because I have been asked by various organizations in my constituency to raise this matter at the first opportunity; and this is the first opportunity. The question I wish to speak on is about a continued and improved passenger service on the Kettle valley railway. Before doing so, I want to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier when he was chiding the government for not bringing forward legislation. Although the Columbia river treaty is mentioned in the speech from the throne, to date the government has not brought that treaty before the house for ratification. The reason it has not been brought, of course, is that they have no agreement with the government of British Columbia. It has been clearly demonstrated for months that the present government made

a great blunder when our Prime Minister went to Washington to sign that treaty prior to getting agreement with the premier of British Columbia regarding the implementation of the terms of the treaty.
Mr. Chairman, the matter about which I wish to speak is of great concern, and is a question which has been of concern since 1958, when the Canadian Pacific Railway first gave consideration to a reduction of passenger services. This passenger service in question was reduced from a standard train service between Hope, in British Columbia, and Medicine Hat, in Alberta, to a Budd car with no sleeping accommodation and no restaurant accommodation. At that time there was a general protest from all types of organizations in the constituency-chambers of commerce, trade unions, farmers organizations, municipalities. Various churches protested, and other groups of representatives in the area served between Hope and the Alberta-British Columbia border also protested. But regardless of those protests, the C.P.R. reduced this service at that time.
To indicate the concern, I just want to quote very briefly from the Nelson daily News of February 13, 1959. The headline is: "End to 'deplorable rail service' demanded by Nelson chamber. Public urged to tell of inconveniences suffered". The article goes on:
Nelson chamber of commerce wired transport minister Hon. George Hees and attorney general Robert Bonner Thursday requesting that immediate consideration be given the "deplorable rail service provided this area at the present time/'
Then on March 3, 1960, the Nelson daily News again carried the headline: "Attorney general seeks Kootenay train service". In a report datelined Victoria, the following appeared:
Attorney general Bonner intends to take up again with the chairman of the board of transport commissioners the question of renewal of full-time train service through the Doukhobor areas of the Kootenays, he told the legislature Wednesday night.
The minister replied to Kootenay member questioners in the house that the province had offered to pay a third of the cost up to $50,000 of railway protection through the Doukhobor area, providing the federal government and the C.P.R. absorbed the other two thirds.
The board of transport commissioners had promised to make an order compelling the C.P.R. to restore full service "if we would guarantee the safety of the trains."
The "we" that is the government of British Columbia.
After having suffered that reduced passenger service since 1959 the C.P.R. has made application to the board of transport commissioners to abandon passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway, a service which serves, as I mentioned before, a population of nearly 200,000 people in south eastern British

Columbia, one of the richest producing areas in the province where there is up to nearly $270 million worth production from the mines and forests of the area, and from the fruit growing lands and farming districts. This reduction in service has caused a great deal of resentment throughout the area. I have in my hand the Nelson daily News for July 25, 1962, which carries the headline: "Natal brief to detail reasons for passenger service deficit". The reason that the C.P.R. give for discontinuing this passenger service is lack of patronage. Naturally there is a lack of patronage when we are reduced to a Budd car and a split service at Penticton where people coming from Vancouver to Nelson, for instance, have to lie over at night in Penticton and carry on their journey the next day. That causes people to use buses and other forms of transportation. This point is mentioned in the article. The report says:
Natal village commission has gone on record as opposing an application by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the board of transport commissioners to discontinue passenger service between Lethbridge and Spence's Bridge.
The village will notify the railway company and the board of its intention to file a protest brief. Purpose of the brief is to point out some of the obvious reasons for the large deficit suffered in the operations.
In referring to the company's statement that an average of only 15 persons used the service daily between any given points on the line, chairman Orlando Ungaro said he was not at all surprised. He said the travelling public could not be blamed for failing to patronize the kind of service given.
That short comment in the press is similar to the comment f recieved from numerous organizations in my constituency and other constituencies with respect to the present service and the reason for its not being patronized to a much greater extent. I think I can make my remarks as brief as possible by simply quoting from a editorial in the Nelson daily News. I am not accustomed to quoting this paper frequently as it is a strong supporter of the present government and extremely critical of the hon. member for Kootenay West a great deal of the time. However, in this instance it represents the opinion of the people in the area. As this is the opinion of their subscribers, of course, they realize that this represents a large body of public opinion with respect to this question. The editorial is entitled "Rail passenger service still a necessity" and it reads as follows:
Once again, the chambers of commerce and municipal and other interested bodies are faced with the task of attempting to save the southern section of the interior of B.C. from losing a public transportation service.
It is the second time within five years that train passenger service to the area has become a matter of concern for these groups. In the interim few have given the railway's passenger service much
Interim Supply
more than passing thought except during those periods when travellers have been unable to use the air services or felt road conditions made car or bus travel unpleasant.
I might mention the fact that we are particularly dependent upon rail traffic in the southeastern part of British Columbia in certain periods of the winter. For instance, planes are not allowed to land at Castlegar airport if the clouds are below the mountain tops, and that condition occurs quite frequently during the winter months. Also bus traffic can become very uncertain during heavy snowfall conditions when buses are tied up because of deep snow and snow plowing at certain high elevations. The editorial continues:
Those periods are quite frequent in the winter months and it is for this reason that the public bodies now are willing to fight to retain a passenger service on the rails.
It is time that the general opinion is stated that the rail diesel car operation cannot be termed a good service as it has been operated.
Had the C.P.R. given a better service, which means a faster, cleaner, non-stop service with provision for meals, the situation would now be different. If the railway had promoted the service the situation would now be different. If the granting of the franchise had not carried with it concessions in land and natural resources the situation would have been different.
It would have been different because a better attempt to provide a good service and a normal attempt to promote that service would have left the opponents on thin ice.
It is not usual for chambers of commerce in particular to take the position that they should dispute the right of private business to regulate its own affairs but in this instance, where there has been a granting of concessions, most believe there is an undertaking to provide not only a freight but also a passenger service.
It would be unreasonable to expect the railway company to operate the Kootenay division at a loss in perpetuity. It seems highly likely that freight will in future pay the bills, so that we in the Kootenay must accept the dropping of the passenger service in time, provided a good, reliable alternate service is available.
In the meantime, we in the Kootenay must demand a continued rail passenger service and/or proof that a good service well promoted would not come closer to paying its way.
I might say that, at the same time consideration is being given to the dropping of the passenger service on the Kettle valley railway, consideration is also being given to lessening bus service from the Alberta border to Vancouver. Hence we are faced with this twin possibility of lack of adequate passenger service.
The government of Canada gave the Canadian Pacific Railway millions of acres of land and billions of dollars worth of natural resources in exchange for the building of a railroad that applies to all Canada. It seems that the C.P.R. has now forgotten all about these fabulous grants it received for providing services to the public. The C.P.R. continues

