1962-11-14

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.


Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the house regarding recent studies on the use of Sabin oral poliovirus vaccine.
Hon. members will recall that on September 13 I reported that my technical advisers had recommended a temporary deferment of the routine use of live oral poliovirus vaccine pending further investigation of all cases of poliomyelitis and other acute diseases of the nervous system which simulate poliomyelitis and which occurred in Canada this year.
I now have a statement prepared at the recent meeting of the dominion council of health regarding the continued use of the oral vaccine. This statement incorporates the recommendations of the national technical advisory committee on live poliovirus vaccines. It therefore summarizes the opinion not only of the technical experts competent in this field, but also the opinion of the principal health officers in each province. I have accepted this advice, and it has been made available to all the provincial health departments for their guidance.
Rather than attempt to paraphrase this statement I feel that it would be more helpful if I were to report it precisely as I have received it. This statement consists of some three pages, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is important that it should be on record in Hansard and I wonder if I might have the consent of the house to have it printed there.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has asked the consent of the house to have printed as part of his statement on motions a rather lengthy technical report. Is it agreed?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: This is a rather important statement, particularly in view of the action taken in Great Britain
with regard to this matter. If it could be understood that it will be printed in Hansard and that any hon. member who wants to comment on behalf of his party on this statement on motions would not be precluded from doing so, let us say tomorrow, we will agree.


Jay Waldo Monteith: By all means.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that once the representatives of the parties have seen this rather lengthy report we will afford them an opportunity of commenting upon it tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The statement is as follows:]
Statement by the Dominion Council of Health
on Live Oral Poliovirus Vaccine (Sabin)
The dominion council of health believes that live poliovirus Sabin vaccine offers a great potential for the control of paralytic poliomyelitis in Canada. In September the national technical advisory committee on live poliovirus vaccines, under the chairmanship of Dr. A. J. Rhodes, director, school of hygiene, University of Toronto, recommended that immunization programs using the live oral Sabin vaccine be temporarily deferred. The reason for this recommendation was to permit a full investigation of all cases of poliomyelitis and other acute diseases of the nervous system, which simulate poliomyelitis, and which occurred in Canada this year. This was to determine what association there might be between these cases and live poliovirus vaccine.
Since September 13 a full investigation has been carried out across Canada concerning poliomyelitis and polio-like diseases, with intensive study of those cases which might in any way be associated with Sabin vaccine. Many persons, family physicians, medical specialists, medical officers of health, local poliomyelitis committees, virologists and epidemiologists assisted in this investigation. Committee members were personally engaged in the assessment of cases in their own provinces. Members of the committee visited Europe and Japan to obtain first hand information concerning the extensive use of live oral poliovirus vaccine in those areas. Direct reports were received from New Zealand, Great Britain and the United States. The technical advisory committee met on November 5 and 6 to consider all the available evidence and it received first hand

Statement on Use of Sabin Vaccine accounts of experience in the United States from a representative of the United States public health service.
The committee reviewed detailed information concerning all known polio-like illness in Canada this year that might in any way be associated with live poliovirus vaccine. There were no deaths in these cases. In the approximately four million persons fed Sabin vaccine in May, June, and July, there were four cases of paralytic disease with a high probability of association with Sabin vaccine. These are the same four cases mentioned in Mr. Monteith's September 13 statement. Among contacts to those fed Sabin vaccine earlier this year, one case of paralytic poliomyelitis was considered by the committee to have a high probability of association with Sabin vaccine. The predominant virus in these cases was Sabin vaccine virus type III. Of the remaining 26 cases of polio-like illness studied in detail, and considered by the committee as justifying close appraisal, 10 were considered to have no association with Sabin vaccine and the others were believed to have a moderate or slight probability of association.
Experience with live oral Sabin vaccine in other countries has had a spectacular effect in reducing the incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis.
After a careful review of all the evidence the expert committee recommended the following procedures, for the present, for immunization against poliomyelitis in Canada:
1.	That Salk vaccine, in combination with other antigens, or alone, remain, for the present, the basic vaccine for protection against poliomyelitis for all age groups. Particular emphasis should be placed on the Salk vaccination of children under one year of age.
2.	That trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine be incorporated in routine immunization programs to follow an initial course of Salk vaccine to further diminish the circulation of wild polio viruses.
3.	That, in areas with a risk of poliomyelitis, any form of Sabin poliovirus vaccine be used on a community-wide basis.
4.	That Sabin vaccine, types I and II, could be used freely for all age groups.
5.	That, in all circumstances, when oral poliovirus vaccine is used, it be on a carefully planned and supervised basis. The following are considered essential components of such programs:
(i)	Planning and supervision should be conducted by departments of health.

(ii)	Immunization programs with live poliovirus vaccine should be directed primarily to children. Children are the main reservoir of infection in Canada and in restricting the circulation of wild polio viruses in this group, a degree of protection will thereby be afforded to adults.
(iii)	Active surveillance and prompt reporting of all cases of nervous system disease occurring within 60 days of vaccine feedings should be required.
(iv)	Contraindications to the use of Sabin vaccine are:
(a)	Acute febrile illness
(b)	Debilitating disease
(c)	Administration within 21 days of another live virus vaccine, e.g., smallpox and yellow fever vaccines.
6.	That there be prompt and direct exchange of information with other countries concerning the safety and efficacy of oral poliovirus vaccine.
The dominion council of health recommends that the use of Sabin vaccine be deferred no longer and endorses these recommendations as to its use. Specific plans will be determined by provincial departments of health.



FINANCE


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make with respect to the further relaxation of surcharges. In view of the continued improvement in the foreign exchange reserves, the government has decided that it is now possible to take a second significant step in relaxing the import surcharges. The first step was announced on October 16; it covered some $250 million worth of industrial machinery and equipment of a class or kind not made in Canada, and certain other items.
This second relaxation is designed to be of direct assistance to every Canadian consumer and to keep down the cost of living. To this end the surcharges on practically all foods and agricultural and fisheries products are being removed. In taking this step we have had in mind that we are entering that period of the year in which our requirements for imported foods are particularly marked. When the surcharges were first applied, many food items-oranges, bananas, orange juice, tea and coffee-were exempted. With this present relaxation only a short list of luxury or less essential products, such as pate de foie gras, truffles and brandied fruits, and

one or two other items such as that will remain subject to the surcharge. Wines and spirits, tobacco and tobacco products and confectionery remain subject to the surcharge.
The following are examples of the goods being freed from surcharge: raisins and dried fruits, biscuits, fancy molasses, fresh and canned meats, cattle, poultry, peanut butter, yeast, milk foods, prepared cereal foods, pearl barley, peas and beans, corn meal, macaroni, canned fruits and vegetables, fresh and frozen vegetables, olives, kippered herring and sardines. The surcharge is also being reduced or eliminated on certain other products. Printing machinery and equipment covered by tariff items 412b and 412d, by and large, are not available from Canadian sources; the removal of the surcharge should be of assistance to the printing and publishing industry. The surcharge is being removed from ambulances.
Two major consumer items, refrigerators and carpets, have carried a surcharge of 15 per cent, the rate applied to less essential goods. It now seems appropriate to reduce to 10 per cent the surcharge on these products and thus to bring them into line with other major household goods used by Canadian consumers.
This second relaxation covers about $220 million of foods and agricultural and fisheries products, in terms of the annual rate of imports, and about $40 million of other goods, to a total of $260 million. It is further concrete evidence of the government's intention to remove the surcharges as soon as circumstances permit. It should be of real assistance to every Canadian consumer, and will ease the burden of the surcharges on our trading partners who have an interest in selling us these various products.
These removals and reductions in surcharge will take effect as from tomorrow.


Mr. Walter L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the house we welcome the minister's statement respecting the removal of these tariff surcharges on certain imported foodstuffs and a number of other items. If my arithmetic is reasonably accurate, I think these latest concessions bring the total value of goods from which these surcharges have now been removed to just over $500 million. While this is useful, the great bulk of the goods to which these surcharges were applied in the first place are still being subjected to them. I think it would be helpful if the minister
Questions
were willing to inform the house when he thinks the main bulk of these surcharges are likely to be removed.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I say how pleased we are with the decisions just announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan). I might add that we are convinced that this alleviation of the austerity program was due to pressures exerted by members in this part of the house.
Indeed, I feel those tariff reductions were made possible by the policy followed by the Social Credit members. We are still in session, and this shows the logic of the attitude which has been ours for some time concerning the balance of power in this house.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement we have just heard and of the fact that the austerity program is being gradually eased off, we think it would be a good idea, at the same time-and this is a suggestion we are making to the Minister of Finance-to see that work projects in Canada are resumed again on a national development basis.
(Text):


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic party I wish to join others who have expressed satisfaction at this removal of the surcharges on some items. We are concerned, as was the hon. member for Davenport, about the fact that some five sixths of the items are still subject to surcharge, as far as value is concerned. May I respectfully suggest that the problem is not whether luxury items or other items are still left. The problem concerns the general trade of Canada and the general economic position of Canada regardless of the particular items. We therefore express the hope that the removal of the remainder of the surcharges will follow very quickly. We also express the hope that very quickly we shall see an end to the other items involved in the austerity program imposed on June 24.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 431
Mr. Morris:: Does the Canadian National Railways pay (a) taxes (b) grants in lieu of taxes, to the following cities; and, if so, what formula is used as the basis for such taxes or grants: Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax?

Questions


Mr. McBain:: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Canadian National Railways pays grants in lieu of taxes on land of Canadian government railways and other entrusted properties, title to which is in the crown. Some of the larger municipal corporations to which grants are paid are St. John's, Newfoundland; Halifax, N.S.; Moncton and Saint John, N.B.; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Charny and Riviere du Loup, Que.; North Bay and Port Arthur, Ont.; Transcona, Man.; and Victoria, B.C. The formula on which such grants are based provides that 50 per cent of the tax rate shall be applied to an agreed valuation based on the railway provisions of the Ontario assessment act.
Canadian National Railways pays taxes in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver on the same basis as other railways, on all lands, title to which is in the railway company or its subsidiaries. Canadian National Railways pays taxes in Winnipeg under a special agreement which covers the assessment of land the title to which is in the company, together with a small portion of Canadian government railways land the title to which is in the crown.


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


James Alexander McBain: The management of the Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1,	2, 3, 4 and 5. A certain portion of the main line in the vicinity of Tuft's Cove is being diverted at the request of an industry to accommodate the plans of the industry to construct a new thermoelectric generating station. The industry is to bear all expenses related to the project. Part of the work is being performed by the industry and the balance by railway forces.


TRAINS 33-34 LAKEHEAD-WINNIPEG
Mr. Badanai: 1.	How many people will be displaced as a result of the elimination of train 33-34 between the lakehead and Winnipeg?
2.	Has any decision been made about the curtailment of train 33-34?


James Alexander McBain: The management of the
Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Any employees involved will exercise seniority in accordance with the relevant wage agreement.
2.	In compliance with the request from the towns of Port Frances and Atikokan, it has now been arranged that trains '33 and 34 will operate on a daylight schedule instead of the night schedule originally proposed. Train No. 33 will leave Port Arthur at 6 a.m. CST Monday, Wednesday and Friday; No. 34 will leave Winnipeg at 7 a.m. CST Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
(Translation):


COMPULSORY VOTING
Mr. Dube: Has the government considered the possibility of amending the Canada Elections Act so as to introduce compulsory voting and, if so, what decision has been reached?


Mr. Halpenny:: No.
(Text):


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT
Mr. Davis: Has consideration been given to the recommendations of last year's House of Commons committee on research to the effect that the government should undertake economic and engineering studies concerning the feasibility of a uranium enrichment plant in Canada?


Mr. Nesbitt:: The recommendations made by the House of Commons committee on research in 1961 are being considered and a plan of action is being developed.


CANADIAN RECIPIENTS OF VICTORIA CROSS
Mr. Dumont: What are the names and last known addresses of all French Canadian recipients of the Victoria Cross since it was established in 1856?


Mr. Churchill:: The records of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian' pension commission do not show which members of the forces were of French descent, but the following members, who were born in the province of Quebec, were awarded the Victoria Cross:
South African war, Lt. Turner, Richard W.
World war I, A/Major MacDowell, Thain W., A/Major Learmonth, Okill M., Capt. Scrimger, Francis A. C., Lt. Brillant, John, Cpl. Kaeble, Joseph, Pte. Holmes, Thomas.
World war II, Major Triquet, Paul.
It is not considered to be in the public interest to reveal the last known addresses of

winners of the Victoria Cross because the publication of such information would invade their privacy.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Harley: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare investigated the circumstances of the case of smallpox entering Canada a short time ago and, if so, what were they?
2.	Has the department reviewed the regulations with the object of ascertaining whether these may be made safer for Canadians?


Mrs. Casselman:: 1. Yes. A fourteen year old boy came from Laranjeiras do Sul, Parana State, Brazil, where an outbreak of smallpox (alastrim or variola minor) existed, being regarded by local authorities as chicken pox. Before departure for Canada and without vaccination having been performed a certificate of vaccination was issued by the local medical officer on the form of the local health department and bearing the medical officer's signature and the official stamp of the secretariat of public health of the local area.
The boy entered the United States-Canada quarantine pool area at New York, reaching Toronto by train on August 12. The next day he developed the prodromal rash of smallpox (variola minor or alastrim) which was diagnosed clinically on August 17 and confirmed by laboratory tests August 20. The patient was isolated first at home and later in River-dale isolation hospital where he made an uneventful recovery.
Family contacts and all other persons who were known to be contacts were kept under surveillance and vaccination was offered to persons who could have been exposed. Many other persons in the Toronto area also took advantage of this opportunity and underwent vaccination or revaccination for their personal protection. Fortunately there were no secondary cases.
2.	Extensive international travel makes the introduction of smallpox an ever present possibility. Quarantine measures are designed not as an absolute guarantee against the importation of smallpox but to reduce the hazard of
Questions
importing the disease by employing measures of practical value but which do not seriously interfere with international traffic. The international sanitary regulations are taken as a guide to what is practical and reasonable. These as well as the Canadian quarantine regulations are continually under review.


FISHERY PATROLMEN, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Barnett: 1.	How many seasonal fishery patrolmen were engaged by the department in British Columbia during each of the years 1956 to 1962 inclusive?
2.	What has been the monthly rate of pay for each of these years?
3.	On how many hours per day, and days per week, of work has this wage been calculated during each of these years?
4.	What has been the fixed or the average boat charter rate during each of these years?
5.	What has been the average period for which patrolmen have been engaged during each of these years, and when were their services begun and terminated?
6.	When did the last increase in rates of pay go into effect, and have all increases been paid to those qualifying for such increases?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.
Number of
	Positions	Patrolmen
1956-57	84	1011957-58	83	781958-59	83	841959-60	84	901960-61	84	831961-62	84	831962-63	84	842. 1956-57	$254 per month ($259 effective 1-6-56)	1957-58	259 per month	1958-59	259 per month ($289 effective 1-8-58)	1959-60	289 per month ($319 effective 1-9-59)	1960-61	319 per month	1961-62	319 per month ($324 effective 1-9-61)	1962-63	324 per month ($333 effective 15-6-62)	3.	8 hours per day, 5 days per week.4.	Depending on size of the boats and on whether the charter included providing an engineer, the rates ranged as follows:1956-	57	
50c	to	$17.50	per	day	$10.00	per	month1957-	58	
50c	to	$27.00	per	day	$10.00	per	month1958-	59	
50c	to	$27.00	per	day1959-	60	
50c	to	$29.50	per	day1960-	61	
50c	to	$35.00	per	day	$10.00	per	month1961- 62	
$1.00 to $35.00 per day	$10.00 to $60.00 per month1962- 63	
50c to $40.00 per day	$10.00 to $60.00 per month1606	HOUSE	OF COMMONS	5. Year 1956-57 	Questions	Average Period of Employment 	
3.33 months From 2-6 months	Services Begun April 1, 1956	Services Terminated March 31, 19571957-58 ....	From 2-9 months	May 1, 1957	January 16, 19581958-59 	From 2-9 months	May 1, 1958	December 26, 19581959-60 ....	
3.8 months From 2-9 months	May 1, 1959	December 15, 19591960-61 	
4.13 months From 2-9 months	April 1, 1960	January 31, 19611961-62 	
4.15 months From 2-9 months	April 15, 1961	December 23, 19611962-63 ....	
Approximately 4.05 months From 2-9 months	April 16, 1962	January 31, 1963 est'd.6. Adjustment effective September 1, 1961, and June 15,	1962, were authorized by
treasury board on May 10, 1962. All retroactive cheques for district 2 were mailed October 29, 1962. Paylist for all adjustments in district 3 were sent to pay office November 7, 1962. Cheque issue would be dealt with immediately with dispatch to those concerned.