Interim Supply
to enjoy and profit from full possession of land and resources granted long ago but insists that all present services must be directly related to present profits derived from these services. Hardly a week goes by without the C.P.R. doing its best to dispose of an agent, as happened in southeastern British Columbia and on the prairies, or to discontinue passenger service or abandon a branch line. This principle or this practice is not only complained of by people in southeastern British Columbia but it is going on all over western Canada.
The current proposal of the C.P.R. to abandon passenger service on the Kettle valley railway will be vehemently opposed by organizations in general and by the people. It is bad enough already that the C.P.R., which is the major stockholder in the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, should operate the Kettle valley line basically for the convenience of its subsidiary and not to the advantage of the public and of the industrial workers in that area. In our opinion the board of transport commissioners should refuse to authorize any further removal of agents, curtailment of services or abandonment of branch lines until a complete and co-ordinated national transportation policy has been worked out. In the opinion of members of this group this alone can ensure efficiency for the railways, justice for their workers, convenience for our people and progress for our Canadian communities affected.
In this instance I suggest a somewhat different procedure than the one which is being followed at the present time by the application to the board of transport commissioners by the C.P.R. to abandon passenger service on that railway. I urge the Minister of Transport to use his good offices to get a senior official of the C.P.R. to go to the district. If he will do that, I am sure the various representative organizations in the district will make arrangements for a meeting of representatives of the municipalities, trade unions -and this matter affects all the trade unionists in the area-all chambers of commerce, women's institutes, farmers' institutes and numerous other community organizations to meet with the senior official of the C.P.R. Let the senior official of the C.P.R. tell these people what the company's needs are. We want both sides of the question aired. We want to be fair about this thing. Let the people of the district inform the senior official of their problems. Then as a result of learning of the company's position and the company learning of the needs of the people I trust there can be built up a co-operation between the company and the people of the

area that will make it possible for this railroad to be patronized to a greater extent and operated to the advantage of the people and without loss to the company.


Rémi Paul: Shall the resolution carry?


William Moore Benidickson: I was greatly interested in the follow-up that was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to certain questions I raised as to the legality of some $200 million in a year of tariff taxation imposed by the executive by order in council on June 24 and which I raised at the time we were considering Bill No. C-81, to amend the Customs Tariff. I then said that I could not under any conceivable reading of the basic statute believe that any lawyer or any layman in this House of Commons, if he read section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, could imagine that anybody could found upon that section a determination to abate customs duties imposed in another statute, as I knew that it would involve hundreds of thousands of transactions through the customs entry points of this country. I think the Minister of Finance was sensitive to my criticism last week because hon. members will recall that he rose and said that I must have some kind of pipe line to his officials to get information that would give me this impression that in a practical way it would not be possible to administer the order in council of June 24 last. I, of course, challenged his statement and said that I was informed by those outside government concerned with customs entries throughout the country when I said that it was very unlikely that records were being kept.
Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I say that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that section 22 of the Financial Administration Act is big enough and wide enough in scope to enable the cabinet to found thereon the order in council of June 24 last and respect it in one part and then come, as the government has come today, and say that they cannot adhere to it in so far as the stipulation in subsection 8 of section 22 is concerned, which states that any remission of customs duty beyond the value of $1,000 must be reported to this parliament.
The ministry says this afternoon, in answering question 900 on the order paper, that they have not respected that section of the statute. They say, indeed, that it is not a practical working section that can be administered. That was the basis of my criticism last week. I say it was not contemplated when this particular provision was enacted

that it would be used other than in exceptional circumstances. However on June 24th this administration chose to use it as a broad gate for the imposition in an indirect way of $200 million in customs tariff taxation, which action they do not up to now propose to bring before parliament for ratification.
We had a great deal of discussion this afternoon about the efficient use of the time of the house. We have had several opportunities to refer to this particular June order in council. I say that if the administration were not sensitive of their weakness in using and abusing this statute we would have had this order in council brought before parliament for ratification in the same way that in 1947 the former administration came to parliament after an exchange crisis developed and at the first possible opportunity to have parliament ratify what the executive had done.
We heard the Prime Minister this afternoon, following the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He began by saying, good, pugnacious lawyer that he is, and significantly to some of us, "I do not intend to deal with the legality of the matter raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre". He said, "1 prefer the opinion of the law officers of the crown". Then he went on to something quite different from the challenge of great importance advanced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I simply want to say that this is not characteristic of the Prime Minister, with his legal ability and his argumentative talents, to pass off in that way the very important challenge that was raised this afternoon. In addition, when there is talk in this house about wasting time in getting down to essentials, members of the committee must recall that the opinion advanced by the law officers of the crown has been sought in this house through a motion moved by my deskmate, the hon. member for Essex East. That motion has been debated briefly in two successive weeks at least, perhaps three, and if the administration was prepared to meet this challenge of legality I say that time would have been saved by letting us have this opinion of the law officers of the crown.
Both of these statutes, which constitute the alleged basis of legality for the June 24th austerity program order in council, were stretched to the limit, stretched so far that we have the ludicrous situation of the admission being made this afternoon that parliament is not being respected with regard to an important requirement on any government, namely, that the fact that any taxpayer has received forgiveness of tax by executive
Interim Supply
action must be reported in the public accounts. We heard this afternoon that the government cannot tell us-


Mr, McPhillips:: It will be.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member has not read the answer to question 900 which was made this afternoon in which it was stated that it was impossible for the administration to say who had received a remission of customs duties to a value of more than $1,000. I say that this kind of hanky-panky in the use of these two statutes in this dissembling way-


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gilles Grégoire: Are you now proving to us the kind of co-operation about which the hon. member for Laurier was speaking this afternoon?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had made it clear that we are dealing with something fundamental here. We are dealing with the historic right of parliament to impose taxes and a great deal of time would have been saved this session if the order in council involving tax had been honourably brought before parliament early in the session. I say to my hon. friend of the Social Credit party that this is a historic right of parliament. It is something that has been developed over the years in a democratic way and it is contrary to anything fascist which some people might think is a quick way of getting business done.
To turn to some of the points in the resolution before us, I do not know whether there has been consent in this regard. If there has been I will not labour the matter because I would recognize there is some kind of commitment by which we would come back within 30 days perhaps for another vote of interim supply. Basically the items in the resolution involve authority to spend $449 million and the usual commitment was made this afternoon by the Minister of Finance that in none of the subsections of the resolution is there an item of expenditure to the extent of twelve twelfths or that the entire amount is put in the estimate and future debate would be curtailed.
However, I do want to say that there is again clear evidence of the drift and lack of leadership on the part of the government when we find in paragraph (d) of the resolution the presentation of supplementary estimates. I doubt that very many members have had an opportunity to study these, but they

Interim Supply
total $121 million and the government is asking us to approve at this time nine-twelfths of that amount.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The total is $148 million.


William Moore Benidickson: Nine-twelfths total $121 million. I might say when I asked for a copy of the supplementary estimates after the opening this afternoon, it took a considerable time before it was possible for the officials of the house to supply me with a copy. In any event, I do not know when, before, on the same day that supplementary estimates of this kind have been presented to the House of Commons, we have been asked to pass nine-twelfths of those estimates.
Now the point is important, as I see it, because it was not long ago that the Minister of Finance came before us and gave to us and the country a rather boasting statement about all the savings that were going to be made in connection with expenditures this year. As recently as October 18 he presented what was apparently an up to date statement. I would think he would have nothing but disregard for this house if, in making that important statement which is found on pages 648 and 649 of Hansard, he was not giving us the benefit of all his information up to that time. As a result of the minister's statement, the press carried articles to the effect that this government was reducing its expenditures in the current year by $228 million. A great deal of publicity went across the land in consequence of that statement.
However, within a few weeks of that important statement and the presentation of a completely new blue book of revised estimates, we have supplementary estimates totalling $148 million introduced. Apparently this money is so urgently required at the moment that nine-twelfths of it has to be voted by this committee in the month of November. In other words, was it not known to the Minister of Finance on October 18, when he made this statement about reductions in expenditure of $228 million, that he was likely to bring in a request within a short period for immediate authority to spend $148 million, and nine-twelfths of it before the end of November?


George Clyde Nowlan: Since I have been asked a question, perhaps I can answer it without having to make a speech. Of course it was known, and the figures which I gave included these supplementary estimates which I brought in this afternoon.


William Moore Benidickson: If these expenditures were of such immediate urgency, then it should have been possible for the minister to supply the details on October 18, because we are only part way through the fiscal year, which

does not end until March 31. Whatever commitments have been made to the extent of nine-twelfths of the amount of the supplementary estimates given to us today must be passed before the end of November. I say that most of these commitments, with proper administration of the finances of this country, should have been known to the ministry and the house should have had the confidence of the minister in this respect when he made this broad statement about reductions in expenditures of $228 million on October 18 which got so much publicity. I suspect that the minister, when he saw the form of his statement on October 18, rather imagined that it would get that kind of publicity.
I want to say that this is no waste of the time of this committee. This is a very exceptional procedure, to have supplementary estimates presented in the afternoon and to be asked that nine-twelfths of those supplementary estimates be passed because of the extreme urgency of the situation, perhaps in the expectation they might even be passed without debate. Noth withstanding some references this afternoon to the fact we will have an opportunity, perhaps within 30 days, to review not only the items in the supplementary estimates but the items in the revised estimates blue book, we are in a situation in which there is no party that is not in a minority in this house and which knows that commitments of this kind can be kept. I say we should have had these supplementary estimates long ago. I repeat what I said last week, to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred today, that there is something radically wrong in the use of a statute by the executive last June, when it uses only part of that statute and says it is impossible to use the other part calling for a report on remissions of over $1,000 which the Auditor General has always included in his report.


Mr. Winch:: In rising to speak on this item, I make no apologies for taking up a few minutes of the time of the committee because this is the first time I have spoken this session. I do want to take this opportunity of referring to a matter that I might call a grievance, although actually I do not want to use that term. I would rather say that I hope to be able to add my voice to the other voices in challenging Canadian industry to wake up from its deep sleep and recognize that Canada is no longer in a seller's market. We are in a buyer's market. If we want to maintain our trade, if we want to expand our export trade, it is just useless to sit in offices and hope that trade is going to come to us or that somehow or other the government is going to be able to place it in our laps.

Some three years ago I said that I thought we were not awake in Canada as we should be in view of changing world conditions. I am more than ever convinced that something has got to be done to get a great many of manufacturing and export industries of Canada to realize they have to go out and fight to expand our trade. It has got to be brought home to manufacturers in Canada that they have a responsibility to take advantage of the paths that are made available by the government for them to reach the new markets outside of Canada.
It was my privilege, just over a week ago, to attend the international trade fair that was held in the capital city of Lagos. I fully realize that the Canadian government put on a prestige fair in west Africa all by themselves, and that was all to the good. We have just finished participating in a three week trade fair in west Africa where the Canadian government, through the Department of Trade and Commerce, made a pavilion available to Canadian industrialists and manufacturers. We Canadians visiting Lagos went to see that pavilion and we were disappointed. We felt frustrated and disgusted with the reaction of Canadian industry in failing to take advantage of that pavilion and trying to add to our home employment and better our economy by endeavouring to obtain the new markets available in west Africa.
I shall detain the committee just a few minutes to describe the pavilion. First of all it must be made known that the Department of Trade and Commerce offered space in the pavilion free of charge to any manufacturer interested. The Canadian government also paid for the freight transport of all the goods on display. What was the result? You went into one display booth, operated by or on behalf of one of the biggest manufacturing corporations in Canada, a corporation that manufactures farm implements, pumps, refrigerators, deep freezers, washing machines and all kinds of machinery. It was a display booth about eight feet by three feet six and the main item on display was one small water pump.
There was no Canadian there to explain what it was all about, and the company paid $85 to a west African student to look after the display stall. During the three weeks of the fair three-quarters of a million Nigerians attended it, made up of thousands of teenagers, students, the mass of the population, the members of the legislature, the premiers, the lieutenant governor and all the administrators.
When I was there the governor of eastern Nigeria and his head administrators showed keen interest in the water pump and said 27507-3-129
Interim Supply
they could use thousands of them in Nigeria. He asked how it worked, but the poor African student didn't know. He tried to explain but he got it all backwards. The governor then asked what it worked on and the answer was petrol. He asked could it be used with an electric motor and the student replied he did not know. He asked if it was the type of pump that could be submerged in a well and again the answer was that the student did not know. He asked was it the type of pump that could be used in a creek, and again the answer by the student was that he did not know. I repeat that this was the booth of one of the biggest corporations in Canada, which had its equipment sent over free and its display space provided free. That is how it is trying to get into the export business.
There was also a three-display section of refrigerators and deep freezers. They were good displays but there was no Canadian there to explain them. The governor of Nigeria was interested in them. He said "This is what we need". He opened every drawer and pulled out every tray and asked to whom they could go in Nigeria to inquire about this equipment. The answer was that there was nobody. The company had no agents in west Africa to display Canadian equipment and nobody to explain it.
I just want to mention one more incident in order to get this point across. Nigeria, in the northern region, is a land of forests, where they cut down their trees with machetes. Mr. Chairman, you ought to see them. At the back of the hotel where we stayed in Lagos the manager wanted to have a tree cut down. I measured it and it had a 10 inch butt. It took a man a day and a half to cut the tree with a machete and it needed five men with a rope to pull it down the way they wanted it to fall. With a power saw it could have been down in five minutes. Oh yes, a Canadian manufacturer had a power saw on display. There was the African student who was paid $85 to look after the display, and the power saw display consisted of one saw on a shelf.
I was surrounded by teenage students who asked me what it was. I said it was a power saw. They asked what use did it have, but that is something which is pretty hard to explain. They asked was there any literature to describe it, and I found out the literature had run out during the first week. If we wanted to sell power saws the way to do it was to have a log in front of the stall and, every half hour or so, use the saw on it to show how efficiently it could operate.
The whole affair was just not good enough, and somehow or other we have got to make