* CORNWALL CANAL HEADRACE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 631*-Mr. Lamoureux:
Is it the intention of the St. Lawrence seaway authority to fill in that part of the Cornwall canal known as the headrace and. if so, when will the work be undertaken?
James Alexander McBain: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
The St. Lawrence seaway authority has consulted with municipal officials and others with a view to having the headrace filled. Only some 14 per cent of the headrace lies within seaway lands, the remainder being on lands of the city of Cornwall and of the Cornwall industrial development corporation. The raceway provides water for fire protection purposes to Cornwall industrial development corporation buildings and no final decision to fill or close off the raceway has been taken pending the provision of funds for alternate fire protection.
Studies are continuing and the authority is prepared to proceed with the filling of its portion of the headrace as soon as mutually satisfactory arrangements are completed.
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1


* AUDUBON SOCIETY PROPOSALS RESPECTING NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What consideration has the government given to the proposals of the Canadian Audubon society for a centennial program that would make our parks system a feature?
2.	When did the government receive such a proposal?
3.	Has the government any idea of when it may be able to make a response to the proposal?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The proposal of the
Audubon society was brought to the attention of the government in letters dated February 12, 1962 and October 18, 1962. The society was informed that it would take some months before the program for the observance of the centennial of confederation was fully determined. A large number of projects have been suggested to the government and the relative merits of these are being studied. When a final decision is reached the society will be informed.


LEVELS OF RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	What is the present level of strontium 90 in milk in Canada?
2.	What level of strontium 90 is considered to be dangerous to humans?
3.	What is the present level of radioactive iodine 131?
4.	What level of iodine 131 is considered to be
dangerous to humans?
5.	What is the present level of caesium 137?
6.	What level of caesium 137 is considered to be dangerous to humans?


Arza Clair Casselman: 1. Most recently published results indicate a national average level of

26.0 micromicrocuries Sr90 per gram calcium lor the month of August 1962. A new report is expected shortly which will probably contain results for September 1962.
2.	It is not known what level of strontium 90 in milk constitutes a danger to humans. The possible danger from any particular level depends on how long the level is maintained. The recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection can be interpreted to suggest that, for levels which are maintained for an indefinitely long period, a level of 79 micromicrocuries per gram of dietary calcium is permissible for Canada. It should be emphasized however that this is not a danger level, but rather one for which there is very little probability of observing ill effects in Canadians.
3.	Most recently published results indicate an average level of 141 micromicrocuries Ii3i per liter of milk for the month of September 1962. Data for the month of October will be contained in the next monthly report expected shortly.
4.	It is not known what level of iodine 131 constitutes a danger to humans. No ill effects have yet been observed in children who have received medical doses of 5-10 microcuries of iodine 131 during the past five or six years. In terms of maximum permissible concentrations of iodine 131 in milk resulting from radioactive fall-out, a guide level similar to that for strontium 90 has not been set because of the short half life of iodine 131 and the dependency of iodine 131 levels on the pattern of nuclear testing and subsequent meteorological and climatological conditions. Work on this matter is proceeding in this and other countries.
5.	Most recently published results indicate an average level of 106-5 micromicrocuries Cs137 per gram of potassium in milk for the month of August 1962. Data for the month of September will be contained in the next monthly report expected within another week.
6.	It is not known what level of caesium 137 constitutes a danger to humans. The possible danger from any particular level depends on how long the level is maintained. The recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection can be interpreted to suggest that, for levels which are maintained for an indefinitely long period, a level of about 3,000 micromicrocuries per gram of dietary potassium is permissible for Canada. It should be emphasized however that this is not a danger level, but rather one for which there is very little probability of observing ill effects in Canadians.
27507-3-102
Questions


GRANTS TO CANADIAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. McWilliam: Did the federal government make a financial grant to the Canadian Forestry Association for expansion of its public education program in the years 1961 or 1962 and, if so, what was the total amount, and was there any division on a provincial basis?


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: A financial grant of $20,000 was made by the federal government to the Canadian Forestry Association in 1961 and provision for a grant of $25,000 has been included in the 1962-63 estimates presently under consideration by parliament but in neither case is there a condition that the funds are for use solely for expansion of the association's public education program or that there must be a division on a provincial basis.


FOOD AND DRUG DIRECTORATE
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	How many persons in the food and drug directorate review the new drug submissions, and what are the qualifications of these persons?
2.	Does the food and drug directorate confirm animal toxicity reports done by the drug manufacturer and, if so, how often?
3.	Does the food and drug directorate require tests for teratogenicity on all new drugs?
4.	Do drug manufacturers, drug importers, and drug distributors, require a licence to operate in Canada and, if not, what is the reason?
5.	Does the food and drug directorate have a standard for laboratory technique which all drug manufacturers must follow in the preparation and testing of drugs?


Arza Clair Casselman: 1. New drug submissions are assigned for review to members of the professional staff of the food and drug directorate who have expert knowledge of the type of drug dealt with in the submission. These reviews are carried out as part of their duties and the time required is equivalent to approximately four persons working full time.
The staff performing these reviews as part time duties are graduates in medicine and science with postgraduate degrees and training in biochemistry, bacteriology, chemistry, pharmacy, physiology and pharmacology.
2.	No confirmation of the animal toxicity reports of the drug manufacturer is done unless there is reason to doubt such reports. This does not occur very often.
3.	No recognized animal tests have been developed for detecting the teratogenic effects of drugs in humans. Where a drug is recommended for continuous administration and may be used by a wide segment of the population, it has been the practice to require drug manufacturers to subject such drugs to chronic toxicity tests in laboratory animals. This involves administering the drug for one or two

Questions
years and over two or three generations of the animals, noting any malformations of the offspring and any other side effects of the drug.
4.	It is beyond the authority of the Food and Drugs Act to licence an industry. However provision has been made in sections 12 and 37 of the act to prohibit the sale of certain drug products such as serums, toxins, vaccines, parenteral antibiotics, insulin, amphetamines, barbiturates, etc., unless certain defined requirements have been met. A form which is termed a 'licence' is issued for specified drug products to such drug manufacturers, importers and distributors who have met these requirements.
5.	The food and drug directorate have standards for laboratory technique in the preparation of and testing for those drugs for which a standard has been prescribed in the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, and for the drugs listed in publications recognized as standard works on drugs in schedule B to the act, such as the British pharmacopoeia, the pharmacopoeia of the United States, the international pharmacopoeia, etc. In addition official laboratory methods of testing of drugs have been established in the regulations under the act.


BRIEF ON BANKRUPTCY FRAUDS
Mr, Douglas: Was a brief on bankruptcy frauds presented to the Minister of Justice by the Canadian Credit Men's Association, Ltd,, on or about March 27, 1962, and, if so, what is the nature of the brief, and what consideration has been given to it?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: A brief re prosecution for bankruptcy offences under part VIII of the Bankruptcy Act was presented by The Canadian Credit Men's Association, Limited. The brief questions the effectiveness of this part of the act and suggests several alternative measures intended to reduce the number of fraudulent bankruptcies. The matter has been referred to the superintendent of bankruptcy by whom it is receiving very careful consideration.


*CORN SUBSIDY, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Siewarl: 1.	Has the Minister of Agriculture announced any change in his plan not to continue subsidies on corn for use in the maritime provinces between the end of September and the date on which 1962 wheat feedstuif shall be available?
2.	If not, how much high energy feedstuff was available in the maritime provinces on October 12 when the minister announced his intention not to extend the corn subsidy?
3.	To whom did the larger lots belong at that date?

4.	Where was this feedstuff stored at that date?
5.	On which of the larger lots had the corn subsidy been paid or claimed as of October 12, 1962?
6.	How much of the high energy feedstuff then available was high quality wheat, and what was the price of this wheat to farmers?


Mr. Jorgenson:: 1. No.
2.	Storage statistics of the dominion bureau of statistics and the board of grain commissioners only show total stocks in eastern Canada at licensed public elevators and do not disclose ownership.
On October 10, 1962, there were 82,611 bushels of wheat of the grades No. 5 and lower and 119,427 bushels of corn in Halifax.
Individual statistics on other locations are not available but large quantities had moved out of Halifax during September.
Domestic withdrawals of high energy grain from the terminal elevator, Halifax, throughout the summer were approximately at the rate of 26,000 bushels per week. Domestic stocks in Halifax at September 5 were 103,000 bushels of wheat and 349,000 bushels of corn. At the rate of withdrawal of 26,000 bushels per week this would provide supplies for a period of 17 weeks.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	Answered by 2.
5.	All corn moved to retail dealer premises prior to October 1st is eligible for the assistance, but as yet no assistance claims have been paid. Major claimants to date are Maritime Co-op Service, Moncton, Ralston Purina Company, Montreal, Smith Brokerage Company, Saint John, and Toronto Elevator Ltd., Montreal.
6.	The volume figure is answered by 2. The price of wheat to farmers is not available. However, most high energy grain used by farmers is in the form of mixed feeds.


*FORT SIMPSON EXPERIMENTAL FARM-PAYMENTS TO INDIANS
Mrs. Hardie: 1.	Were Indians employed by any department of the federal government on work done about two years ago at the Fort Simpson experimental farm and, if so, were they paid in full for such work?
2.	If payment was not made in full, for which dates was payment withheld in each case and in what amounts, and is consideration being given to an interim payment pending a final settlement?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: 
OLD BONAVENTURE, NFLD. COMMUNITY STAGE
Mr, Tucker: Has the government given consideration to the construction of a community stage at Old Bonaven-ture, Newfoundland, and, if so, when will work commence?
Questions
fiscal year 1961 and up to 31st October, 1962 for (a) disabled persons allowances (b) social assistance (c) old age security (d) old age assistance (e) family allowances?


Arza Clair Casselman: (a)	1961-62	 $	668,392
April 1-September 30, 1962	392,742*
(b)	1961-62	
1,371,210April 1-October 31,	1962	.	.	784,445(c)	1961-62	
21,291,111April 1-October 31,	1962	.	.	14,454,752(d)	1961-62	
1,760,484April 1-September 30, 1962	1,038,991*(e)	1961-62	
19,222,615April 1-October 31,	1962	.	.	11,287,378
* Federal payments to New Brunswick for October, 1962 have not yet been made.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY PAYMENTS TO NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Fairweather: What was the amount of the government of Canada's payments to New Brunswick during the fiscal year 1961 and up to 31st October, 1962 for trans-Canada highway?


Mr. McCleave:: Fiscal year 1960-61, $3,461,086.08; fiscal year 1961-62,	$2,357,075.86;
1 April 1962-31 October 1962, $474,187.19. '


John Angus MacLean: Old Bonaventure was considered in 1958 when the community stage program was initiated. The department was advised that the facility was not required at that time.


WAR OF 1812  TELEVISION PROGRAM VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL SCHOOL PAYMENTS TO NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Fairweather: 
George Ernest Halpenny: I am informed by the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the C.B.C. television network is currently carrying a series of four programs dealing with the origins and consequences of the war of 1812 between Canada and the United States. The series is entitled "The Formative Years" and is scheduled Wednesdays at 10:30 p.m. EST. The first program was seen on October 31. Remaining programs will be seen on November 14, November 21, and December 5.


FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Fairweather: 
Mr. Hales:: (a) There were no capital expenditures for vocational high schools in the province of New Brunswick during the fiscal year 1961-62 nor during the present fiscal year to October 31, 1962.
(b)	Capital expenditures for technical schools and trade schools in the province of New Brunswick during the fiscal year 1961-62 amounted to $818,978.50. During the present fiscal year to October 31, the amount was $250,970.63.


NATIONAL SURVIVAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Tardif: 1.	How many persons were trained in the national
survival program?
2.	What was the total cost of this training?
3.	Was a record kept of the names and addresses of the trainees and, if not, for what reasons was a record not kept?


Mr. Harkness:: 1. 70,108 were trained in the special militia training program.
2.	$27,815,000.
3.	Addresses at date of enrolment are recorded.

Questions


PREFABRICATED WOOD BUNKERS IN STORAGE
Mr. Tardif: 1.	Are there in storage in the army warehouse at Cobourg, Ontario, a number of prefabricated wood bunkers and, if so, how many such bunkers are in stock at this particular warehouse?
2.	Are there in storage in any other army warehouse in Canada, this type of bunkers and, if so, how many?
3.	Could such bunkers with slight modifications be used as fall-out shelters?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.


CHATHAM, N.B., AIR FORCE STATION- USE OF FACILITIES
Mr. McWilliam: Has the government received a request from Trans-Canada Air Lines and/or Maritime Central Airways for permission to use the Chatham, New Brunswick, R.C.A.F. landing and take-off facilities as a regular point of call on certain schedules of the Montreal-Saint John-Halifax flights and, if so, has any decision been reached?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


* INTERCOLONIAL PROVIDENT FUND
Mr. Rideout: Has any recent action been taken by the government under The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act concerning pensions for widows and, if so, what are the provisions under which action was taken, and the effect of such amendments?


James Alexander McBain: Under authority of order in council P.C. 1958-47/1660 of December 12,
1958,	contributing members of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways employees' provident fund at January 1,
1959,	could elect to transfer to the Canadian National Railways pension plan on certain terms and conditions, the rules of which provide for pensions to widows. This privilege expired on December 31, 1959.


APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING
Mr. Maiheson: By provinces, how many apprentices have registered, and how many apprentices have successfully completed apprenticeship training each year since 1954?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: [Mr. Harkness.1
REGISTRATIONS OF INDENTURED APPRENTICES AND COMPLETIONS, 1954 TO 1961>
Reg. = Registrations Compl. = Completions
1954	1955	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961
Reg. Compl. Reg. Compl. Reg. Compl. Reg. Compl. Reg. Compl. Reg. Compl. Reg. Compl. Reg. Compl.
Newfoundland	
156	13	270	45	367	105	446	113	548	107	731	145	829	193	972	193Nova Scotia	
473	70	467	86	553	84	586	113	564	104	622	110	683	111	934	117New Brunswick	
605	108	818	64	930	157	959	79	924	102	1,010	120	1,084	208	1,301	199Ontario	
5,645	1,119	5,643	1,286	5,618	1,354	6,065	1,417	6,312	1,343	6,578	1,334	7,192	1,433	7,279	1,689Manitoba	
903	178	1,080	214	1,353	202	1,390	218	1,376	257	1,557	229	1,767	361	1,836	374Saskatchewan	
731	84	874	106	1,096	90	1,221	141	1,366	182	1,360	214	1,367	201	1,395	145Alberta	
3,191	441	3,449	660	3,657	660	4,098	847	4,225	694	4,483	757	4,629	906	4,588	900British Columbia	
1,338	338	1,417	322	1,790	336	1,897	418	1,973	445	2,250	514	1,992	591	1,642	635Canada	
13,042	2,351 14,018	2,783 15,364	2,988 16,662	3,346 17,288	3,234 18,591	3,423 19,543	4,004 19,947	4,252
1 Registration count as of September 30; completions refer to the twelve month period preceding September 30. Data on pre-apprentices are excluded from this table. Quebec, with the exception of a few trades, has no indentured apprentices; the training is largely done on a pre-employment basis; P.E.I. has no indentured apprentices.

Questions

Questions


*NORTH YORK TOWNSHIP
Mr. Walker: 1.	Has the government received any representations from Dr. F. W. Minkler, director of education for the board of education of the township of North York, concerning the establishment of an office of the national employment service in the township of North York?
2.	Has the government received any representations from the social planning council, North York branch, concerning the establishment of an office of the national employment service in the township of North York?
3.	If so, has any reply been given to these representations and what was the nature of the reply?
4.	Does the government propose to take any action as a result of these representations?


Alfred Dryden Hales: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes. Replies were to the effect that consideration was being given to the whole metropolitan area. In the meantime steps are being taken to increase efficiency of services being provided to North York.
4.	See 3.


FEASIBILITY STUDY, PITT RIVER CANAL, B.C.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works undertaken a feasibility study of the proposal to build a canal along the ancient river bed of the Fraser to connect the Pitt river to Burrard Inlet and, if not, are there reasons for not undertaking this study and what are they?
2.	What is the estimated cost of such a feasibility study?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the proposed project?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. No feasibility study has been undertaken as information now before the department is not sufficient to form the basis of justification for expenditures on such a study. However a final decision has been left in abeyance pending the receipt of further information from a local group.
2.	$25,000.
3.	Tentatively estimated at $25,000,000.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATION, MILAN FAIR
Mr. Badanai: 1.	On what grounds was the government's decision taken not to participate in the 1962 world's fair at Milan, Italy?
2.	Has the government received representations from Canadian and Italian businessmen protesting the absence of a Canadian exhibit at Milan?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. Current regulations with respect to exhibits at the Milan trade fair do not permit a composite exhibit of Canadian products in one area under the banner of "Canada". Each commodity is consigned to one of more than a hundred merchandise sections reserved for that particular type of product. Official government displays are

limited to trade information offices in one building, the international trade centre.
Canada conducted a trade information office in Milan in 1961. The number of inquiries received was so small (38) that participation in 1962 did not appear to be justified. The Department of Trade and Commerce has included a trade information office at the Milan trade fair in tentative plans for 1964 as well as a Canadian fur salon at Milan in March of the same year.
2. No representations have been made to the Department of Trade and Commerce by Canadian or Italian businessmen protesting the absence of a Canadian exhibit.