Interim Supply
our manufacturers understand that they have a responsibility to themselves and to the people of Canada. Other countries are certainly going to beat us in the export field, and I can give an example of this. We went through all the pavilions in the fair, and the manufacturers of all the other countries were on the job, trying to sell their products and get into this vast potential market in Africa.
Right next door to the Canadian pavilion was the Russian pavilion. We may sneer at communism and we do not like it, but they were out to sell their goods and to sell their principles at the same time. It was a real eye-opener to go through the Russian pavilion. The first thing that struck the visitor was their propaganda, and they showed their psychological understanding of that right down to the nth degree. The first thing you see is a sign reading "Peace", and at the end of the booth is a great big sign reading "Peace, liberty, freedom, equality, fraternity, happiness." The wall is just as wide as this chamber and about half as high, and in great big lettering it carries "What communism means to you. By 1980 free education, free health services, complete maintenance of children, rent free housing, free midday meals, free holiday resorts, grants to unmarried mothers" -and that means a lot in that country.
In between the psychological propaganda is the equipment they want to sell, and they use the good psychology of not showing it on the floor. It is raised up on platforms so that no matter how many hundreds or thousands of people there may be in the pavilion they can all see the machinery. The machinery is working and is being demonstrated, and instead of one lone black student they had quite a few black students together with 85 English speaking Russians to demonstrate, explain and hand out literature by the thousands of pieces.
I wish to mention one other item with regard to the Canadian pavilion which skipped my mind a moment ago. There was one company which had a display there and which had somebody from Canada in charge of it. It was an Ontario company which was trying to introduce cheese into the African market. It had a good display of cheese, and cheese that was a credit to Canada. The Africans, not knowing about cheese, had to taste it. However, in order to taste it they had to pay a shilling a slice. When one thinks of the millions upon millions of pounds of butter and cheese which we are storing in Canada, he must contrast that with this effort to charge a shilling for cheese at a trade fair in west Africa. I did want to raise this question because, unless we are complete fools and completely blind we must realize we are in a

buyers' market; we must realize that the expansion of Canada and full employment in Canada depend on our maintenance and expansion of foreign trade. This demands that we do a selling job where markets are open. I say it is a disgrace and a betrayal, the fact that so many of our Canadian industries and manufacturers are not doing anything to help themselves. I believe we owe it to the country as members of parliament to tell them that any and all governments will do everything possible to assist them in the expansion of their foreign trade, but they have to do something to help themselves.
Each and every one of us should be interested in this subject because we know there is unemployment; we want to help the unemployed to get work. In our society as it is today, the ordinary way for a man or woman to go to work is to get a job in industry. In order to provide such jobs under our present system, the industry concerned has to make a profit, so we have to tell them: Go out and do something for yourselves; get out and sell; do a two fold job which is not being done now-sell the principles of democracy and sell quality Canadian goods.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, I understand perfectly well why the previous speaker who talked about a world's fair which may probably interest many Canadians, is troubled because some steps have not yet been taken.
But it may not be necessary to go as far as Germany to realize that there are many things to be done right here in Canada. I invite him to visit some parts of eastern Canada where he will see forests waiting for logging operations in the ridings of Bellechasse and Montmagny-L'Islet, for instance, and further on to the Gaspe peninsula.
The inhabitants of these areas who engage in farming in the summer months cut some 20 to 30 cords of wood in the forests during the winter season, but since there is little demand for such wood they sometimes have to sell it for as little as $10 a cord.
When I read this morning's papers, I noticed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) signed an agreement with representatives from Pakistan granting $6.5 million for financing the establishment of a paper mill in their country.
Yet, in our own country, in eastern Canada, government loans could help us establish similar mills which would offer jobs to our unemployed and insure an extra income to our farmers.
We could set up such a plant to the advantage of the whole area from Levis to Gaspe, and the work could be done by our own local

labour. Instead of offering handouts to Pakistan which, according to tonight's newspapers may side with red China. It would be normal and advantageous for Canada if any section of the country had first crack at any government generosity. Should we not apply to our own situation the old proverb: "Charity begins at home"?
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) might be better advised to try to ensure Canadians the right to employment and a decent living rather than to discuss the Grey cup.
(Text):


Mr. Pritiie:: Inasmuch as the Minister of Finance has asked for the speedy passage of this supply bill I do not intend to take much longer than five minutes. I know that this afternoon we spent two hours talking about how much talking we have been doing, and, of course, I could have made my speech in that time. I might add, for the benefit of my hon. friend from Port Arthur, that this is not a constituency speech.
I wish to address my comments to the revised estimates of the Department of Public Works. The estimates for public buildings have been greatly reduced since the original estimates were presented last spring. I know that a similar reduction has been applied right across the country, but I am particularly concerned as to how it will affect British Columbia. For the past several years in British Columbia there has been serious unemployment in the construction trade and the situation has been particularly serious in the wintertime. This winter it looks as though things will be the same way; a great many electricians, carpenters, plumbers and masons will be out of work. It does not seem to make much sense to me that the government should have greatly reduced its expenditure on public building at this time. I realize this is all part of the austerity program, but that knowledge will not help the people who will be out of work. It will not help the construction workers, the supply companies and the other wholesalers and retailers who will be affected.
These projects which were included in the original estimates were not of the make-work type but were for essential public buildings needed in the various communities. There seems to be a contradiction, here. On the one hand the government is suggesting to the municipalities that they submit certain winter works programs in order to create employment. The Department of Labour is concerned in this effort, too, by encouraging people to take technical and vocational training, while on the other hand work on public 27507-3-129J
Interim Supply
building operations is being restricted. That seems to be contradictory; we are not going to get growth and employment by actions of this sort.
As I said at the outset, I do not intend to take up much time, but I did want to use the traditional right of a member to speak on a supply motion in order to make a protest on behalf of the people who would have been employed had these cuts not been made, particularly on behalf of those in British Columbia who will be out of work during the coming winter.