ILLEGAL LOBSTER CATCHES, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. McWilliam: 1. What is the fisheries department estimated dollar value, or total quantity landed, of illegal catches of lobsters in the maritime provinces for the years 1959, 1960. 1961?
2. What is the estimated fisheries department dollar value, or total quantity, of illegal catches of lobsters in Miramichi waters for the years 1959,
1960,	1961?


John Angus MacLean: 1. It is not possible to estimate the dollar value or the total quantity landed of illegal catches of lobsters. The only indication is that given by the numbers found in infractions discovered and released from traps set illegally. This data indicates that in certain areas dollar value and quantities are substantial.
2. Answered by No. 1.


FISHERMEN'S COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL LOBSTER FISHING
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 718
Mr. McWilliam:: Has the government received representations requesting the formation of a committee, comprised of fishermen, to assist government efforts to curb illegal lobster fishing in the maritime provinces and, if so, has a decision been reached in this connection?


John Angus MacLean: No representations have reached government and so a decision has not been reached in this matter.


SALMON TAKEN FOR SPAWNING, MIRAMICHI WATERS
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What was the number of fall-run salmon taken from Miramichi waters for the fisheries department for spawning, for the years 1958, 1959, 1960,
1961,	1962?
2.	Were the 1961 and 1962 catches less than the required numbers?


John Angus MacLean: 1. 1958, 2,800; 1959, 2,800; 1960, 2,827; 1961, 1,774; 1962, 2,196 (to October 27).
2. Yes.


SALMON FISHING WEEK END TIE-UP REGULATIONS
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has the government received a request for a change in the Miramichi salmon fishing week end tie-up regulations seeking a period of low water nearest 8 a.m. Saturdays to low water nearest 8 a.m. Mondays and, if so, has a decision been reached in this matter?
2.	If no decision has been reached, when is it expected a decision can be reached?


John Angus MacLean: 1. The government has not received a request for a change in existing weekly tie-up regulations for the Miramichi salmon fishing area.
2. If such representations are received a decision can be reached in ample time for application to the 1963 season.


JUNE RUN ATLANTIC SALMON SPAWNING
Mr. McWilliam: Questions
Have previous efforts in the spawning of June run Atlantic salmon been continued of late years and, if so, does the Department of Fisheries consider it advisable to proceed with a large scale spawning program as now conducted for fall run Atlantic salmon?


John Angus MacLean: Experiments in the spawning and transfer of early run salmon have continued. While results are encouraging the Department of Fisheries does not yet consider it advisable to recommend a large scale program. Any such program would be limited in scope by the existing scarcity of large populations of early run fish.


SALMON RESTOCKING, MIRAMICHI WATERS
Mr. McWilliam: What was the total number of salmon fry placed in Miramichi waters for restocking for the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961?


John Angus MacLean: Fry
1958	  810,000
1959	  540,000
1960	  810,000
1961	  1,417,000
Fingerlings
1,248,600
2,180,000
2,140,750
1,309,420
Yearlings and Older 91,278 85,650 80,600 10,380
Total
2,149,878
2,805,650
3,031,350
2,736,800


VALUE OF MIRAMICHI FISHERIES
Mr. McWilliam: What was the total landed value of all species of Miramichi fisheries for each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Value of landings, Miramichi fisheries (districts 70, 71, 72 and 73), 1958-61 (excluding angling):	1958, $722,900; 1959,
$722,000; 1960, $770,700; 1961, $603,500.


C.M.H.C. PROGRAM &quot;AN EVENING OF FILMS&quot;
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Was a free program of public entertainment entitled "An evening of films", presented in the National Museum Theatre, Ottawa, on October 23, 1962, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, if so, under what statutory authority?
2.	What was the cost of advertising and presenting this program?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. Yes. The "Evening of Films" was a part of the corporation's continuing program of public information and education. Statutory authority for this program is contained in part V of the National Housing Act.
2. Advertising, $120 (printing and mailing of circulars). Presentation of films, $15.50 (projectionist $10; film rentals $5.50).


LIGHTHOUSE WATCHMAN, HEATH POINT, ANTICOSTI ISLAND
Mr. Legare: Has the civil service commission held an examination for the position of junior watchman of the lighthouse at Heath Point, Anticosti island, in 1961 and, if so (a) how many applications were received by the commission (b) who was the successful candidate (c) whom did he replace and (d) for what reason was the person who formerly held the position replaced?


George Ernest Halpenny: Competition 61-M1081 was
advertised on September 11, 1961, for the position of lightkeeper 4 (junior lightkeeper- light and radiobeacon) Heath Point, Anticosti island, Saguenay county, P.Q.
(a)	Applications were received from 17 persons.
(b)	The successful candidate was Mr. Roger St-Pierre, who was entitled to the statutory preference for war service.
(c)	This was a new position and, therefore, there was no previous incumbent.
(d)	See (c) above.


*LONG POINT, ONT.  CUT AT NARROWS
Mr. Roxburgh: Has the feasibility of a cut at the narrows of Dong Point been studied and, if so, has the government decided to proceed with the project?

Questions


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, a feasibility study has been carried out and it has been decided not to proceed with this project at the present time.


PROVINCE OF ONTARIO TRADE CRUSADE
Mr. Laing: 1.	Has the Department of Trade and Commerce co-operated with the province of Ontario in its so-called trade crusade and, if so, have the trade commissioners abroad been asked to assist missions from the province which have visited European countries?
2.	Were letters of introduction and other assistance provided the Hon. Mr. Macaulay on his recent visit to Japan?
3.	Has the Department of Trade and Commerce been apprised of the proposals of the province to equate the trade imbalance at present existing between Canada and Japan, and does it support the plan of the province?
4.	Have any proposals been received from the province either respecting Japanese investment or national tariff policy?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. Trade commissioners of the Department of Trade and Commerce stationed in Europe have been informed of the missions from Ontario visiting European countries and have been asked to extend to members of these missions any assistance that may be requested by them in the province's efforts to expand Canadian exports.
2.	The assistance of the department's officers in Tokyo was offered to the Hon. Mr. Macaulay on his recent visit to Japan.
3.	No, the Department of Trade and Commerce has not been apprised of proposals of the province of Ontario to equate the trade imbalance at present existing between Canada and Japan.
4.	No proposals have been received in the Department of Trade and Commerce from the province of Ontario respecting either Japanese investment or national tariff policy.


TRADE MISSIONS TO EEC COUNTRIES
Mr. Nicholson: 1.	Since June 30, 1962, how many trade missions, organized and/or promoted by the Canadian government, have there been to countries included in the European economic community?
2.	What industries were represented on each such mission?
3.	What representatives did such industries and the government have on each such mission?
4.	How were the individual members who comprised such missions chosen or appointed?
5.	Have all such missions submitted reports to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or other representative of government?
6.	Are copies of any such reports available for study by members of this house and others interested, and, if not, is it expected that copies will be made available and, if so, when?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. Since June 30, 1962, three trade missions organized by the Canadian government have been to countries included in the European economic community.

2.	Leather tanners, timber exporters and frozen fish producers were the three industries represented by these three missions.
3.	The leather mission included the following members: Mr. E. Lees Owram, president, The Collis Leather Co. Ltd., Aurora, Ont.; Mr. Albert Cook, president, Barrie Tanning Ltd., Barrie, Ont.; Mr. Jack Moore, vicepresident (sales), Dominion Tanner Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.; Mr. George Cossar, assistant general manager, A. R. Clarke & Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont.; Mr. Charles F. Payan, vice president and general manager, Duclos & Payan Ltd., St. Hyacinthe, Que.; Mr. Wesley J. Beatty, president and general manager, Beardmore & Co. Ltd., Acton, Ont.; Mr. Wallace L. Herman, commodity officer, textiles and consumer goods division, Department of Trade and Commerce.
The timber mission included the following members: Mr. Robert F. Koerner, president, Trans-Continental Lumber Products Association, Vancouver, B.C.; Mr. A. H. Balison, president and general manager, Pacific Overland Timber Ltd., Kamloops, B.C.; Mr. G. M. Wilmot, president, Norman M. Smith Ltd., Prince George, B.C.; Mr. C. H. Sproule, president and general manager, Riverdale Lumber Ltd., Truro, Nova Scotia; Mr. H. P. O'Hagan, general manager, Seaboard Lumber Sales Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.; Mr. J. B. Murray, assistant manager, overseas sales division, MacMillan, Bloedel & Powell River Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.; Mr. J. E. Baechler, treasurer, Goderich Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Goderich, Ont.; Mr. Bruce W. Collins, general manager, North West Lumber Sales Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.; Mr. Joseph Miyazawa, director of research and education, International Woodworkers of America, Vancouver, B.C.; Mr. G. E. Bell, general manager, Canadian Lumbermen's Association, Ottawa, Ont.; Mr. J. C. Martel, president, Northwood Lumber Inc., Pont-Viau, Montreal, P.Q.; Mr. A. G. Muir-head, vice president, Gillies Brothers & Co., Braeside, Ont.; Mr. D. O. Cleland, vice president, British Canadian Pitwood Ltd., Newcastle, N.B.; Mr. Edward J. Loewen, president, C.T. Loewen & Sons Ltd., Steinbach, Man.; Mr. O. Hickie, forest products division, commodities branch, Department of Trade and Commerce.
The frozen fish mission included the following members: Mr. Henry Harm, regional director of organization and education (Atlantic provinces), Canadian Labour Congress; Mr. Antonin Proulx, economic intelligence, economics service, Department of Fisheries, Ottawa, Ont.; Mr. J. E. Antonelli, manager, Canadian and export sales, Fishermen's Cooperative Federation, Prince Rupert, B.C.; Mr. John H. Lebreton, vice president of Robin,

Jones and Whitman Ltd.. Halifax, N.S.; Mr. Paul P. Russell, general manager of Bonavista Cold Storage Co. Ltd., St. John's, Newfoundland; Mr. W. O. Morrow, director and general sales manager of Ocean Fisheries Ltd. and National Sea Products Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Mr. T. Ray Kinsella, chief, fisheries division, Department of Trade and Commerce.
4.	The individual members from industry who comprised these missions were chosen for their considered ability to compete as well as to expand and penetrate into foreign markets. The labour representatives on these missions were nominated by their unions which were related to the industries covered by the mission.
5.	These three missions have returned from Europe only recently. Their reports are now in preparation and will be submitted for publication after each member has completed his contribution.
6.	Copies of these reports will be made available to anyone interested in them when they are published, probably before the end of December.


TRADE MISSIONS PROMOTING PREFABRICATED HOUSES
Mr. Nicholson: Have timber or other trade missions that have visited South and Central America or other countries of the world explored the possibilities for sale in these countries of prefabricated houses made of specially treated plywood or other Canadian forest products and, if so, what information was obtained by the missions relative to the prospects for sale of such houses?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: One trade mission, the Canadian wood products mission to Britain, last April, did explore the possibilities for sale of prefabricated wooden houses. The report of that mission was published in September and copies are available on request. Among other things, the mission reported that Britain is not yet ready for imported prefabs, for the following reasons:
1.	The high cost and scarcity of building lots.
2.	The desire to utilize land with higher density housing.
3.	The reluctance of leading institutions to loan money on wooden houses.
4.	The building bylaws which restrict the construction of houses made from combustible material.
5.	Increased cost of fire insurance.
6.	The general preference in Britain for brick and mortar as building materials.
27507-3-103
Questions


PETTY HARBOUR, NFLD., BAIT DEPOT
Mr. Tucker: Has the government been requested to supply a bait depot at Petty Harbour, Newfoundland, and, if so, has any decision been made in this regard?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, in 1958. Need at other locations considered more pressing.


* AMENDMENT OF TRI-SERVICE VOTING ORDER
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Was a tri-service order issued before the general election of 1962 pursuant to rule 29 of the Canadian forces voting rules, and, if so, was any request made to have that order amended, and by whom was any such request made?
2.	Was the tri-service order amended and, if so, on what date and to what effect?
3.	What steps were taken to assure that any such amendment was drawn to the attention of all parliamentary candidates?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 1. Yes, a tri-service order was issued some months prior to the general election of 1962, which contained a paragraph incorporating the provisions of rule 29 of the Canadian forces voting rules. Requests were received from commanding officers to permit the giving of a copy of unit lists of Canadian forces electors to candidates on request.
2.	Yes, the tri-service order was amended on 27 April, 1962, permitting a commanding officer to provide a copy of his unit list of Canadian forces electors to an officially nominated candidate or accredited representative on his written request.
3.	No steps were taken to draw to the attention of candidates either the original tri-service order or the amendment as the minimum statutory obligation of the services is set out in Rule 29 of the Canadian forces voting rules (schedule II of the Canada Elections Act).


*DATA FOR CUSTOMS TARIFF SURCHARGES
Mr. Pickersgill: Was consideration given specifically between April 1, 1962, and June 18, 1962, to the preparation of data on which recent customs tariff surcharges were based?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.
Preference of elections act to standing


COMMITTEE
Mr. Roxburgh: Will the government give consideration, at this session of parliament, to a reference of the Canada Elections Act to the standing committee on privileges and elections for the purpose of considering the reduction of the period of time between the issue of writs of elections and the date the said writs are made returnable?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the usual answer would be that the matter of government policy would be announced in the usual

Orders for Returns
way. However, this matter can be given consideration, for I am one of those who on the basis of experience believe that the period between the issue of the writ and election day is too long having regard to modern day communications.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Morris: What steps Is the Canadian National Railway Company taking to carry out its statutory obligation to direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea that is consigned within Canada for carriage to the company either at point or origin or between that and the sea shall, unless it has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise. be exported through Canadian seaports?



*QUEBEC


Mr. Rinfrel: 1.	What universities and secondary schools in the province of Quebec have been visited by the officials of the civil service commission with a view to promoting recruitment of candidates for civil service examinations?
2.	What university publications and other periodicals of the province of Quebec carry advertisements of the various positions opened to graduates of institutions of learning?
3.	What universities in the province of Quebec and faculties within the said universities receive, for their graduates, brochures, notices, circulars, application forms, and other information concerning the various positions likely to attract students?


George Ernest Halpenny: Return tabled.



OLD AGE PENSION RESIDENCE CLAUSE, OVERSEAS VETERANS

Mr. Martin (Essex East): In the case of war veterans having overseas service, has the government received representations to waive the 25-year residence clause for old age pensioners who wish to remain outside Canada for more than six months and, if so, from whom have representations been received, and what reply was made?



PROPERTY TRANSFERS, PETERBOROUGH, ONT.

Mr. Fisher: Has the federal government bought or sold any property in the city of Peterborough since January 1, 1961, and, if so, who were the lawyers or sellers, and what was the price?



EMPLOYEES IN FEDERAL BUILDING, PETERBOROUGH, ONT.

Mr. Fisher: How many federal employees are at present employed in the federal building in Peterborough, and how many were employed in 1961, 1960, 1959?



*HALIFAX-DARTMOUTH, N.S.    FREEZE ON PREVAILING RATES

Mr. Morris: How many prevailing rates employees in Halifax-Dartmouth and area are affected by the freeze on wages adjustments announced November 6?



* WINTER WORKS, ST. MAURICE-LAFLECHE CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Lamy: 1.	Does the government intend to proceed this year with the construction of a post office for the parish of St. Paul de Grand'Mere?
2.	Will any winter works be undertaken in the constituency of St. Maurice-Lafieche this year.



DISPOSAL OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Knowles: 1.	(a) What was the policy of the federal government from 1950 to 1955 with regard to the transferring of buildings formerly used by the federal government (former post office buildings and others) to municipal bodies (b) were they turned over gratis or sold (c) if they were sold, on what basis was the price determined?
2.	Has there been any change in the above noted policy since 1955, and, if so, (a) when were changes made therein (b) what changes were made?
3.	What is the present policy regarding such buildings when municipal bodies are interested in obtaining them?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Gregoire:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the evidence given by Messrs. Towers and Coyne before the royal commission on banking and finance.
(Text):
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that no transcript of the evidence given by these witnesses before the royal commission on banking and finance was made. Therefore there is no point in ordering production of it. Mr. Towers presented a memorandum to the commission, which has been made public. I have two copies of this memorandum which I would table, with the permission of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion in effect is a nullity, in that the Prime Minister has indicated that there is no such transcript of the evidence given by the gentlemen mentioned in the motion. However, the Prime Minister has indicated that by leave of the house he would seek to lay upon the table of the house a copy of the brief prepared by Mr. Towers. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, therefore, would stand withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn. (Translation):



CONTRACT FOR WHEAT SALE TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Cook:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the contract between the Canadian government and communist China concerning the sale of a certain quantity of wheat.
(Text):
Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Speaker, this motion for the production of papers is similar in a way to the previous motion, in that there is no such document between the government of Canada and communist China.
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture states that there is no contract between the Canadian government and red China concerning the sale of wheat. Under the circumstances the motion is null and should be withdrawn.


Mr. Cook:: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the motion but I find it odd that there should be neither a contract nor an invoice concerning that sale. I was in business before and never have I seen such a thing.


Mr. Speaker:: It still remains that the motion deals with the return of a certain document. If there is no such document, the motion is null.
(Text):



CANAL TO CONNECT PITT RIVER WITH BURRARD INLET

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Douglas:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Minister of Public Works and any other person or persons regarding the advisability of undertaking the construction of a canal along the ancient river bed of the Fraser to connect the Pitt river with Burrard inlet.
Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the administration I would like to say we are prepared to accept this motion, subject only to the usual reservation regarding privileged or confidential correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation of the minister is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
27507-3-103J
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to reports that a Soviet fishing fleet is operating in the bay of Fundy; and, if these reports are accurate, what action does the government propose to take in this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Only just before I came into the house did I receive any notice in that connection; I received a telegram from the premier of the province of New Brunswick. I have looked back over the years to various questions which have appeared in Hansard as to whether or not the three mile limit applies in certain areas such as the bay of Fundy, and when the question has received the attention of the departments in this respect a determination of action will be made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it not a fact that in the past
Canadian governments have protested against fishing by United States vessels in the bay of Fundy?


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the question which was asked earlier. Naturally that is the type of question which requires notice in order that the situation may be looked into. I was dealing particularly with the Soviet vessels allegedly there, and because of the interest taken by the hon. gentleman in this subject I suggest that reference be made to Hansard of 1957-58 at page 1168. There have been other occasions as well, for example on February 8, 1949, when a discussion of this question of territorial waters along our east coast was entered upon in the house and an answer given by the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent.



NUCLEAR TESTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam the minister said that no representations had been made to the United Kingdom regarding its forthcoming nuclear test in Nevada. Will the minister tell the house whether the government is going to make any representations before the test takes place, in order to persuade the United Kingdom to abandon this test?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I explained yesterday that the United Kingdom as well as other nations already know Canada's position with regard to these tests.



ARGENTINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister inform the house whether negotiations have been successfully concluded for the production at Trenton, Nova Scotia, and Sorel, Quebec, of rolling stock for railways operated by the government of Argentina?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have nothing to report for the moment. I will check with my department to find out whether that transaction has moved along any further, and report tomorrow.


John B. Stewart: I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder how the hon. member can justify a supplementary question when the minister merely says he is going to inquire and report back?


John B. Stewart: Perhaps I could state my question and you could rule on it, Mr. Speaker. I was about to ask the minister whether newspaper reports quoting "an informed government source" are accurate, and, if so, whether that source is in his own department.


George Harris Hees: I have not seen the report. [Later:]


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add to an answer I gave to a question asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. There is nothing further to report. I am advised that the expression of opinion by the official of the company is more in the form of a hope than anything concrete at the present time.
(Translation):



CONTRACT FOR WHEAT SALE TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell the house if the contract entered into with communist China for the sale of wheat was signed by the Canadian wheat board?

(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the answer to his question must be precise. The word "communist" China in this question is the wrong word. If he will put his question on the order paper I will try and get the details for him.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Cook: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I will strike out the word "communist" and I ask the minister to let me have his answer in writing, if it is of any length.
(Text):


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question. Would the minister be as frank with the house as he is in his statements outside the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think on reflection the hon. member will recognize that that question is hardly one to be put at this time. (Translation):


Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Speaker, did I hear the Minister of Agriculture say that he agreed to send me a written answer?


Mr. Pigeon:: You can check in tomorrow's report.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I had suggested that I thought, because of the details required, the proper place for the question was the order paper. If the hon. member will accept a letter from me giving the details, I will send him one.

(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, whose answer will probably influence the stand of the members in this corner of the house.
Is it the intention of the government to keep on trading with enemy countries on a confidence basis rather than on a business basis?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a proper question for the orders of the day. If it were, I should be very quick to answer it.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON U.S. INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priliie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Before putting it

some of my former colleagues, on seeing me proceeding to the House of Commons and knowing my position in this chamber, said they would send me a pair of binoculars. I think perhaps I will get them to send me another set, but to be used in the other direction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members will appreciate that there is a proportion of members in each of the parties and the Chair endeavours as much as possible to balance them out. Some hon. members tend to ask more questions than others, and they just have to take their turn. I endeavour to do the best I can here, and I can readily see the hon. member.


Robert William Prittie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; no reflection on you at all. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister any further report to give the house concerning the United States tariff commission inquiry into the import of Canadian lumber?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it was to me that the question was originally put by the hon. member, and I think he would like me to answer it. I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The Minister of Forestry gave the house on October 10 an interim report on the hearings being held by the United States tariff commission in connection with imports of softwood lumber. Since that time the commission has concluded its public hearings and is now studying this matter, including the public evidence. The commission's report will be made public in due course. The commission has until April, 1963 to report to the president under the procedures of the new trade expansion act.
We consider that the Canadian industry, during the course of the public hearings, made an impressive case for not disturbing the present terms of access to the United States market for Canadian softwood lumber. As I have mentioned in the house before, the Canadian government had co-operated fully with the industry in the preparation of its submission.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: 1 should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Was yesterday's move to reduce the
Inquiries of the Ministry bank rate from 5 per cent to 4 per cent initiated by the government or by the Bank of Canada?
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of
Finance): The bank rate is a matter under the direct control of the bank. However, the governor of the bank discussed the matter with me and advised me of the contemplated action, to which I agreed, before the announcement was made.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In view of the minister's reply, I wonder whether he would indicate the position of the government as to responsibility for monetary policy in Canada and the relationship between the government and the bank.


George Clyde Nowlan: As and when I bring down the budget, I shall be glad to develop that subject at length in my speech.


Mr. John H. Addison (York North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with the announcement this morning of the new bank rate-an announcement which is usually made on a Friday evening-supposedly because of a sharp increase in foreign reserves. Would the minister explain to the house, then, why the Canadian dollar dropped in value last week?
(Translation):


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the house whether the yearly profits of the Bank of Canada are turned over to the federal treasury?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether that is a question which should be asked on orders of the day, but I did happen to look at the matter yesterday owing to a previous question which had been asked. This is governed by statute, the Bank of Canada Act, under which, after certain reserve funds are established, all profits are paid to the receiver general.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance and it is this. Why was the announcement of the reduction of the Bank of Canada interest rate made on the most recent occasion in the middle of the week instead of being made, as

Inquiries of the Ministry I think is customary, at the end of the week? Is there any significance to be attached to that event?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the governor of the Bank of Canada is free, white and twenty-one, and he can make a statement on Tuesday afternoon just as well as on Friday afternoon.
(Translation):



MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In connection with the current royal commission on banking, using the necessary sources of information to consider amendments to be made to the Bank Act in 1964, does not the Prime Minister deem appropriate that members from all parties attend as observers the proceedings of that royal commission on banking?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the Prime Minister's opinion, which is out of order.
(Text):


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would he consider amending the order in council appointing the royal commission on banking and finance to require the commission to hold all its hearings in public?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been no request on the part of the royal commission for any change in its powers, and the government sees no reason why it should so order.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: A moment ago I made a motion for a return of the full written evidence given by Messrs. Towers and Coyne. If, as an alternative, there were some minutes, could those be returned?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member did not hear the question just put by the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin); it was the same as his own.


Gilles Grégoire: Maybe the both of us teaming up together could obtain a reply.
(Text):


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman has just

tabled a memorandum containing a summary of the statements made by Mr. Towers before the royal commission on banking. May I ask him if a similar summary of the remarks of Mr. Coyne is available, and would the Prime Minister table that if it is available?


John George Diefenbaker: My information is that Mr. Towers preceded his presentation by a document, and that there was no document presented by any other witness.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Could the Prime Minister tell us whether minutes were taken of the evidence given by Mr. Coyne, and, in the event they were, could those minutes be tabled?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no knowledge in that regard. As to whether minutes were taken by the royal commission and whether they should be placed before the house, that would be a matter for the commission until the representations had been heard and recommendations made by that commission.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: In view of the importance of this matter, would the Prime Minister be good enough to ascertain whether the royal commissioners have any objection to such production in order that the house may become better informed on this important matter?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
It has always been said that the most mysterious questions in Canada were those concerning money. Does the Prime Minister not believe that it would be time to clarify these mysterious questions by admitting the public to the sittings of the royal commission on banking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty to recall to the hon. member that supplementary questions should not be opportunities to state opinions or to start a discussion.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister of Canada.
Does the Prime Minister consider that the reduction in interest rate by the Bank of Canada announced this morning and yesterday represents an alleviation in his austerity program?

(Text):
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): I think it has been made clear over and over again, Mr. Speaker, that there is no austerity program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Translation) :


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question in order to know if he has always stated clearly that there was no austerity program. Could the Prime Minister tell us when he clearly stated that there was no austerity program?
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: No sir, no sir.



LOBSTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Finance if he has yet ascertained whether there is any surcharge on live lobsters and, if so, whether any action will be taken to remove it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: If there was, Mr. Speaker, it must have been removed by the order this afternoon, because that was not included among the luxury products which were not dealt with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister whether he would give his answer so it could be heard?


George Clyde Nowlan: I said that if there was a surcharge on lobsters it must have been removed this afternoon, because I am sure the hon. member will agree that lobsters are a luxury item, and they were not included in the luxury items which were not dealt with by the exceptions today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question. Could the minister ascertain whether there was any surcharge up to now and, if so, arrange to have a drawback for any re-exports?


George Clyde Nowlan: I will deal with that when the bill is before the house, Mr. Speaker, in its early stages.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question regarding his announcement today about surcharges. Fresh beef was mentioned, and I was wondering whether that includes livestock and cattle coming in?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is aware of the protest made by the Ontario federation of agriculture concerning the use of milk by the Department of National Health and Welfare as an index of radioactive fall-out, thus giving the impression that it is a dangerous food item, and whether he is prepared, either today or at the next sitting, to explain why milk is being used as an index in this respect and whether an alternative index could be used.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I saw the article in the paper this morning myself. I would be very pleased to comment on it further, but at the moment I can only say that milk is the substance which has been found most appropriate for use in this respect.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the retreat from austerity signalled by the hon. gentleman's announcement, a short time ago, of the further removal of surcharges, and the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada of a general easing of credit, can we expect the minister very shortly to turn his warm, benevolent gaze on the civil servant's pay scale and thaw the freeze there?


George Clyde Nowlan: I should hate to cool the expectation which arises in the heart of the hon. gentleman. I appreciate very much the reference to the kindly warmth of my eyes, and they are particularly warm when I look on the civil servants.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):	AGRICULTURE



APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR OF TAXATION DIVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of National Revenue a question of which I have already given him notice.
Could the minister tell us if the post of director of the income tax division, in the district of Ottawa, requires that the incumbent be bilingual and who has the power to decide in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to tell the hon. member that such a question is not in order during the question period. Were the same information requested about the Vancouver, Edmonton or Calgary offices, that could go on well into the evening.
Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.
(Text):



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Teillei (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, this is a follow up to a question I put on Monday, when Your Honour directed me to ask it at this time. I would ask the Secretary of State when question No. 366 will be answered.


George Ernest Halpenny: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary could answer it. On October 31 I asked the minister what action his department was taking to alleviate the emergency situation in regard to the tie-up of ships on the Welland canal and the shortage of pilots in the Port Weller-Sarnia division of the St. Lawrence seaway, and the minister replied that his department was investigating the situation. In the meantime the situation had grown rapidly worse. Would the minister inform the house what action is being taken by the Department of Transport as a result of this investigation?


James Alexander McBain: May I take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker?



REPORTED OFFER TO PURCHASE BY EAST GERMANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of a report in last night's Ottawa Citizen by Norman Campbell that East Germany was interested in the purchase of 10,000 tons of Canada's surplus butter at a price between 31 and 34 cents. My question is this. Has the agricultural prices stabilization board received any such offer, or has any such offer been given consideration by the government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the stabilization board receives scores of offers from merchants all over the world to buy butter at concessional prices. Concessional prices are those much below what we support the prices at, and in some cases lower than world prices. So far we have refused to accept any of these offers, on the obvious ground that we have obligations to our trading partners in the world. We are trying to sell butter on a commercial basis.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister knows whether any offer was made such as that I have referred to?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no way of knowing, Mr. Speaker, what offers have been made in the last few days. They are being made all the time.
(Translation):



REQUEST FOR RETURN OF PREMIUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the relaxation which has just been announced by the Minister of Finance, is it not the opinion of the minister that it would be high time to restore the premium on hogs which, following the establishment of the austerity program, was either cancelled or reduced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Bernard Dumont: - for approximately 200 hogs per family farm?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will agree that his question is out of order since he is taking that opportunity to express an opinion and to present certain arguments.


Bernard Dumont: My question is very simple, Mr. Speaker. I just want to know whether the premium on hogs will be restored.

(Text):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour and, in doing so, may I offer him, I am sure on behalf of all of us, our very warmest congratulations on his birthday today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I had better change my question and ask the minister if he is now in a position to tell us when we may expect the report of the Gill commission which for many months now has been inquiring into the present state of the unemployment insurance fund, somewhat contributed to by this administration.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind words, Mr. Speaker, and to advise him that I am just as anxious as he is to know when the Gill commission will make its report. Upon inquiry I am told that the French translation is holding it up at the moment, and they are trying to put it together.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the drop in the interest rate, as announced by the Bank of Canada, can the minister say when we may expect an announcement of a reduction in National Housing Act interest rates?


George Clyde Nowlan: As the hon. member well knows, Mr. Speaker, he will get the conventional answer. When changes are made in government policy they will be announced at the proper time and in the proper place.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. B. Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of urgent importance of the Minister of Labour, to whom I have given notice in writing. In view of the ruling of the board of broadcast governors with respect to the Grey cup telecast, will the Minister of Labour inform the house of the amount of additional remuneration the players will receive, as they will be performing before a greatly increased audience?
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



REPORTED DELAY IN DELIVERY OF &quot;HANSARD&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which is of the same nature as my question of privilege of a fortnight ago when I pointed out that my office had received certain complaints concerning the delayed delivery of Hansard to subscribers.
The Postmaster General said that if I gave her a list of the people who complained, she would look into the matter. I provided her with a list the same day.
Now, I want to point out that the people in question received only yesterday, Tuesday, November 13, their copy of Hansard for Wednesday of last week, that is the November 7 edition. Will that situation be corrected?


Mr. Speaker:: I should think that the hon. member could communicate directly with the minister in that connection. If we were to examine the delay in the delivery of certain issues of Hansard or of certain letters, we would spend the whole day on the matter.
(Text):



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if encouragement will be given to the board of broadcast governors to rescind their recent ruling, as the chairman of the board in a new announcement indicates they might very well be willing to do.


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, there will be no encouragement given by this government to the B.B.G. or to the C.B.C. They too are twenty-one, white and free. They can make up their own minds.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question. This is the second reference we have had to this phrase "free, white and twenty-one". I wonder whether the Secretary of State will explain what he means by it. There seems to be some element of prejudice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Malheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Were Canada's NATO forces

Supply-Agriculture
criticized on Monday last in Paris by General Norstad for being either under strength or underequipped?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and I should think it extremely unlikely, because, as I indicated yesterday, Canada has met her force goals as laid down by NATO.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch-
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, $1,003,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, usually in introducing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture the minister reviews the highlights of the expenditures and sometimes he takes some aspect of agriculture and gives a particular review of it. Last Monday an attempt was made to adjourn the business of the house in order to discuss my speech to the Saskatchewan wheat pool. Therefore that makes it very clear and necessary for me to open my remarks by discussing that speech and some of the remarks made about it by other people.
Needless to say, I was surprised at the leader of the New Democratic party taking the position he did in regard to the operation of the Canadian wheat board. To say the least, he could not be more wrong in his understanding of how the wheat board operates. However, I shall refer to that part of the subject later in my remarks.
In putting forward to the Saskatchewan wheat pool two propositions for consideration and discussion by western Canadian farmers during the next few months, I was doing what I have always done and what I promised the farmers I would do, namely, to discuss with them first all matters affecting them personally before bringing such matters forward for government consideration.
Mr. Chairman, anyone who has observed my methods of operation during the last few years will fully recognize that I have used this technique of consultation over and over again, and I would suggest that the course I have followed in stimulating discussion has been warmly welcomed by farmers. It has brought about a spirit of co-operation between the minister and the farmers and their organizations which has not existed for a good many years.
[Mr. Matheson.l
As an example of this type of technique I would point out that one of the first moves I made on becoming Minister of Agriculture was to speak in many parts of the country outlining the government's long range national development and national agricultural program. After doing that I would raise questions with the farmers about things we thought should be discussed, such as the problems of farmers in marginal areas and on marginal land, and would raise queries about such matters as the low income of certain sections of the farm economy.
To stimulate discussion I put forward suggestions myself and I asked for other ideas. Hon. members will remember I was called many things such as "the pothole farmer," and "the Christmas tree minister." Such names and epithets were hurled at me because I used the technique of discussing with farmers the problems that existed, and asked for their advice on how the problems should be met. As I say, I did this in order to get their reactions, so that then I might come before my colleagues with something I knew had been tried and tested in the minds of the people who were going to be affected by it.
As a result of such direct discussions with farmers, farm organizations and government leaders at other levels, we were able to introduce a rehabilitation and development act which is now receiving the enthusiastic co-operation of ten provincial governments together with the co-operation of farm organizations and thousands of farmers and ordinary Canadians all across the dominion. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, even though the ten master agreements have been signed, and even though between 75 and 100 project agreements are now before the federal government for consideration, I am still discussing ARDA with those I feel can offer something tangible for its improvement.
As late as last Monday, when the discussion to which I have referred arose in the house, I spent two hours with the farm writers of Canada discussing ARDA. I put forward suggestions at the meeting with them, 1 received suggestions in return and all I can say is that the policy is working.
Another example of the same sort of technique stems from the introduction by the previous minister of agriculture of the Farm Credit Act. He promised the house that as soon as sufficient experience was gained and if there were any ideas forthcoming that would improve the legislation, they would be brought before the house. In fact at this very moment we have as an item of business amendments to the Farm Credit Act.