Mr. Brewin:: I do not propose to add very much to this extremely interesting debate during which we have heard a discussion on constitutional issues, we have heard about the future business of this house, we have heard about the Kettle valley, we have heard a most interesting contribution on trade matters from the hon. member for Vancouver East and we have heard from the hon. member for Bellechasse about the forest industry in his constituency.
I want to say a word or two about a matter which even the hon. member for Red Deer will not suggest is trivial. Even if it is not novel, the matter is one of urgency. It seems to me we should have some understanding from the government that a committee to deal with defence expenditures will be set up. I would point out to this committee of the whole that out of the controllable expenditure as distinct from the statutory expenditure, over one and a half billion dollars out of three and a billion dollars, or nearly one half, is spent on defence. In other words, nearly one half of the controllable expenditure of the taxpayer's dollar goes into defence.
There is a tremendous possibility of waste in this field of defence and research, if for no other reason than the rapid changes of technology which lead to immense sums being spent on obsolete equipment. I will take an example, not from Canada but from Britain where it is now acknowledged one hundred million pounds sterling, or approximately $300 million was spent on developing the Blue Streak rocket which became obsolete before it was even ready for testing. I appreciate that this question of defence is linked up with policy, which latter consideration is the prerogative of the government. However, I believe that a defence committee could bring together a group of people in this house including, for example, such persons as the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount and others who have gained experience in this field and may be able to serve one of the essential functions of the

Interim Supply
house, which is to scrutinize the tremendous expenditures which are inevitable today on defence. They would be able to contribute something, not only to the question of security which arises out of this, but also to a most important matter affecting our pocket-books.
I noticed that the other day, in answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that the government would make known its decision in this regard very shortly. I suggest that before we go too far into the work of the house in this particular session we should hear from the government whether it proposes to set up a committee. The Prime Minister spoke today very eloquently about the need for the effective functioning of parliament. It seems to me that this parliament cannot very well function effectively, Mr. Chairman, when nearly one-half or one-third of our expenditures are not subject to any effective scrutiny by the members of this house.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood, that the government ought to ask the house to establish a committee to look into the question of defence expenditures, because so far parliament has found itself in great difficulty in obtaining the information it needs to consider the government's defence policy and government expenditures in relation to its defence policy- if it has one, as some of us find difficult to believe at times.
I put a question on the order paper last month directed to the minister of defence, asking if he had been advised whether a Bo-marc armed with a nuclear warhead would neutralize an atomic or thermo-nuclear device if it were to come into contact with it in the air. The minister replied to that question on October 29 and said that responsible scientific and military authorities had given the ministry to understand that there was a high probability-that was the expression the minister used-that a Bomarc armed with a nuclear warhead would in fact neutralize an atomic or thermo-nuclear device being carried by an aircraft or a missile, on contact therewith. Of course, as members of the house will recall, this was a disclosure which had previously been made by the minister of defence in a letter which he wrote to Maclean's magazine some time ago.
It was interesting that the answer given to the house by the minister was qualified, in that he was able to tell us, not that it had been confirmed that a Bomarc armed with a nuclear warhead would neutralize an atomic or thermo-nuclear device upon contact, but simply that the government had been advised
[Mr. Brewin.l
that such was a high probability. Therefore a further question was placed on the order paper seeking to find out if the advice the ministry had received had been qualified in any way, whether any actual tests had been conducted to determine that in fact a Bomarc would neutralize an atomic or thermo-nuclear device on contact, and also seeking to ascertain whether the government had been advised that any device had been perfected or means had been found of avoiding the neutralization of an atomic or thermo-nuclear device in those circumstances.
The minister answered that question on November 21 by, in effect, declining to give any further information, saying that the information upon which the official Canadian view was based had been obtained from other countries and was subject to the security classification placed upon it by those other countries. Then the minister said, as reported on page 1857 of Hansard:
Specific answers to the further questions posed by the hon. member cannot be provided without revealing information which is highly classified, and would obviously be of assistance to any potential enemy.
So that we have this peculiar situation. The minister had made a disclosure about the effect of a missile armed with a nuclear warhead upon contact with a nuclear weapons carrier, and then had left us in suspense when the question had been further developed on the order paper, and resorted to the argument that this information was classified and that to provide any further information would be of assistance to a potential enemy.
I fail to see how the minister could disclose in a national publication certain information, and then decline to disclose certain related information to the House of Commons itself. I fail to understand the minister's argument in that respect, but this at any rate illustrates why this house requires a committee on defence expenditures to get to the root of this matter. If the house were able to establish a committee to look into this and other matters which would naturally arise from a consideration of defence expenditures, the house would not be handicapped and neither would the government. Such a committee might, if it became necessary, hold in camera hearings, with appropriate witnesses, to determine whether the information which the minister saw fit to give to the house was correct, whether the information which the minister saw fit not to give the house was in fact correct, and whether that latter information ought really to have been divulged to the house when the matter was raised on the order paper.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge the government to give most serious consideration to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood. I suggest that the minister of defence was not justified in disclosing certain information which related to this most important question, in disclosing information relating to the so-called probability of a missile armed with a nuclear warhead neutralizing an atomic or thermonuclear device upon contact, and then at a later stage, when the questions were getting very close to the heart of a matter of the gravest concern to the people of this country -because military considerations enter into the question whether Canada should acquire nuclear weapons-see fit to hide behind the argument that the information was classified and that it would be of assistance to a potential enemy. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister was justified in resorting to this argument; but if he was, the only way to deal with the matter is to refer it to a committee on defence expenditures, and for that reason I support the extremely useful suggestion that has been put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, several hours ago I made certain statements and asked certain questions which the Prime Minister said would be answered by the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister then launched into another subject which resulted in a lengthy debate, the net result of which was that we seemed to get away from the questions which I put to the government. I should like to have the answer of the Minister of Finance as to how he reconciles his assurance to the House of Commons on November 19 that the provisions of the Financial Administration Act are being complied with by the Department of National Revenue with the statement made today by the Minister of National Revenue, in answer to a question of mine, that the information requested is not available and that detailed statistics are not maintained pertaining to the application of the surcharge on imports order.


William Moore Benidickson: Surely it requires the resignation of somebody.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wish to repeat the remarks I made this afternoon. So that the basis of the question will be complete at this point in the record may I remind the minister that the surcharge on imports order is based, in the government's view, on two statutes, one of them being the Financial Administration act, section 22. Subsection 8 of that section 22 reads as follows:
Interim Supply
(8) A statement of each remission of one thousand dollars or more granted under this section shall be reported to the House of Commons in the public accounts.
My question was based on the language of that subsection and it was drafted in the light of the minister's assurance on November 19 that the Department of National Revenue was complying with the law. How does the minister reconcile that assurance, that the law was being complied with, with the statement this afternoon which seems to suggest the very opposite?