Hazen Robert Argue: I moved them.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I shall come to the hon. gentleman later. I have discussed farm credit with farmers who have received it and with farmers who have not. I have discussed it with government officials and bank officials. I have raised it in public discussions pointing out what I thought were ideas to improve it, and I got the farmers' reactions to those ideas. As a result of all that we are now introducing amendments to the act which will not only make it more flexible but will make it, as it was described by the New Democratic party, most revolutionary legislation. One does not get that kind of comment from the N.D.P. unless it is really something they have not thought of.
What is the contribution of the hon. member for Assiniboia to this debate? Day after day he tells us that this amending bill does not do justice to the small farmer. In reply I would say to him, let him read what the agricultural commentators are saying about his position and what he is doing. Not only does the bill help small farmers in its present form but it will help them even more as a result of the consultations I have had with farmers across the country. He has the nerve to stand up in this august chamber and talk about horses. He says horses are not mentioned in this act. He is trying to follow in the footsteps of a previous member from Saskatchewan who was minister of agriculture at a time when farmers could not sell their grain because they were producing too much of it, and the then minister urged them to turn their grain fields back into pastures to feed horses. This is the horsepower member over there now. He has mentioned that he introduced amendments into this act. These amendments were nonsensical.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So nonsensical that you accepted them.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In effect, all he wants to do is to be able to stand up and say he introduced amendments and the minister accepted them. I am only trying to do one thing, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to get good legislation on the statute books and constantly keep amending it. If it gives the hon. member any small, tactical victory to be able to go to the farmers and say he added something to the act, then as long as that amendment does not hurt the act I will accept it. I just want to get the act amended for those 2,000 or 3,000 farmers who want to benefit from it this winter. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the democratic process demands that there be discussion with citizens of the nation as well as discussion with hon. members in this house before legislation is passed.
The leader of the New Democratic party states, according to Hansard, that before
Supply-Agriculture
constituents discuss these two proposals, members of parliament should have the opportunity to discuss their implication. Such a doctrine would mean that the minister would have to seek approval of any suggestion he might wish to make to the government, farm organizations and so on, before he actually made it. The nonsensical nature of this approach is self-evident. However, I welcome the opportunity of repeating my remarks to the Saskatchewan wheat pool in the House of Commons. I am going to quote from the remarks that I made to the wheat pool last Friday. In opening my remarks I said:
There are two main subjects I would like to put on record today and I intend to introduce them in a manner which will provoke discussion.
Little did I realize how far that discussion would go.
Traditionally, what we say here is reserved for this room, but as far as I am concerned my remarks can be used publicly. The reasons for this are: first, part of my speech is for information purposes and I would like to reach as many people as possible, and-
I certainly did, thanks to some hon. members.
-second, I want to put forward a series of proposals which are in my mind in the hope that there will be public discussion during the winter of these matters.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would say the thesis of these remarks was simply that there was a great opportunity to sell even more of our wheat now if everybody pulls together; that was the thesis of the remarks I made. First, I pointed out in the tables which were attached to the speech the great use of credit and government assisted sales by the United States and Canada. In my remarks, I made known the tremendous credit sales made by Australia, Canada, France and the United States in the last few months. From this information I drew the conclusion that Canada's surplus position would not be the low position it is today if it had not been for this government's move into credit sales. I gave the relative figures. At the present time, under the Export Credits Insurance Act some $90 million is committed to insure wheat sales to Poland and Czechoslovakia. In addition, there were special government guarantees involving a credit of $100 million to mainland China.
I went on to point out that the government was planning to increase credit sales. I mentioned that the very first bill introduced in this very important session, when international payments are so much in our minds, was a bill to double the fund under section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act from $200 million to $400 million. In my speech, I outlined what the government did to get the world food program under FAO and

Supply-Agriculture
the United Nations into operation. Then, I elaborated as follows:-I wish hon. members would follow this closely because this is the basis of my later proposition-
Although food disposal under the auspices of either a multilateral world food program or bilateral action is good in itself, I believe that the potential in commercial fields is even more important. There are approximately two billion people in the newly developing countries of the world. Their main industry, at the moment, is agriculture. They usually produce one or more staple product and these products have a market characteristic similar to wheat prior to the acceptance of the first international wheat agreement. That is, prices and returns to producers tended to fluctuate widely and, as we well know in the prairies, these fluctuations caused most serious harm to farm Income and stability.
The Canadian government, through its membership in several international organizations, over the past year has been launching large-scale efforts to persuade the industrial nations of western Europe, which usually have food surpluses, to take the lead in setting up international commodity agreements, product by product. Some of these products are temperate foods that we produce and others are products from the warmer areas of the world in which most of the newly developing nations are found.
It is my thought that if we could give to these newly developing nations stabilized floor prices- through international commodity agreements-for their staple products, we could raise their standard of living to a marked degree. If we assumed that such a group of commodity agreements could increase the standard of living for these people by only one dollar per person annually, the tremendous potential market that would then become available is apparent. Certainly, for many years to come, a good proportion of that extra income would be spent on food. That is why I think there is some weight in my argument that the commercial potential for the sale of temperate foods in these newly developing countries far outweighs the reasonable expectations of a growth in world programs for free distribution of foods. Oddly enough, this type of approach makes the farmers at both ends of the trading arrangement happier.
This, Mr. Chairman, demonstrates how I was trying to develop the theme of increased new sales in new areas. I went on to state in the speech how the Canadian wheat board has set up a technical service for our customers and how the Canadian flour milling companies were co-operating by setting up mills in countries where we thought there could be an expansion for the consumption of bread. I emphasized the aggressive acts of this government now and in the future to increase sales.
Next I spoke of the very high levies which we have to overcome to get into the E.E.C. markets. Having demonstrated the increased competitiveness of the present world wheat markets, I asked their assistance in examining new techniques to increase sales. To that end I put forward two suggestions for their consideration during the months ahead. These suggestions may be accepted or rejected, but at least I feel that the farmers have a right to participate in discussions on these points

so that they will have some say in what they want to do. This technique that I have followed may be new to some here, but it is not new to the farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is new to the Prime Minister.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand the 1959 resolutions of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. Read these resolutions that were passed and you will find suggestions like this for sales promotion:
We recommend to the government of Canada that a levy of one tenth of a cent per bushel be deducted from an interim or the final payment on wheat to provide a fund, controlled by the producer, to be used in the promotion of increased utilization and sale of wheat and wheat products.
There is hardly a month passes that I do not have discussions with dairy producers, cheese producers and other producers and their organizations in general. The reason for this is simply that the great majority of farmers desire to help themselves and be independent. This has been forgotten by many politicians. Certainly I would think that today in western Canada many farmers are conscious of the fact that the higher prices they are now receiving did not all come from the devaluation of the dollar, but from the increased sales of our wheat which reduced our supplies, making it possible to have higher prices. They are aware of the significance of the Leader of the Opposition going as far away as he could from the western farmers, way down to Halifax, and making certain criticisms down there of the sales of wheat to communist China. They are very much aware of this.
I suggest, too, that the farmers of eastern Canada have become very much aware of his community of interest with the western farmers in maintaining their exports, because they know that when the western farmers export surplus grain it brings new opportunities to eastern farmers in hogs and cattle. I know that is so, both in price and in quantity sold. I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, that there is a difference between sales under the Export Credits Insurance Act and the special guarantee we have for China. This government has used the Export Credits Insurance Act more widely than ever before. It is clear that we intend to use it even more. That is why we doubled the amount under section 21. But it is an insurance act. There has to be some form of established credit rating before you can make loans under this act. Under this act, for instance, a businessman pays a premium which protects him for 85 per cent of his losses; the other 15 per cent he bears himself, if there is any loss. I think that businessmen are learning to use this act and are going to use it a great deal more.

Now I ask the committee to look at what the leader of the New Democratic party said.
I am quoting now from the Winnipeg Free Press of Monday, November 12. I do not think I need warn anybody from the west to be careful about the Winnipeg Free Press. It is the last stand of the nineteenth century Gladstonian Liberal. No one has succeeded yet in dragging them screaming into this century. But they certainly dragged somebody else screaming into this century. Listen to this. This is what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said:
He said that the suggestion that the prairie farmers should share a portion of losses on credit sales raised the question as to why a figure of $190 million should constitute a ceiling. At the present time the government accepts liabilities of up to $400 million under the Export Credits Insurance Act on commodities and products other than wheat, he pointed out.
It is sort of startling, I know. They went on to say:
"It is, therefore, difficult to understand why Mr. Hamilton should require participation by prairie wheat growers in order to persuade his colleagues to underwrite additional credit for the sale of wheat", said Mr. Douglas.
Mr. Chairman, we make no bones about it; we intend to give more credit for wheat or any other product. This was demonstrated by the introduction of the bill by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. New countries are entering the commercial markets, countries which have no credit rating at the beginning of their trading relations with the rest of us. We would like to do something for them, and special ratings have to be made. It is evident from the remarks I quoted from my speech in Regina that I believe there is a tremendous potential for new markets, that do not even exist today, in some of these newly developing nations. I use as an example Japan, where we have seen a change from a rice economy to one of a partial wheat economy, or at least a bread economy. Japan buys for cash, it is true, but there will be many countries which may be interested in using bread as a food and which will require some form of short range or medium type credit.
I cannot speak for the government ahead of these cases arising, as each case will have to be dealt with on its merits. The government is responsible to the people for the risks they take in any credit guarantees of a special nature, and it seemed to me that western farmers should be given the opportunity to consider that they, like businessmen, might be willing, in their own interests to share with the government in some of these operations outside the Export Credits Insurance Act entirely, because the Export Credits Insurance Act, as I said before, is an insurance
Supply-Agriculture
act. Wheat now takes up most of the money available, and as far as I am concerned, I hope it keeps on doing that. If the farmers decide that they want to do this, they will benefit, the taxpayer will certainly benefit and the governments will want to play their full part.
I have no illusions that if accepted by farmers this is a development which will take place quickly, or that we will have a need for it immediately; but I can see the day, five or ten years from now, when such a credit fund built up in the meantime might make it easier for governments to make decisions.
Now I come to the point mentioned earlier respecting the leader of the New Democratic party, who used to be a resident of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Smallwood:: No wonder they chased him out.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He said in the house:
-the implications of these two proposals, which in my opinion are simply a devious means of undermining the scope and function of the Canadian wheat board.
That suggestion is false in every respect.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is revolutionary.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think he got it from the hon. member for Assiniboia. It was the Conservative party which established the Canadian wheat board. We have done everything possible to strengthen it I have in my hand a pamphlet brought out recently, and entitled "The Canadian Wheat Board-Why and How it Works". This pamphlet was written by Mr. W- Riddel, assistant chief commissioner, and it was put out for the purpose of making the functions of the wheat board very clear. If one or two hon. members would not think I was being completely discourteous to them, I should like to pass copies of this pamphlet to them so that as I read one or two selections they will be able to follow that much better.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is this paid for by the farmers out of wheat board funds?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A facetious question has been asked by the official spokesman of the Liberal party. This pamphlet is paid for by the farmers out of wheat board funds. In addition, before I was able to persuade the wheat board to end this mystery which surrounds its operations, the government itself put out another pamphlet both in English and in French. I hope one of my officials will bring down some copies of the French version of this pamphlet so that I can distribute them to any of the hon. members here who do not read English easily.

Supply-Agriculture
I intend to read now from pages 6 and 7. On page 6, the question is asked: does the wheat board sell grain? The passage I intend to read


The Chairman:: Order. Under the standing order, the minister is limited to 30 minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I say a word on a point of order? I am sure that if we were to have an assurance from the government that the discussion of these estimates would continue tomorrow we, for our part, would be only too happy to allow the minister to continue his speech.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I point out that if the minister is allowed to answer comments which have been made by some of us without there being any opportunity for us to reply for a number of days, it seems to me such a course would be most inappropriate. We are prepared in our party to allow the minister whatever time he needs to present his case, but before we agree to that we would want an undertaking that this debate will continue tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister or the leader of the house in a position to give that undertaking?


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us have a definite commitment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If hon. members will allow the minister to continue for five minutes, I will give consideration to this problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely, the leader of the house has some authority.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I have authority, but there are some matters pertaining to the budget bills which I am sure the house would like to proceed with. I shall have to consult with the Minister of Finance, and I will give the committee the information it seeks within five minutes.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I shall need the unanimous consent of the committee before the minister can proceed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like it clearly understood that the minister will continue for five minutes while the leader of the house is consulting his colleague, but not for more than five minutes, unless further consent is given.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it agreed that the minister shall be allowed to continue for five minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to thank hon. members for their solicitude in wishing to hear more of my remarks. I think this indicates

they have had some effect on the committee. I can only promise hon. members that the best is yet to come.
I intend to read, now, the paragraph on page 7 of this pamphlet under the heading "Wheat Board Agents".
In carrying out its task of merchandising wheat, oats and barley produced in western Canada, the board endeavours to make full use of all agencies and services which it considers can usefully contribute to sales. The actual merchandising, particularly in the case of wheat, is a combined and complex operation involving the board and its overseas offices, the entire Canadian grain trade in all its various functions, the railways and lake steamship companies, the trade commissioner service and, in some instances, the government of Canada.
Subject to certain standards and to having the necessary facilities, financial and otherwise, to offer wheat for sale in world markets, the board enters into agreements with the shipping and exporting segments of the Canadian grain trade under which they undertake to act as agents of the board for that purpose.
The value of the shippers and exporters in this connection is due to their knowledge of the domestic and export trade in grain and especially to the fact that the firms concerned are represented, either by direct office or otherwise, in practically every country in the world which imports grain. This branch of the grain trade represents a highly developed form of enterprise, alert and keenly competitive. The success in business of the companies engaged in export depends upon their ability to sell grain in overseas markets in competition with others, and this requires considerable skill, knowledge and experience. The board has considered their services most valuable in offering wheat for sale abroad.
I read that to make it clear what the position of the board is. For the most part, the Canadian wheat board does not sell grain. It markets the grain through its agents; it turns the grain over to agents to sell.
At this time I should like to pay my regards to the tremendously efficient work of the agents of the Canadian wheat board over the years. In this highly competitive business they have done a good job. Canada's share of the cash markets of the world is increasing, and these companies handle almost all of this business. However, even though they have done a good job, I, as the minister responsible to parliament and to the people for the sale of Canadian wheat must naturally urge them to put even more drive into their efforts. I am doing that.
I said that generally speaking the Canadian wheat board does not sell wheat. Certainly, under the attitude that existed when the Liberals were in power-we all remember the statement "If the people want to buy our wheat let them come and get it"-the wheat board did not sell as much as it could have done, had there been proper encouragement from the government. Once again, let me read from this pamphlet. I am quoting now from

page 8 under the heading "Direct Govern-ment-to-Government Sales of Wheat":
In cases when a foreign government or an agency of a foreign government prefers to deal direct with the board in the matter of the purchase of grain, the board arranges to do so. On the other hand, it will not enter into direct competition with its own agents in sales to other importers, but it does encourage competition between its agents. To enter into competition with its agents would be most unethical, as the agents do not receive a commission on sales from the board but must rely on what they can earn by obtaining a sales price in excess of what they pay to purchase the wheat from the board, which is the board's asking price at time of purchase.
In recent years, with the freeing from wartime government restriction of much of the grain trade throughout the world, the actual portion of sales made directly by board agents has continued to increase in relation to total sales. However, it may be of interest to know that in the past the board has had master sales agreements with a number of countries-
A long list of countries is then given. I repeat:
The actual portion of sales made directly by board agents has continued to increase in relation to total sales.
I might point out that this refers particularly to cash sales. To continue the quotation:
Even when a sale is made directly by the board, the agents still play an important role in its fulfilment as in most cases supplementary contracts, subject to the master sales agreements referred to above, are entered into between them and the buyer concerned.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we will carry on with these estimates. I made an arrangement earlier with the Minister of Finance to proceed tomorrow with the budget bills because he has other commitments for Friday. These bills are of great urgency, so I think we will have to ask the Minister of Agriculture to discontinue his remarks for the moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable that the minister did not have the opportunity to complete his remarks owing to the inability of the government to provide for the continuation of this debate tomorrow so that those representing all parties would have been able to follow the minister at once in the discussion of such an important matter. The reason, Mr. Chairman, we are having this discussion on estimates at all is perfectly clear. We can thank the minister's speech in Regina for this, and also the decision, which I suspect was as sudden a decision to the minister as it was surprising to others, which was taken to put the Department of Agriculture estimates on as the business for today.
In opening the debate on his estimates, the minister spent some time developing his new,
Supply-Agriculture
or his old, technique of agricultural discussion and negotiation. He has laid down the doctrine that it is important for him, as the Minister of Agriculture, to have discussions on agricultural policy outside the house before he has them not only inside the house but with the cabinet and his own government. The minister does not always carry out that particular technique. There are times of course, when he has discussions outside the house on cabinet policy on devaluation after that policy decision has been taken. There have also been other indications of additional changing techniques of government discussion. We have had recently, discussion on defence policy outside the house by a high official of the Conservative party, which may or may not have been inspired in Ottawa, but which certainly laid down what was meant to be the policy of the party in question.
Among some other aspects of agricultural policy the minister discussed what ARDA is doing. It cannot do very much without the co-operation of the provinces. He also discussed what the wheat board is doing. But there is no division of view on this side of the house on that. He spent most of his time however on his Regina speech, and I can understand why he did that. If I have taken him down correctly, he said among other things: "Little did I realize when I made my speech in Regina how far the discussion would go". Well, it has gone far, Mr. Chairman, right into the Prime Minister's office, according to reports, and it has gone into this debate. Perhaps that is a very good idea, in view of the strange doctrine that the minister is now putting forward, and in view of some of the proposals which he made in his Regina speech.
Among other things the minister made quite a plea for international commodity agreements. I am sure there is no division of opinion in this committee on the desirability of that. Perhaps one of the things which might happen as a result of the entry of the United Kingdom into the common market if that does take place, will be an increased effort on the part of western European countries, in which I hope the United States and Canada will participate, to bring about world commodity agreements, which the common market countries have been talking about as one way to solve our international agricultural problems. Incidentally, perhaps the only successful international commodity agreement of recent months has been one which was negotiated in New York not long ago under the auspices of the United Nations to cover international trade in coffee. All hon. members will be delighted to know that the

Supply-Agriculture
chairman of that conference, and the man so largely responsible for its success, was the Liberal candidate for Eglinton during the recent election.
Mr. Chairman, the minister has told us that his new technique, or his old technique newly applied in Regina, was to discuss matters with farmers and agricultural people outside the house; and then, as a result of that discussion and the proposals which were made in that discussion, and only then, to take these matters up with his colleagues in the cabinet as Minister of Agriculture. Indeed, at one moment in his statement he said: "I cannot speak for the government in these matters". If the Minister of Agriculture cannot speak for the government in these matters, Mr. Chairman, who can speak for the government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let your only prairie farmer speak for you.


An hon. Member:: Pipe down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not mind my hon. friend interrupting. I have unlimited time, so it is all right with me. The Prime Minister, when this matter was brought to his attention in the house the other day by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, first of all, had this to say, as reported at page 1510 of Hansard:
-the text of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture . .. made perfectly clear that the expression of these views-
And they were certainly important views-
-in no way represents government policy.
In other words, this was a personal visit only on the part of the minister, who was speaking in his personal capacity to his audience in Regina. He spoke as an individual. Well, the text does not bear out either the Prime Minister's statement or indeed the minister's confirmation of that statement this afternoon; and he has, of course, no alternative but to confirm that statement.
I say that, because the minister's first words to the Saskatchewan wheat pool at their annual meeting on November 9 were these: "Mr. Chairman, this is my second official visit to the Saskatchewan wheat pool. The first was two years ago". In other words, as Minister of Agriculture he was paying an official visit to the meeting of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. Now presumably we are asked to believe that anything which he said to his audience at his official visit was purely personal and individual and that he did not speak for the government at all.
' Well, Mr. Chairman, that is ridiculous and a complete denial of cabinet responsibility, cabinet solidarity, cabinet collectivity, and indeed responsible parliamentary government; to say that the Minister of Agriculture can

make an official visit to the Saskatchewan wheat pool and put forward proposals in his personal, individual capacity, about which presumably the cabinet knew nothing at all. Are we really to believe, notwithstanding what the minister has said, that these proposals-I will be having something to say about them, because they are important-were put forward in his personal capacity, and then, having done that, that he asked for their consideration and discussion by all those concerned, treating them merely as personal suggestions on his part? If this is true, Mr. Chairman, then he was certainly perpetrating a hoax on his listeners, because it is perfectly clear to those who listened to him and to those who read his speech that this subsequent laboured explanation, was made in order to get out of an embarrassing position; it is intended to show that he was speaking only personally on this official visit, that he was taking no official responsibility at all, let alone speaking for the government as a minister.
It seems to me that even the Prime Minister himself had some second thoughts about this, because on page 1511 of Hansard for last Friday he was asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia:
Were these tentative suggestions-
As they were called-
-discussed with the government before the Minister of Agriculture put them forward in Regina?
What was the Prime Minister's reply? "Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman, of course, has no appreciation of cabinet solidarity and responsibility or he would not be asking that question." In other words, of course, these matters were discussed in the cabinet before the minister went to Saskatchewan because otherwise the hon. gentleman would not have any understanding of cabinet solidarity or cabinet responsibility in asking such a question. The fact is that it was only subsequently that this laboured explanation of the minister's personal responsibility for the statement was made in the light of what these statements were. Indeed the minister himself indicated that on this occasion as on other occasions he was not averse to saying something about his colleagues and on lifting again the veil of cabinet responsibility and cabinet secrecy, when he said this, according to his own statement on page 6, which would indicate that this was certainly a matter which had been considered by the cabinet. Talking about credit sales and their importance and the desirability of negotiating them, and we will come to that matter later, he cited the $190 million credit position for sales, the current contingent liability for China of

$100 million and $90 million for Czechoslovakia and Poland. Then he added this and I am quoting from his statement:
It was not an easy or simple matter to attain approval for these credit levels-
Presumably from his cabinet colleagues.
-and I must advise you that it will become infinitely more difficult to obtain approval for higher levels,-
Hence the Prime Minister's preoccupation with this matter is not only preoccupation with the agricultural producers. It is obviously preoccupation with his cabinet colleagues. It all goes to show, of course, that he was speaking as Minister of Agriculture. It was in that capacity that he was invited to speak. Either he spoke as Minister of Agriculture at this meeting or he had no right to speak at all in the way in which he spoke. Naturally everyone who heard him or who read his speech assumed that he was expressing the views, policies and ideas of the government of which he was a member. If the minister's proposals, suggestions and ideas are to be repudiated by the Prime Minister and the government, then indeed that puts him in a very difficult position. If they are not to be repudiated, then presumably the government accepts the responsibility for the minister's statement as that is the only way in which cabinet solidarity and cabinet responsibility can be understood.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to a question that was asked of Mr. St. Laurent on March 28, 1957-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -and ask him whether he agrees with this principle of cabinet solidarity. As found at page 2766 of Hansard of that year the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said this:
Then may I ask the Prime Minister what is the position of the right hon. gentleman with respect to the principle of cabinet solidarity, when we have one minister saying that the Columbia diversion is definitely still a possibility and another stating, in what we are told is a pronouncement of government policy, in Vancouver, that he is opposed to such a diversion?
To this question Mr. St. Laurent replied as follows:
There is cabinet solidarity as to all decisions that are taken. There need not be cabinet solidarity about each individual minister's opinions on for example some of the questions that are asked.
Does the hon. gentleman accept that as a sound principle?
Supply-Agriculture


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to learn of the Prime Minister's scrupulous interest in this doctrine of cabinet solidarity and cabinet responsibility. In the light of his feeling for cabinet solidarity and cabinet responsibility I can understand why he should have taken a strong stand against the Minister of Agriculture when he returned from Saskatchewan. Of course, cabinet solidarity and cabinet responsibility is a well understood doctrine and if there have been occasions in the past when it has been violated or when it has not been followed, I ask the Prime Minister whether that is any reason why that should have been done in this case.


John George Diefenbaker: It was not a question of violation; it was a question of recognition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can, of course, understand the government's desire to crawl from under this most recent indiscretion of the minister or this new gaff, if I may call it that, of the exuberantly agreeable Minister of Agriculture. In his statement he took a good deal of credit, as he has done previously, for credit sales of wheat and other grains. There is no difference, of course, on this side of the chamber, as to the desirability in conditions today and indeed in conditions as they have existed for a good many years, of selling as much wheat as possible under credit when we cannot make those sales for cash. Indeed, in a table attached to the minister's own speech, and with which he is no doubt familiar, he showed that in 1952-53 and in 1955-56 credit sales reached proportions which were much higher than they were when this government took over until, I think the year before last when they were about equal to the year 1955-56. Then I know they went up last year largely because of credit sales to communist China.
I recall, Mr. Chairman, years ago a Liberal government beginning this process of selling wheat for credit and that when we made credit arrangements in those years with Poland, Czechoslovakia and with the Soviet union, and I had something to do with that negotiation, the criticism of the Tory opposition at that time was both sharp and shrill. They objected to this kind of thing.
I am glad that the present sales are being made now. I think it is inevitable and essential in the days in which we live that we use our bargaining powers through credits to compete with the increasing competition we get from other wheat exporters. But let it be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that while we engage in credit sales, if we do so at the expense of our cash sales, we lose. The proportion of cash sales to credit sales in the years I have mentioned under a Liberal regime was a good deal higher than it was

Supply-Agriculture
last year under a Conservative regime. Let it be remembered also, Mr. Chairman, that when we make credit sales we should be extremely careful to know what we are doing and to be sure that the terms we give are right and that the credit terms we give are those that do not discriminate against our friends and are those that will be met by those to whom we give them. When we made these credit deals under contract, and according to the minister there is no "contract" now with communist China; according to the minister we must not even talk about communist China; in any event, an agreement was made with the communist government in Peking and when that agreement was made we were not given all the details of the agreement. We were not given even the date on which the agreement was signed, and for a very good reason. However, we did get a good deal of reassuring talk from the minister to the effect that there would be no question of loss or default under this agreement; that we could really count on the communist Chinese government to make their payments and that they would be especially anxious to live up to their agreement.


John George Diefenbaker: You trusted them in the Ming Sung ship deal, didn't you?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister keeps on going back all the time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And what a past you have.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a characteristic, and probably the major characteristic of Toryism, that if something is done in the past it must always be done again, no matter whether it was a mistake or not. I beg the Prime Minister to look ahead on occasion.


Mr. Marlineau:: Will the hon. member permit a question? In view of the answer which the Leader of the Opposition gave to the Prime Minister, must one conclude that the Leader of the Opposition is disowning his former leader, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I gather that the minister has asked me if a have disowned my former leader.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In view of the previous answer you gave.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in this party we are not accustomed, as they are in the party opposite, to disowning and betraying and abandoning our leaders. The hon. minister's party has a history in this connection which, if I were he, I would not resurrect.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may continue with my speech, when the Minister of Agriculture was talking about the communist Chinese

wheat agreement in an interview with the Regina Leader-Post on December 21, 1961, he said he was quite confident then. He has since repeated that remark about his confidence, and perhaps he feels that way now, although I have some doubt about it in view of what he said last Friday in Regina. As reported in the Regina Leader-Post last December he said:
I am quite confident there won't be a default.
Of course in talking about this deal he misrepresented last Friday, as he has done so many times before, the position of this party in respect of credit sales and also in respect of the Chinese agreement itself. Last Friday in Regina he repeated the statement which is not true-and he cannot produce evidence to show it is true-that this party opposed the Chinese wheat agreement both when it was signed and subsequently.
I do not want to spend too much time on this, Mr. Chairman, because the record is clear, but in view of what the minister said as recently as last Friday in Regina, and in view of the repeated misstatements which he and others made prior to that, I shall put on record in Hansard what I said about the Chinese wheat agreement on November 29, 1961 at Saskatoon to the Saskatchewan farmers union, and again during the last election. I pointed out what has been the policy of this party from the beginning, and indeed this was our policy with respect to sales across the Pacific of non-strategic materials to China at a time when we were bitterly criticized by the Tory opposition of that day for taking that policy.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Now tell us what you said in the east.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is what I said on November 29, 1961, to the Saskatchewan farmers union:
There is also the special problem of trade with communist China. X see no reason why-and I said this years ago when it was a far more controversial statement than it is today-we should not trade with communist China in all those commodities which are not on a strategic list upon which we have agreed with our allies. The cold war makes such a list necessary.
While believing this, X think it is hypocriticai for a politician-or indeed for anyone else-to laud the advantages of such trade and then come out categorically against diplomatic recognition of the Peking government "until they have expiated their crimes".
I also believe that it is essential for Canadians to know all the details regarding any trade arrangement with a country like communist China. Such an arrangement on the communist side-and we would be very naive to think otherwise-would only be concluded with Canada, or any other democratic capitalist state, after a cold and careful assessment of communist needs and advantages. Nor would China or any other communist state hesitate to scrap any such arrangement whenever it suited

their purpose to do so. To talk about considerations of honour, their desire to maintain a reputation for honourable dealing, is to be almost childishly ignorant of the nature of communism.
Let us trade, by all means, but let us not deceive ourselves that this kind of business-as long as we have communism and cold war-can be a sound foundation for permanent and expanding trade relations which will be mutually profitable.
With this cautionary qualification regarding trade with communist countries like China, I repeat that we most certainly do need all the expansion of trade we can possibly get, and where we can get it.
Mr. Chairman, I have never at any time said anything which would contradict that point of view. Indeed I repeated that point of view during the election campaign in Wey-burn, Winnipeg and other places.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Tell us what you said in the east.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have said the same thing in the east. I am not like hon. gentlemen opposite in that respect who make one statement in the east and another statement out west.
At Grenfell, Saskatchewan, on May 8 during the election campaign the minister in his speech insisted upon exalting his own personal part in this agreement. I must be careful, Mr. Chairman, as we cannot call it a contract now. Indeed, in the annual year end review of his department the minister said he was responsible for this because he went to Hong Kong where he cleared up the details.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is what he did do.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister will have lots of opportunity to tell us the exact date of the agreement and of the completion of the wheat board negotiations. But in May and since then, at least up until last Friday, he emphasized that the farmers did not have anything to worry about these credit sales. He said "the government is taking the risk for you". So that there will be no doubt about the source of my statement I shall just repeat what the minister said in this regard at Barrhead, Alberta, on December 10 last:
If payments were defaulted, it would cost the farmers nothing.
Those are the words of the Canadian Press report, and he went on to say:
We as a federal government have put up $175 million behind these credit sales. If the Chinese don't pay it won't cost western farmers one cent. The loss will be paid by the federal government.
After his statement last Friday does the minister maintain that will be the situation in respect of past sales and that that is going to be the situation with respect to future sales to communist countries?


An hon. Member:: Right.
Sup p ly-A griculture


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that is the situation then why did the minister make the kind of speech he did last Friday?