Rémi Paul: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like an answer from the Minister of Finance. Perhaps while he is cogitating, and just to let him know that I am asking that he give an answer in line with the philosophy and position of the party to which he belongs, may I remind him of an interesting debate that took place in the House of Commons in 1949. On that occasion the then minister of justice, namely Hon. Stuart Garson, had broken a law by failing to bring down within the time required by statute a certain report under the Combines Investigation Act. The official opposition of that day, namely the Progressive Conservative party, along with the C.C.F. and others were so greatly concerned about this matter that a very warm debate developed in the House of Commons. Mr. Drew, the then leader of the opposition, moved an amendment to the second reading of a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act. At the end of it he called upon the house to condemn the government for breaking the law. The then private member for Lake Centre spoke on this matter as recorded at page 1743 of Hansard of November 14, 1949. I shall read just one paragraph.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What was his name?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The then hon. member for Lake Centre became the hon. member for Prince Albert and is now the Prime Minister of Canada.
These are the words of the present Prime Minister on November 14, 1949:
As I listened to the minister the other evening, I awaited with interest the explanation he was giving to this house when he explained the reason why a mandatory act, by him to be performed under that statute, had been deliberately held up, had been deliberately spurned.
Just as tonight I am awaiting with interest an answer from this minister. I continue with the quotation as follows:
One does not have to go back to 1649, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) did; but that was the first example, and it had a salutary result for approximately a hundred years. Not since 1763-

Interim Supply
Then there is an interjection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Stuart did not do it again.
The then hon. member for Lake Centre went on to say this-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Stuart that didn't do it again lost his head.


Mr. Douglas:: This one lost his seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My leader said the other Stuart lost his seat. Page the hon. member for Marquette. The then hon. member for Lake Centre went on to say this:
Not since 1763 during the days of George III has any minister dared to contravene a statute passed hy parliament and deliberately refuse and neglect to carry out that statute.
In the light of that very strong view about a minister or a government failing to carry out the provisions of a statute, I hope the present Minister of Finance will adequately explain why the assurance he gave the other day apparently is not being carried out, in the light of the answer I was given today to question No. 900.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here for a couple of hours. It would be nice to have fun and games. We have listened to a talk about the Kettle valley railway. We have had discussed many items which are open to any member to discuss in dealing with a motion to go into interim supply. I realize that fact. However, I was hoping that we would make some progress with this resolution and that we might carry this interim supply which, if it is not carried, would have a serious effect on people in whom I am sure the hon. member has an interest, namely those in the government employ.
I also should like to have taken some part in this debate. However, I thought perhaps it would be better if I kept relatively quiet in that hope. If that hope is vague or is doubtful, I should like very much to come in. However, for the moment, in answer to my hon. friend's question, may I say this. As I said, after covering a wide range of subjects which we have had discussed tonight from national defence to the Kettle valley railway, my hon. friend is referring to an answer which he received to a question this afternoon, that the law says-and this is all the argument is based on-that these items shall be reported in the public accounts. I take it that this is the public accounts for the current fiscal year, riot a special current account that we get out today for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The public accounts for this fiscal year will not come down until next spring. I suggest to the hon. member

that perhaps he can console himself in patience until then. We shall still be here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: He can then look at the public accounts and ascertain whether we comply with the law. The law says that it shall be reported in the public accounts.
I refer my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River to the practice ever since at least 1956, when the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was a parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance and therefore, I presume-although I do not know; one can see various machinations going on in the Liberal party with respect to finance-had some responsibility for the preparation of reports from the Department of Finance in 1956. If you' look up the volume for 1956 I say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River-and I dare say before 1956; I just happen to have that one in front of me-you will find it is reported in there in narrative form. There is not the individual number or the individual item but there is a long list of matters such as, for instance, when we rebated the excise tax. I am speaking from memory now and I assume this is the case. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that we once rebated the excise tax on automobiles.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Too late.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I say that at least it was much earlier than would have been done if the hon. member had been sitting on the treasury benches. He refused to do it all the time that he was here. When we rebated it, I do not think you will find the individual items. I say this with some confidence although I have not checked the matter. I am quite sure you will not find the individual items of every rebate made recorded in this narrative form the preceding government adopted, and I think adopted properly in dealing with cases such as this.
What I said the other night, Mr. Chairman, was based on that-that it would be reported in accordance with the law. I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman opposite would never do anything that was not in accordance with the law or was not in accordance with the statute or was not in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. Since it was reported in that way, I suggest that my answer was perfectly proper. When the public accounts come down, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will find that these matters will be reported in exactly the same way as they have been reported at least since 1956 when the hon. member was in the house. I am not sure whether he approved

the public accounts or not. There was not too much that either he or I could say about that matter, perhaps. However, we had the public accounts in front of us. The same practice is being carried on at the present time and I am advised by the officers of the department that that is in accordance with the statute. That is what I meant when I made the answer the other day.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the minister made some reference to me.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should not have done it.


William Moore Benidickson: He goes back to 1956 and he refers to certain machinations in the finance department.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will withdraw it.


William Moore Benidickson: There are some of us here who are rather concerned about the amendments to the Judges Act and we are wondering whether this is an amendment to the Judges Act or whether it has something to do with the machinations of the Department of Finance. But I do take very strong exception to the minister dealing with this sort of problem by saying in commencing his remarks that we have been indulging in fun and games. I say that this is a very cavalier way to deal with something that is statutory and fundamental because it involves $200 million in taxation.
How many times must I repeat that it involves $200 million in taxation? The minister suggested that in due course the information will be available in the public accounts. Perhaps in due course he may not be responsible for the finance ministry either because of events, or because of some amendment to the Judges Act. In any event, has he read or did he sign the answer to question 900 which was answered this afternoon when he stands up and says to us that we are likely to get in the public accounts information which the statute imposes an obligation on the minister to present in the public accounts? I had some difficulty in getting the answer to question 900 because it was only presented today. First of all, I had better read the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is in these words:
From June 24, 1962, to October 31, 1962, how many remissions of customs duties were made under the provisions of section 2 of the surcharge on imports order, P.C. 1962-902, as based on section 22 of the Financial Administration Act?
The answer, which we will only see tomorrow in Hansard, but of which I have a copy, reads in part as follows:
The information requested is not available as detailed statistics are not maintained-
Yet the minister rises, when he is endeavouring to get approval of an important
Interim Supply
piece of legislation, and says that in due course we will get the information as the statute obligates him to provide it in the public accounts.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Minister of National Revenue will provide it, not I.