Michael Starr: He said so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He has a new proposition now and I shall quote from his speech of last Friday.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister may have written his speech, or one of his executive assistants or public relations assistants. Anyway he said this:
Specifically, I wish your organization-
That is the Saskatchewan wheat pool.
-at all levels to consider and discuss in a fully objective manner the possibility of "setting aside" a portion of the final wheat payment with a view to building up a fund which would be used in sharing in any loss which may occur, should there be a non-payment or default from a customer purchasing on a credit basis.
Well, we have had a lot of customers purchasing on a credit basis, most notably the communist government of China. The minister was rather magnanimous about this. He did not want to go too far, so he said:
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting that farmers take the entire risk of a loss on a credit sale.
I am sure that must have given his audience a great deal of comfort. I suggest, in view of a statement of this kind and in view of what the minister has already said today, the public and the producers are entitled to an explanation of what he really does mean. If everything was so rosy until last June in the Canadian agricultural world, as we were told it was, why is it not so rosy now? What is worrying the minister about default on these future credit sales so that the farmers themselves may have to pay part of the insurance premiums on these credit sales? Is the government changing its policy in this regard, and is it doing that without any explanation.
Well, now, that was one aspect of the minister's speech, and perhaps the most interesting aspect. However, he made another proposal, and he has mentioned it himself. It was certainly surprising to a lot of people, and I will quote it from page 7 of his speech.
I am now going to put forward a second major suggestion for serious consideration and discussion.
He is putting this forward, of course, as an individual, in his personal capacity, and not as the Minister of Agriculture, having come from Ottawa for this special visit. Nevertheless, he is putting forward this second major proposal just as a Canadian citizen, and what is it?
Will the three western pools, and the United Grain Growers, acting co-operatively, consider for

Supply-Agriculture
me a grain sales organization to enter aggressively, first the domestic market, and second, at a later stage, the export market, as a real selling agent of the Canadian wheat board?
Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister has said there is nothing really exciting about this; there is nothing that reflects in any way on the Canadian wheat board which is doing such a magnificent job. We all agree about that. But certainly, it is the first time the Minister of Agriculture has ever suggested there is anything inadequate or wrong about our present method of selling. Whether or not the minister thinks this is quite satisfactory from the point of view of its effect on the wheat board, that is certainly not the position taken by some farm leaders who listened to the minister's proposals and who have commented on them. Notable in this group is the president of the Saskatchewan farmers union who issued a statement right after the minister's statement in which he said this:
Agriculture minister Hamilton's proposal that the wheat pools and U.G.G. set up a selling agency, first for the domestic market and later for export sales, goes counter to the basic idea of orderly marketing of western grains through one central marketing agency.
This is the opinion of Mr. Gleave.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will send him a pamphlet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister will have no difficulty in sending him a pamphlet because if there is anything his department has produced in the last five years it is pamphlets. I continue quoting from the statement:
Western grain growers know that the wheat board is their best protection against manipulation of the market by the trade, and they want the board strengthened instead of weakened.
As to Mr. Hamilton's suggestion that prairie farmers set up a fund to help meet possible losses incurred in credit sales, Mr. Gleave said that this was not acceptable to farmers. Canadian export sales of wheat are a matter of importance to the country not only to farmers, he said.
"Farmers are now subsidizing flour mills for the export of flour," Mr. Gleave said. "They should not be expected to take on a greater burden."
Mr. Gleave was critical of Mr. Hamilton for not bringing both matters to the advisory committee of the Canadian wheat board. "The advisory committee, which is made up of representatives of the farm unions, the wheat pools and UGG, was set up for the purpose of advising the board on policy before they are proposed publicly.
Apparently the minister prefers his new technique of not bothering to talk with his colleagues in the cabinet, not bothering to talk with those boards set up for the purpose of giving the minister confidential advice, but of making his statement publicly before a meeting of this kind in Regina.
The Manitoba farmers union also had something to say about the minister's statement. This is an extract from the Winnipeg

Free Press of November 9, and which is headed, "Farm Leaders Angered".


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What paper was this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Winnipeg Free Press of November 9.
Manitoba farmers union president Rudy Usick said prairie farmers will have been fooled by agriculture minister Hamilton if any serious losses are incurred in the government guaranteed credit wheat sales abroad.
. . . Mr. Usick asked, "What is the purpose of the Canadian wheat board, but to sell wheat?"
"We have every confidence in them as a selling agency. If they (the board) need more money or salesmen they have the facilities to increase their staff and pay for them out of the wheat pool account. Mr. Hamilton's suggestion is ridiculous." he said.
Well, there it is, Mr. Chairman. The minister adopts his new technique of agricultural negotiation and, in his private capacity, without the knowledge or approval of the government so we are told, makes far reaching proposals both in regard to credit sales for which the farmers are now expected to take some share of responsibility and for a change in the selling of wheat abroad. He has made these two proposals in his private capacity. I agree with the leaders of the farm unions I have quoted, that Mr. Hamilton's suggestions on these matters are ridiculous, and Mr. Hamilton is going to have a very hard time explaining why he should have departed in such a basic way from the doctrine of cabinet responsibility, cabinet solidarity, in order to put forward proposals of this kind in Saskatchewan. There is only one conclusion to draw, Mr. Chairman, and that is the minister must be slipping, as indeed the government is slipping.
May I call it five o'clock?
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed with consideration of private members' business listed on today's order paper, the first being notices of motion.



FLAGS OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private members' notices of motions:
That this house is of the opinion that the government should agree within one year to a design for a suitable distinctive national flag and introduce legislation in this house for the adoption of this emblem.
Mr. Thompson:: The hon. member for
Medicine Hat is still away on his commonwealth parliamentary assignment. May we ask that the motion stand?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Agreed.

Corporation Tax Returns to Provinces


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if we could not agree to have this motion stand in the same way as another motion did the other day, without losing priority, and for the same reason? We would be quite agreeable to that.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.
Motion stands.
(Translation) :



INCOME TAX


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the expediency of introducing legislation in this house that the federal government should return to the provincial treasuries all corporation taxes collected from public utilities within the provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the house a situation of gross discrimination prevailing in some provinces of Canada with regard to the taxation of public utilities as well as another similar situation which affects all Canadian consumers, without exception.
I believe that all hon. members in this house sincerely want a great and prosperous Canada which would make progress in good will between all races of which it is composed, whatever the origin and mother tongue of its citizens-a good will which can only be found where there is a spirit of mutual tolerance and mutual understanding. There can be no tolerance and no understanding when discrimination prevails and it would be just empty declamatory talk, just a sequence of high sounding phrases, if we were to hold forth on tolerance and understanding without attacking the roots of what prevents all understanding.
The words "tolerance" and "understanding" have been repeated a hundred times, in every possible form, by every party without exception, and by speakers who were much more eloquent than I am. But have they ever taken concrete steps to uphold those fine theories on matters of principle?
The very basis of national good feeling, is provincial autonomy, an autonomy which it is vain to hope for, if the provinces do not have the necessary financial means to achieve it decently.
I mean in no way to ascribe any intents to anyone, and I shall limit myself to listing a few possible lines of action which would prove that there is a sincere wish to support by deeds words all hon. members keep on repeating.
If certain provinces are discriminated against, it is obvious that those injustices can only cause certain grudges and contribute to the slow but sure disintegration of our country, as it is set up at present. Among those glaring injustices, I shall underline only a few which it would be relatively easy to redress.
Some provinces have nationalized their hydroelectric power a long time ago. Others have done it more recently. As an evident result, of such nationalization, considerable amounts of income taxes paid by private companies to the central government have been taken away from the income of our government. My purpose is not to discuss here the propriety of nationalization by certain provinces of their public utility companies. I only note one irrefutable fact, and it is the following: the Canadian citizens living in certain provinces where public utility companies have not been nationalized contribute more than the citizens of the other provinces to the federal government expenses.
I know that we can claim a certain equalization system which would tend to adjust certain inequalities and injustices, but even after discussing for a long time, on both sides, to consider the good and bad points of that equalization system, there will always remain this brutal fact. According to all established evidence, the citizens of those provinces where public utility companies are operated by private enterprise are penalized on that very count, and it will be useless to laud the merits of private enterprise and to fight for its survival if such injustices are to persist. A province will only have to nationalize certain important sectors of its economy to get away from the severity of the federal taxation, and the whole weight of the federal administration will fall only on the very defenders of private enterprise. Some will refuse to pay so dearly for such convictions.
After having underlined another serious injustice, I will later suggest a means of correcting such a situation.
At the outset of my remarks, I made reference to another field where injustice is general and affects all Canadian consumers, in every province. Of course, a general injustice is a certain form of justice, but a general justice is surely much more desirable and represents a much more sound ideal. It would
1636	HOUSE OF
Corporation Tax Returns to Provinces certainly be less in accordance with distributive justice to inject a disease to everybody, under pretense of equality, than to cure everybody of that same disease.
1 will not go into the details of that other form of injustice. I will only give an example which will apply to all similar cases, that I could multiply indefinitely. In order to remove that injustice, no sacrifice would have to be made either by the federal government or by the provinces, and everybody would be much better off for it.
As has already been mentioned by Mr. W. G. Leonard, professor at the school of commerce of Queen's University, there are two philosophies on the way to administer taxes. According to the first one, taxation, in our democratic system, should be simple, open and readily comprehensible, so as to enable voters to discuss frankly the whole question and to understand the definite relation between government spending and taxation. According to the other philosophy, the art of taxation should be the same as plucking a goose. The object is to get a maximum of feathers with a minimum of shrieks.
The present government, like all previous governments, has chosen to pluck the goose with a minimum of shrieks, and that is how all governments, with the help of the bureaucracy, have evolved a system of disguised taxation, so that the voter cannot discuss fully and with full knowledge the relation between government expenditures and the burden of taxation he bears somewhat unwittingly.
Today, we are living in a country that is over-administered and, therefore over-taxed. Every businessman, every accountant will tell you that a top-heavy administration can lead a sound business to bankruptcy.
What would you think of an industry which would send out a different bill for all the kinds of goods it produces and which would have a different collection service for each product? That is what we are doing by collecting income in several different ways. Is it not the most costly way of achieving a specific aim? Is it not like taking the longest and the most winding road to get somewhere?
It is here, and only here, that we must proceed in an orderly way. Consequently,
I now put forward the following practical proposal:
That the federal government allow all public utilities to deduct from their federal taxes all moneys paid to a provincial government as provincial income tax.


(Text):


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in following very closely the arguments of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) in support of his motion. It appears to me, sir, that this has really nothing whatever to do with taxation or fairness to provinces, but is a last ditch attempt to prevent or make more difficult and less desirable the public ownership of public utilities in the provinces. It is noticeable, Mr. Speaker, that there has not been any suggestion whatever that there is any need, shall we say, or any possibility of having publicly owned utilities contribute to the federal treasury. The concern has been to remove one of the more obvious advantages used by provincial governments when they contemplate the nationalization, or perhaps one should say the provincialization, of a public utility. That obvious advantage, of course, is the fact that funds that now go to the federal treasury in corporation taxes from a private utility afterwards come to the provincial treasury.
As a matter of fact, although that is one of the more obvious advantages and one which is always advanced, I may say, and was advanced by the government of British Columbia-which is of the same political stripe as my hon. friend from Quebec East-as one of the cogent reasons for public ownership of a public utility in the province, it actually is of minor importance. I would point out that the province of Quebec is now almost the only place in Canada where any considerable volume of the electrical energy industry is still in private hands.


An hon. Member:: What about Alberta?


Mr. Benidickson:: Alberta, Newfoundland?


Colin Cameron: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker.
Alberta apparently has not followed the suit of its fellow Social Credit government in British Columbia. No doubt it eventually will. But there are examples in Canada which prove quite clearly that there are much more cogent reasons for public ownership of hydroelectric power and other forms of power than this question of the disposition of taxes of private utilities. I would remind the hon. member from Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) that perhaps the most important reason why the province of Ontario surged ahead of the rest of the country in industrialization over half a century ago was the fact that the province set up the publicly owned Ontario hydro commission for the purpose of providing cheap power for industry. I must give credit to my Conservative friends for this,

because it was done by a Conservative government in that province. History tells us plainly what the result has been. We have seen growing up in Ontario an ever-widening industrial complex based on this public ownership of hydroelectric utilities. .
I submit that any measure designed to place an obstacle in the way of this development, which is obviously going to sweep right across the country, is a backward step, and I also suggest to the hon. member for Quebec East that after today it may not be a burning issue in his own province.


Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: This resolution presents the house with an interesting subject for discussion but it cannot lead to the solution of the problem which underlies any motion of this kind, which is the question of federal jurisdiction in the taxation field as opposed to the rights of the provinces and municipalities.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) has taken from the resolution a meaning or possible intent which I had not seen in it prior to his comments. I would not like to suggest he went too far in his assumptions, yet I do not feel that what he said dealt with the essential feature of the resolution as presented. It seems to me the essence of the resolution is: can this house or the government continue, by measures of the kind suggested, to change the basis of taxation in a piecemeal fashion? Have not our present difficulties in connection with federal, provincial and municipal tax sharing arisen largely because of the piecemeal approach which has been adopted up to now? We have taken each new problem as it has arisen and tried to deal with it in isolation from the rest of taxation policy. The Canadian tax foundation has been making this point for a number of years and the government has recognized its validity by setting up a royal commission to conduct a thorough study of the tax situation, a study which we hope will lead to a comprehensive overhaul of the whole taxation structure in so far as the federal government is involved and in so far as the federal government can bring about a more equitable distribution of income between the three levels of government.
My objection to this resolution is that it seeks to take one kind of tax which the federal government is now assessing and turn it over to the provinces. Perhaps a case can be made out to justify such a move but I cannot see that it is appropriate to take action along the lines suggested at this time in our history. I do not think it is wise that we should endeavour to overhaul our tax legislation to any marked degree by these piecemeal
Corporation Tax Returns to Provinces measures. What we need, now, is a comprehensive program based on the most expert studies than can be made available to us.
There are, of course, grounds for believing that corporation taxes on public utilities may belong in the provincial sphere rather than in the federal sphere. We know that most public utilities in the majority of the provinces of Canada, perhaps in all of them, are regulated by public utilities commissions. It is recognized that the province has a large degree of responsibility for the licensing and regulation of public utility companies within provincial boundaries. The province of British Columbia has even gone so far as to bring municipal cemeteries under its authority- the ultimate in public utilities, I suppose. So I suppose that the transfer of revenue specifically proposed in the resolution could be referred back to the authority which a provincial government has, generally, in the field of public utilities, and justified on that account.
The hon. member for Nanaimo referred specifically to the example of hydroelectric power but, of course, there are many other utilities, including those in the transportation and communication fields, which would be affected by such a move as is proposed. Of course, when we come to the field of communications we begin to leave the purely provincial aspect of this question and bring complicating features into consideration. The term "public utilities" is, perhaps, too broad, because there are a number of public utilities which spread beyond the bounds of any single province and which are beyond the jurisdiction of provincial governments. However, if we think in terms of telephone companies, hydroelectric companies, transportation systems wholly operating within-


Mr. Laing:: Milk.


Stuart A. Fleming: I did
not realize a public utilities commission had jurisdiction there, as well. But wherever the line is drawn, there are areas in which a public utility authority has clear responsibility. There are also areas where it has not. But in the area where a provincial authority does have total jurisdiction for fixing rates, perhaps the province has as much a right to the tax drawn from the organization as has the federal authority.
This resolution is of a kind which draws attention to the area in which redistribution of tax revenues may be undertaken, but it raises as many problems as it seems to solve. By trying to deal with this one source of revenue in isolation it would simply compound the problem rather than solve it. It serves a useful purpose because it emphasizes the fact that the problem exists, but this is
1638	HOUSE OF
Corporation Tax Returns to Provinces not a problem which will disappear in the absence of a specific study and recommendations upon which a government can act. This is one of the points which the royal commission on taxation will, presumably, take into account when it is considering these and other aspects of federal taxation.
I think we should remember that during the period in which the present government has been in office there has been a move to restore to the provinces a great deal more autonomy in the field of taxation than has prevailed since the war. There should be returned to the provinces their taxation rights, which were given to the government primarily as a wartime measure but which have since carried over into subsequent years. An attempt has been made to restore to the provinces jurisdiction in the field of taxation over those rights which have been clearly established and defined by law and practice over a period of time. But it is obvious, despite the fact that this move has been made to restore to the provinces their rights in various fields of taxation, that there still remains in the minds of the public and of all levels of government the question whether this move redresses entirely the balance, whether inequity still does not exist.
I think we are more conscious of this from the point of view of the municipalities. It appears that the greatest pressure today on the senior level of government for a reconsideration of taxation policies originates from the municipalities. It is there that the squeeze on the revenues available and the cost of administering the functions of municipal government is becoming more and more difficult to resist. The government, through a variety of policies in recent years-the sewage disposal program is one, and there are others- has sought to ease the problem of the municipalities. But then again, this problem will never be completely solved until a comprehensive study of taxation at all levels shows the way to a long range program which will both provide the municipal level of government with the revenue it requires and yet protect the federal right to revenue.
It is all very well-and here is another danger in a resolution of this kind-to suggest that the federal government can depart this field of taxation, that it can surrender this field of taxation without at the same time finding a permanent source of revenue to replace that which it gives up. After all, I think hon. members are aware, regardless of where they sit in the house, that substantial revenue must be available in order for any government to fulfil its obligations to the people of Canada, and that one cannot go too far in giving up rights to taxes without


providing some alternative source of revenue or cutting services and reducing expenditure. It is impossible to reduce revenue and increase expenditure.


Gilles Grégoire: Why is it impossible?


Stuart A. Fleming: Of
course, there are some people in the country who seem to suggest that this does not necessarily follow.