William Moore Benidickson: I have looked at that point. I have a high personal regard not only for the Minister of Finance but for the Minister of National Revenue. I have looked at the Financial Administration Act and in the definition section it says that " 'minister' means the Minister of Finance and Receiver General". I do not know whether the answer to question 900 this afternoon was provided by him or by the Minister of National Revenue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Department of National Revenue is responsible for administration.


William Moore Benidickson: But the answer says that the information is not available. If it is not available today, upon what basis can we be assured that it will be available in the public accounts?


Mr. McPhillips:: You have the minister's statement.


William Moore Benidickson: The public accounts may be presented a year hence for the administration of the present government but will have no relevance because they will not be in office. But the matter is of relevance today when there is this statutory obligation on the part of a minister of the crown. I was not facetious when I interposed in the debate. I do not know whether Hansard got my remark but I did say that somebody should resign when they refuse to carry out an obligation imposed by statute which involves a duty to parliament. This is a very serious matter, not a matter of fun and games as the minister suggested. I suggest that there should be some reconciliation of the minister's statement that the information will be given in the public accounts, and the anonymous statement-we do not know which minister provided this answer to parliament this afternoon-that the information requested is not available notwithstanding the obligation under subsection 8 of section 22 of the Financial Administration Act.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: From day to day it is not available. Why don't you consult a lawyer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is my natural disposition to accept an assurance when it is given, but surely hon. members will realize we are in a difficult position in that we were given an assurance the other

Interim Supply
day which it now appears to us cannot be kept. The minister says that what the Financial Administration Act requires is that all these items of $1,000 or more be reported to the House of Commons in the public accounts. He is perfectly correct. That is what subsection 8 of section 22 says.
He is perfectly correct also in pointing out that this has been done for a number of years since the Financial Administration Act in its present form came into being. I have checked a number of issues of the public accounts and items forgiven or remitted under section 22 of the Financial Administration Act are there. But, Mr. Chairman, we will not know for a year or two whether the assurance the minister is seeking to give tonight has been kept, and by that time a lot of changes will have taken place in this place and in some others as well. But what we do know is what the answer made today contained. I may tell my friends opposite, since it was my question and I received a copy of the answer, that the answer was given in the name of the Minister of National Revenue. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River read to the house part of the first sentence, but let me read all of it.
The information requested is not available as detailed statistics are not maintained pertaining to the application of the surcharge on imports order.
It is one thing to say to me as the member asking the question today that the information the member wants is not available today, but what this answer says is that the detailed information necessary to comply with the requirements of the Financial Administration Act a year or two from now is not being maintained, and the answer in that sentence admits quite openly that the information which is not being maintained is that which pertains to the application of the surcharge on imports order.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that means that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue and those responsible for administering this have read the surcharge on imports order and have read section 22, subsection 8, of the Financial Administration Act and they know what is called for; but they say quite frankly that the information pertaining to the application of the surcharge on imports order is not being maintained. I can see what will happen a couple of years from now when the public accounts for this year come out and the information is not there. Someone will get up and ask why it is not there and the answer will have to be, by whatever minister is in charge at that time, that the information was not maintained back in 1962 as required by the Financial Administration Act.
As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River says, this is not fun and games and the minister cannot slough this off by the old appeal to get the interim supply bill through so that civil service salaries will be paid. Do not worry about that. Pay day is a few days off yet.


David Lewis: Still frozen civil service
salaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, that is another speech I intended to make, but time is getting on.
Let me get back to this. The minister cannot slough off the seriousness of this issue by reference to fun and games or by appeals to get the bill through. The plain and simple matter is that we have been told today on the authority of a responsible minister of the crown, the Minister of National Revenue, that the detailed statistics are not being maintained pertaining to the application of the surcharge on imports order. Now, that says just as clearly as Mr. Garson did in 1949 that he had not carried out the provisions of the law for the reasons which were good enough to him, that this government is not carrying out the provisions of section 22, subsection 8 of the Financial Administration Act for reasons that this government thinks are satisfactory.
I could digress, Mr. Chairman, and put this question to the Minister of Finance. Is it not beginning to dawn on him that the advice the government got that it had authority to pass this order in council must have been rather flimsy advice? Now, as the government tries to carry out the provisions of that order in council that it passed on the basis of these two statutes, it has got itself into this difficult situation. As I said this afternoon, the excuse given is that during the period my question covers, from June 24 to October 31, 1962, there were 2,205,236 import entries. In other words the task of carrying out the law has become an impossibility, according to the government.
I suggest to the minister it is clear that the Financial Administration Act, section 22, was never intended as a means for raising taxes. The very difficulty we have now shows that any lawyer, I do not care what his title may be, who advised the government it had authority to do this was not giving sound advice whatever. The whole of this action by the government is brought into focus, as I say, by this answer that came down today. I still remember June 24 when the Prime Minister said this would all be brought before parliament. We are still waiting for the order itself. In the meantime, with this answer, we have the same kind of thing that Mr. Garson gave us in 1949 when he explained that he had not carried out the law of that day. I remind the

Minister of Finance and others of the Progressive Conservative party who were here in those days what we thought of that action. Here is the same thing, the executive failing to carry out the clear wording of the law.
I suggest that when the Minister of Finance stands up and tells me this is fun and games or we should get the bill through so that civil servants can get their frozen salaries, that is not good enough in this high court of parliament where, if anything matters, it is respect for the law.


George Clyde Nowlan: No one has said anything about frozen civil servants' salaries. I did suggest it was very important to get this resolution through for reasons which are well known to all responsible members of the House of Commons. I would say, too, that if fun and games was ever justified-perhaps it is not-in describing the actions and antics of an hon. member, it would be when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre apparently came into the House of Commons this afternoon with a piece of paper. No one had seen it before. He says it was filed by the Minister of National Revenue. It does not appear in Hansard. No one has a record of it. We have only his word for it, plus the fact that apparently the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was able to get a glance at it.
We have been hearing now for two hours an argument based on this answer which members of the House of Commons have not had an opportunity of seeing. When you read the question you find it refers to a period from June 24, 1962 to October 31, 1962 and asks how many remissions of customs duties were made under the provisions of section 2 of the surcharge on imports order, P.C. 1962902, as based on section 22 of the Financial Administration Act. This is rather a complicated question.


William Moore Benidickson: Not if you read it.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is a rather complicated question, Mr. Chairman. It would be well for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at least to console his soul in patience until we have the official record and we see in Hansard what the reference is. I am not questioning his word that he has the answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You ought to know.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You should, as a member of the government.


George Clyde Nowlan: We have had a two hour debate on something-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Finance says he is not questioning my word.
Interim Supply
I should like to know what else he did. When he rose he said that I came into the house with a piece of paper. The sheet of paper that I have I did not have when I came into the house this afternoon. It was delivered to me 15 or 20 minutes after my question No. 900 had been called from the chair; the Minister of National Revenue had said, "Answered"; the Speaker had repeated "Answered", and the minister had handed to Hansard the original copy of the answer to my question. A copy was delivered to me, and it has initials on it which I recognize. If there is any suggestion that what I have in my possession is not what is on the pages of Hansard today, then the matter of my question will be the subject of a motion to refer the whole question to the committee on privileges and elections.
My good friend the Minister of Finance says he is not doubting my possession of the correct answer, but that is certainly what he has done. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I know the rules about not having the right to quote in this house something that has been said in a debate until the official copy of Hansard has come down. This was not something that was said. These words were not spoken. This was an official document handed in and a copy of it was given to me as a matter of courtesy because I was the person who had asked the question. Any suggestion that the minister now makes that I should console myself in patience and wait until tomorrow to see if this is the answer that is in Hansard, is not valid. I will certainly be looking at that rather carefully the first thing tomorrow morning to make sure Hansard shows the answer that was in this document that was sent to me. There is, as I say, on the document, a set of initials that I happen to recognize but since they are those of a senior civil servant I will not mention them.
Perhaps I have extended my question of privilege too long. I am sure the Minister of Finance did not mean what he said, and I ask him to withdraw any suggestion I have broken any rule or custom in raising this matter. I suggest I have brought before this house what is an official answer of the Minister of National Revenue. He has to deal with that answer, and he does not do so by the kind of reflection he has just made.


George Clyde Nowlan: I made no reflection whatever. I say again it is a very strange procedure when we have a two hour debate based on an answer handed to the hon. member and of which other members of the house and the house itself is not seized and will not be until tomorrow.

Interim Supply
There has been some imputation here that there must be something wrong; that there is something to be covered up. What is the date of this question asked by my hon. friend? Sometimes when I heard him labouring tonight I thought we were back in 1956. The question is dated November 22, four days ago.


William Moore Benidickson: Did you see it?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, I did not. The question was dated November 22, and if there was any allegation of anything that had to be covered up, anything which should not have been produced, it would have been the easiest thing in the world not to answer it. We have to deal with one facet of this, and if we had examined-how many entries?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two million.


George Clyde Nowlan: -two million, we could have answered this question by saying we are studying the matter, studying these two million entries, for a year and a half. We would never have had to produce anything because we could always have been working on it.
It was answered so quickly and brought in, I think 20 minutes after the hon. member said he stood up to speak, that that is about as good an answer as can be given to the allegation that something is wrong with the situation. This was one question that, if we had wanted to delay answering, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree we could have delayed answering it for a very long time and no one could have objected.
The fact that there happened to be two million entries does not mean that the provisions of the Financial Administration Act are not being properly kept, and I suggest to my hon. friends opposite and to my hon. friends in the lower corner, especially to those who have had experience in administration of government that no one can believe for one minute that the government can make out payments of $1,000 and not have a record kept of them. It may not have a record under the peculiar-I shall not say peculiar but special-wording of this subsection, dealing with the question my hon. friend has raised; but I can assure my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, and the house and the country, that when the government of Canada, whether it be this government or its predecessors, and I hope any other government, pays out money, whether it is $1,000 or not, a record is kept of it.
I know I had to get an order in council on one occasion when one of my income tax collectors had the seat of his pants tom out by a bulldog. I had to get an order in council to pay $15, but that appeared in the public accounts, and our accounting is so detailed

that no one need have any worry whatsoever about our accounts not being properly kept or that due notice will not be given under the proper circumstances.
It may be understood that in asking the question which the hon. member asked on November 24, and with the answer which came down quite quickly from the civil servants who are so efficient and expert, that he may have had an answer which superficially looks as if some records are not being kept. But I can assure the committee that the records are being kept, and if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will give us time to produce them, they will be produced at the proper time in the public accounts next spring. If he wants them earlier I think that can be done, although I do not want to give a guarantee on that at the moment; but I do not want any imputation or any suggestion that the proper records are not being kept of every cent and every dollar that is being paid out by this government, whether it is in surcharges or whatever it may be.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance says that he is still convinced that in due time, and dear knows under what administration and with what inconvenience to civil servants, that it will be possible to give to parliament, as is required under the statute, a report of every remission over $1,000 as required under the June 24, 1962, order in council. I say I do not believe it. I have seen copies of the customs entries, and in them there is simply a reference to the net tariff applicable after recognition of all that was done by this fanciful order in council. That is why the minister said to me last week that I must have talked with those who deal with these things and must have a pipe line to convince me that it would not be practical to adhere to the provisions under section 22 of the Financial Administration Act.
In so far as answers to questions are concerned, they are the responsibility of the ministry. The minister tried to pass that off on to civil servants tonight, and I think that was rather unfair.


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes he did. If you read your Hansard you will find he said that in the last three or four days perhaps some civil servants provided this answer to parliament. Parliament asks questions of the ministry and the ministry is responsible for the answers and they cannot pass off that responsibility.
As a matter of fact, with this debate coming up, I was surprised that we would get this naive answer; but we did get it and it

is in conformity with the expectation I raised in debate last week when I said that this act could not possibly be stretched for the purposes of the June 24 order in council by the cabinet because I envisaged that it would involve recognition of these hundreds of thousands of customs entries and an equally binding obligation under the same section of the act to give to parliament, in the public accounts, a report of anything that involved a remission of $1,000 or more of duty.
That is the issue. In June, during the emergency, the government wanted to impose customs surcharges ranging from 5 per cent to 15 per cent on hundreds of items in our customs tariif, and from some source which they will not divulge to parliament, the government obtained some fancy legal opinion that section 22 of the Financial Administration Act could be stretched for this purpose. It cannot be stretched one way if it is not to be used in the other way to report to parliament as parliament has asked.
Everyone in the house knows why there was a necessity to report to parliament. The point was that under the first part of section 22 the governor in council, which is the cabinet, was given the authority on recommendation of the treasury board to remit a tax that would otherwise be legally payable. Now, no one in the house would want the cabinet to have that permission without limit, so parliament put a limit upon it and said it did not want political favours to be given by
Business of the House
tax remission, and it limited this executive action to cases where the treasury board felt that something that parliament had basically established as a tax should be remitted because of special circumstances, and when that was done it should be reported to parliament in the public accounts if the value was over $1,000.
These things are not now being reported. I do not think they can be reported in public accounts despite the assurance of the minister.
We are not going to conclude this debate tonight. I want the minister tomorrow, or when we continue this debate, to present us with some examples from the customs entry forms which will establish and demonstrate that it would be possible for the administration to go back on those 2,205,235 import entries that have passed through 276 ports of entry since the executive decided to impose $200 million of taxation by executive order in council.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the house will do tomorrow and the next day?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will do the business we expected to do today, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 27, 1962