Gilles Grégoire: It is possible.


Stuart A. Fleming: I do
not know how one can spend money without doing that. I find it totally impossible to understand that. So consequently there must be an alternative to revenue which is collected by methods presently practised and recognized as acceptable to the country. There may be other theories about how to raise money, but as yet they do not prevail in this country, and I trust they never will.


Gilles Grégoire: We have austerity.


Stuart A. Fleming: But
until such time as they do prevail I say that we must deal with the system available to us, and improve it to the best of our ability. If there is going to be an overwhelming change, of course, even resolutions of this kind may not be necessary. So consequently this whole tendency to come to parliament with suggestions that means of taxation, or this or that tax revenue, be transferred to some other level of government without diminishing the effectiveness of the federal role in government is not, to my mind, valid. It must be part and parcel of a totally new approach to tax policies.
I believe that the present government which is in office at the moment has recognized this necessity, because it has named a royal commission which is empowered to provide us with this kind of guide, with the pattern upon which we can proceed to take care of all the anomalies which appear to exist in the tax structure of the country at the present time. But even then we are going to have to recognize that taxes are part and parcel of the federal responsibility. As long as the federal government is required to provide the level of services which apparently it is required to provide by the will of the people, it will always have to have access to a very substantial revenue. I trust it will require only such increased revenues as may be made necessary by the growth in our population. But unless we are prepared to realize that the federal government cannot accede to the demands which arise from all corners of the country without retaining for itself its rights to its present sources of revenue, there will, in my view never be a clear way to a logical,

Corporation Tax Returns to Provinces
sensible or workable approach to the problem of the division of taxation authority in this country.
I would not want the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) to think that I am opposed to the spirit of this resolution. I do believe that he highlights a problem which does exist. It is probably a very real one. It is one which requires examination. This resolution will bring about an examination. But I do not believe that we can act on this single and isolated instance; rather we should hope that this type of recommendation will go to the commission empowered to study the entire tax structure, which will bring to the government, and in due course to this house, recommendations which will provide a comprehensive approach to taxation and the division of taxation authority in Canada, so that we will have a pattern to follow, not just for the moment but for a great many years to come.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into an exercise in semantics, something like the spokesman for the government who preceded me was attempting to do on this fairly simple subject. However, it is interesting, and perhaps an anomaly in the motion of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule), to find that he makes reference to the returning of taxes paid by public utilities when, if we look at this problem in a practical way, it happens that it is only the utilities which are privately owned with which I think he is concerned. It is true it is a utility serving the public that he refers to, and I think we know what his purpose is. But we also know that a great number of the utilities-and I speak of utilities in the field of gas and electricity-are today owned by public bodies, and as such are not taxed by the federal government.
The reason that there is any consideration of this at all is, I presume, because section 92 (3) of the British North America Act did give to the provinces certain proprietary rights with respect to natural resources. Electricity is developed from a natural resource. The provinces have said from time to time that it is improper for the federal government to tax corporations in their provinces which are utilizing this natural resource. As it happens, I believe this problem is mostly significant in the provinces of Quebec and Alberta, and perhaps Newfoundland as well. There is some private power of consequence in the province of Nova Scotia, but the dollars involved in taxation are not important, as I understand it. There is now left in British Columbia perhaps only one large private power company, namely the Kootenay Power 27507-3-104
Company. In any event, for some years the matter of taxation of this type in British Columbia was not too important for this reason. The capital investments of the hydroelectric companies of this kind in recent years have been immense and the depreciation allowances which can be charged each year against earnings have been so huge that I believe for some years the British Columbia Electric Company did not pay federal taxes, even though its operations were immense. So what we have here is not what the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke suggests, namely something which involves a complete overhaul of our taxation system and something worthy of the attention of the royal commission. What we are dealing with here is an item which I think in 1960-61 brought in about $21 million to the federal treasury. Of course, in deficit times that amount is not to be sneered at. At the same time, however, in the context of a budget that brings in revenues exceeding $6 billion, it is not of the type that would seem to give all the worries and concerns expressed by the government spokesman.
In 1947 the former Liberal government, as a result of the appeals of the provinces, made some concession to them in forsaking taxation in this particular field, one that came basically from a natural resource in the provinces. It was also agreed then that the federal government would give back to the provinces 50 per cent of the tax revenue received from corporations with respect to their sales of gas or electricity to the public, less any special taxes which the provinces impose beyond the agreement reached in 1947. As it happens, Mr. Chairman, I understand that these deductions are of particular significance in the province of Quebec because that province has, with respect to most corporations and I think especially with respect to electricity companies, taxes that are subject to deduction from its half. These are sums which otherwise would go to it from the federal government.
I simply wish to suggest again that this matter has been brought forward by the premiers affected. Mr. Lesage referred to it at the dominion-provincial conference in 1960. His reference is to be found there in the printed minutes of the proceedings at page 131 and I will not go into the detail of it. I have no doubt that behind closed doors this was an important matter of argument between him and the federal government. I have indicated that this is not a large sum. It is some $21 million of federal revenue. About $12 million of that amount, I believe, in 1960-61 would relate to the province of Quebec.
1640	HOUSE OF
Corporation Tax Returns to Provinces
The other province which has privately owned utilities where this matter is important, as I have indicated, is the province of Alberta. Both of these provinces brought this subject before this government on the occasions of at least two dominion-provincial conferences. I say that the former government went half way, took off 50 per cent of this tax and returned it to the provinces. I think it would not be a difficult matter to negotiate between the federal government and the provinces, particularly as it is not a tax where the federal government is dealing on a par with all provinces in the same way. At least half of them have provincially owned public utility systems and in consequence this is not a matter of any concern to them. However, to those of my colleagues who come from my own province of Ontario I may point out that while this tax does not apply to our provincially owned Ontario hydro, it is a fact that the use of natural gas is becoming an increasingly important item in our expenditure as consumers and industrially in the province of Ontario and that the tax applies to gas as well as to electricity. Hence in future years if this tax was not taken off it would have some meaning and importance to the province of Ontario as well as to these other provinces. However, I simply wish to say that this appeal coming chiefly from the province of Quebec and the province of Alberta at a recent conference has been completely ignored by this government. I hope that process of ignoring is in no way due to the fact that these provinces are not legislatively in the control of a party that has the approval of the present federal administration.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to draw out unduly the discussion on this motion.
When I was listening earlier to my Conservative colleague, whose riding the name of which I forget, I wondered on several occasions whether he was not delivering the wrong speech and whether he was actually dealing with the motion now under consideration. I was under the impression that he was not speaking the same language as the rest of us.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the motion of my colleague for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) deserves a very special consideration from the government, because it tends to help Canadians from every walk of life, from the labour and other classes, in all provinces. The amounts thus collected by the provinces would be so much money that they would not have to borrow in order to meet their needs. This means, by the same token, that every province would be less in debt and,


therefore, that every citizen of those provinces would have less taxes to pay.
However, Mr. Speaker, I do not worry too much about this motion since it will probably have, as is customary, a first class burial at six o'clock. Actually, I saw, a few moments ago, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) jotting down a few notes at his desk. And since I feel that he will be the funeral director today, I shall not make him wait any longer but I shall let him have the pleasure of burying the motion. It is a pity because I sincerely believe that the motion was one that deserved special consideration from the house.
(Text):


Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this motion. I do not intend to delay the bill until six o'clock. Other members may wish to speak on it. The way in which the motion is worded indicates public utilities. I am not quite sure whether this means telephone companies, gas companies and hydro companies. The broad sense of this language leaves me at a loss. I may point out that I think this objective is being brought about by the nationalization of the Quebec hydro system. It is a motion that has been put before the house for, I would think, obvious reasons. I am a little bit dubious about the federal government giving up its taxation policies on a piecemeal basis.
I am one of those who believes that sometimes tax sharings with the provinces might not serve the purposes of the people in the provinces, but if there were any way to assure the federal government that the taxation it would forgo in this instance would be turned over to the consumers, it might have merits. However, I doubt if provincial governments as a whole across the country, if we were to give tax rebates for this specific situation, would in turn give the benefit to the consumers where the private companies are concerned.
We are talking about the advantage of a privately owned hydro company versus a publicly owned company, and I believe that if the government goes into the field of equalizing the tax situation in this instance we may set a precedent for other things which may come along later.
My party colleague from British Columbia talked about the royal commission on taxation. This is something which might not appeal to the Social Credit party, but in a serious matter such as this I feel that the old realm of taxation must be looked into very thoroughly. A short time ago the federal government gave sales tax exemptions to

municipalities for sewer pipes installed by the municipalities. Most of the larger municipalities with subdivision agreements in the province of Ontario put the onus on private contractors to go ahead and put in these services at their own expense. What happened was that contractors in newly developed areas were paying the sales tax but the municipalities were not paying it in other areas which they were developing themselves, so that in the long run it was the home owner who had to pay the tax. Fortunately the federal government rectified this situation, and since then under subdivision agreements the entrepreneur who makes a subdivision agreement with a municipality has a right to claim tax rebates.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River mentioned $21 million as being a mere pittance in the over-all government budget, but I think we have to examine the effect of even $10,000, let alone $21 million, in setting a precedent to give rebates to provincial publicly owned utility companies, and I question what would happen if this motion were to include telephone and other companies.
I am not sure that whenever the federal government parts with certain responsibilities the consumer benefits in the long run. It was also referred to by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that tax reliefs are given only to those provinces where the Progressive Conservative party is in control. In answer to that I would point out that under equalization payments these are paid by population and have nothing to do with the political party in power.
There would be some merit in referring this motion to the royal commission on taxation. As a politician I sometimes get fed up with piecemeal legislation and I believe it is time we got down to a study of the whole realm of taxation problems. As a matter of fact, we are doing this and a commission has been appointed. I believe the question of public utilities should be referred to that commission. I hope its terms of reference are wide enough to include a study of them and it might also make a study of the Bell Telephone Company and other companies whose profits are considerably more than $21 million.
The government's stand on the taxation problem with regard to corporate taxes in the province of Quebec, a matter which was ironed out a little while ago, is indicative of the government's position with regard to tax sharing arrangements with the provinces. I would hope to see the situation dealt with in a non-political way. I feel that the motion 27507-3-104J
Corporation Tax Returns to Provinces was introduced because of a particular situation in a particular province, but I shall not argue about the nationalization of the Quebec hydro, as I believe the whole situation with regard to taxation is a separate problem.
This government through its program of provincial-municipal relations has gone a long way toward alleviating the burden on these people. I refer in particular to loans for sewage disposal and trunk sewer systems, and I believe this motion deals with the problem only on a piecemeal basis. It should be referred to the royal commission on taxation so that it can be evaluated as a whole.
I am not one of those who wants to move to the left, the direction in which it seems the party opposite is moving, as has been indicated recently by some members of that party. If this happened I would not want the federal government to be left without any taxes in the coffers to pay for all the services required of the federal government in those circumstances.
I am very dubious about the motion. If it could be guaranteed that the consumer would benefit from the federal government undertaking to do this, then it might be a good thing, but I am not so sure that can be done. Therefore I would not like to support it at this time until a further study is made and a report given to the House of Commons on the subject in its entirety. I hope the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) will not think I am categorically opposed to his motion and I hope it will receive every consideration from the press. However, it is not something we can discuss in an hour and recommend to the federal government when, for instance, I as representative from Hamilton South, am not sure this would suit the problem in this specific instance in the province of Quebec. I believe the royal commission on taxation should look into it very thoroughly and report on it to the house.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise at this time and talk on the motion for fear that my good friend from Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) may accuse me of burying it. I can assure him it is not my intention to do so and can also tell him that those who speak first do as much shovelling as those who speak later. I want to compliment the hon. member on his wit when he said-at least this is what he meant and I agree with his statement-that taxing authorities by and large follow methods to get the most feathers with the least amount of squawk. This is the principle that is followed by taxing authorities in general. I agree with

Corporation Tax Returns to Provinces him on that. There may be some element of truth in what many of the other speakers have said.
There is no question about the fact that the nationalization of resources in certain provinces, especially of hydroelectric, has taken a certain amount of taxation from the federal taxing authority. In so far as that has been done, it has a bearing upon the tax revenues of this country. It also has an indirect bearing on the tax revenues of each province. There are inequities in this area of taxation, as I think everyone would agree, and at some time these particular inequities will need to be studied and solutions found.
The point about which I am concerned in connection with this resolution is the incidence of taxation. The resolution would set up a new principle which would single out public utilities. This is a broad term and I think the hon. member for Quebec East would agree that the term "public utilities" covers far more than he contemplated at the time he worded this resolution. I wonder if when he worded his resolution he did not have in mind simply hydroelectric development? I would say that the term "public utilities" is too broad. I doubt very much if the hon. member would want to give consideration to turning over the taxation of all public utilities to the provincial authority.
Under the system as it is now in most of the provinces, outside of Quebec, most of the taxes are collected by the federal authority. Then, once the revenues are received, they all start to squabble over who is going to get the lion's share. Of course, this is the point at which the resolution starts. The mover of the resolution would like to see all of these revenues which are obtained from public utilities turned over to the provinces. Now, this is a big order. I feel that before we pass a resolution of this kind, the subject would need to be studied, would need to be talked about, would need to be thoroughly considered.
Mind you, sir, what may prevail in Quebec may not fit the situation in Alberta. I am not saying that what the hon. member is advocating is not right for Quebec. All I am saying is that we might prefer something different in Alberta. The hon. member comes from Quebec and I come from Alberta. From a national point of view, when you are entering into a policy of putting the taxation of public utilities into the provincial field you would need to take a look at what you are proposing. I am not attacking the position which the hon. member is taking. All I am saying is that a resolution of this kind deserves the most careful consideration. I think it was well that it was brought before this

house so that we might all take a look at it.


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


Mr. Kindt:: I would be delighted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought he would. My question is this: Does the hon. gentleman appreciate the fact that after today this taxation will be peculiarly discriminatory against the province of Alberta?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: At this time it is rather difficult to forecast these things. Although the hon. gentleman might be able to forecast the trend of the stock market, I think it is difficult to forecast the outcome of the election which is taking place today in Quebec.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about Alberta; that is what I asked the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Macleod has the floor. I think we are getting about a five-sided conference at the moment, and I trust that not too much of this is going into Hansard.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is another element contained in this particular resolution which has not been mentioned and I think it should be. I refer to the fact that public utilities are being singled out as the ones on which taxation should be passed to the provinces. There must be some special reason for the Social Credit party to suggest this. When I was thinking about what I should say on this subject, I was wondering whether or not it was because they believed in giving debt free money for the development of public utilities. Since public utilities are not revenue producing, as they say, any taxation according to them could be passed back to the government. I was wondering if there was not some element of this reasoning in the resolution which was not mentioned by the mover. Perhaps he did not have the time to do so, and at some later time he may clarify this for our benefit.
May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like, for a moment, to make an appeal to the house leader about the business for tomorrow. I ask him if the government would not reconsider the decision not to continue with the agriculture estimates in view of the fact that decision means that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), who incidentally first raised this problem, are to be prevented from taking part in the debate. In view of the fact that the business the minister has indicated would be taken up tomorrow deals with tax legislation that was

brought before the previous parliament last April, and could have been passed if this parliament had been called in August, I ask the minister if in the interests of freedom of debate and the rights of parliament, the government will not continue with the agriculture estimates tomorrow?


Thomas Miller Bell: What do you know about freedom?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I think it will be recognized that at this time a representative of the opposition may seek information as to the order of business. It is not a period when impassioned speeches one way or the other may be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I respectfully point out to Your Honour that I was making an appeal to the government, and I was trying to make it in very respectful language, to give us the right of freedom of debate in this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A flagrant abuse of the rights of parliament has just now been demonstrated by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, on the excuse of asking about the business for tomorrow. He has made an impassioned speech in unrestrained language, and tries to put some blame upon the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the minister that we do not continue the little wrangle that is developing. I think everyone knows the feelings of the Chair in this regard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will take Bill No. C-78, to amend the Income Tax Act; Bill No. C-79, to amend the Estate Tax Act; Bill No. C-80, to amend the Excise
Business of the House
Tax Act; Bill No. C-81, to amend the Customs Tariff. If they are completed, we will resume the debate on Bill No. C-4, to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act, and Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Closure.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister when it is intended to resume the debate on the agricultural estimates in committee of supply?


Mr. Habel:: Not before dissolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He doesn't know.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have just asked a question. If you will search the records you will find that this is a long standing practice, to try to get information at this time. That is all I am seeking.


Mr. Speaker:: I find, also, that many times, unfortunately, wrangles develop at this time which should not take place. If the minister is prepared to indicate briefly and in an informative way, that is all right. I think if we left it at seeking information and did not try to put points across, these situations would not develop. If the minister is prepared to tell the hon. member, he will go ahead.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: He doesn't know.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It depends on the progress that we make with the matters of legislation that I outlined for tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 15, 1962