1962-10-12

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That a special committee be appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, the lists of members to compose the standing committees of this house; the said committee to be composed of Messrs. Chevrier, Churchill, Habel, Knowles, Mar-coux and Ricard. That standing order 65(1) be suspended in relation thereto.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, a slight
mistake has been made in the names. I wonder whether the house would agree to substitute the name of Mr. Pickersgill for that of Mr. Chevrier, as you read out the names.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion shall stand amended by deleting the name of Mr. Chevrier and substituting therefor the name of Mr. Pickersgill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SECOND


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the United States government a second meeting of Canadian and United States officials will be held in Ottawa on October 16 and 17 at which the problems of the North American softwood lumber industry will be discussed.
As the house is aware, the first meeting on this subject was held in Ottawa on August 28 and 29 and for the information of the house I wish to take this opportunity to table the communique issued at the conclusion of that meeting. It is understood that at the second meeting officials will develop further the subjects discussed in the first meeting as referred to in the communique.
As was the case with the first meeting, the government has solicited the views of all sectors of the Canadian softwood lumber industry on the subjects to be discussed, and representatives from the industry have been invited to make known their views and
to be present in Ottawa for consultations during the course of the meeting if they so desire.
As has been stated before, and I would like to reiterate, the government has left the United States government in no doubt as to the necessity of maintaining traditional Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States, the amount thereof currently running at the rate of approximately $250 million a year.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the right hon. Prime Minister unanimous consent to table the communique as requested?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation) :



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Lucien Cardin (for Mr. Deschafelets) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-60, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Text) :



ANNUAL VACATIONS ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-61, to amend the Annual Vacations Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Annual Vacations Act to provide that employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall get their two weeks vacation with pay after one year's employment, rather than having to wait two years as is the case at present.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-62, to amend the Canada Elections Act (absentee voting).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank Howard: A system of absentee voting would permit an elector to cast his ballot on election day anywhere in Canada effective in his home constituency and home polling station. Such a provision does not now exist under the terms of the Canada Elections Act, and the bill seeks to establish an arrangement under which an estimated 200,000 people who were denied the right to vote during the last election might have the opportunity afforded to them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him when he proposes to bring down the revised estimates which reflect the government's austerity program.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: I am not sure about reflecting the government's austerity program, but we are reprinting the estimates setting forth the revisions, and I am assured that the reprinting will be concluded on the 16th. I intended discussing with hon. members of the house what would be the appropriate time for them to be brought down. They could be brought down any time after the 16th. I said "After the 16th", but I suppose if the house desires they could be brought down on the 16th as well as after that day.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Stormont):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the imminent massive slowdown in postal deliveries announced by the association of Canadian postal employees, will the minister reassure the house that the cyclical review of postal workers' wages is being expedited?


George Clyde Nowlan: In reply to the hon. member's question, the cyclical review is being carried out, as are all other reviews which must be undertaken under the statutes.



WINNIPEG, MAN.  CIRCULATION OF PERSONAL HISTORY FORMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question


to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister inquire into the reasons for the recent circulation among federal civil servants in Winnipeg of the personal history form, a copy of which I furnished to the minister this morning, and will he have the form examined in the light of the Canadian Bill of Rights, particularly in view of its many references to racial origin and other aspects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think in the light of that involved question it should be one more for orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have asked it on orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: I beg the hon. member's pardon; I mean for the order paper.
(Translation):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Last Tuesday the hon. member for Laurier asked me if the senior officers of the Department of Transport had made a study concerning the hazards of radioactive fall-out for aircraft flying at high altitude.
I answered him that the senior officers of my department were interested in the matter but that I would give him a definite answer later on.
I am told that the officers of my department have examined the matter very closely in conjunction with those of the radiation protection division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Their study has revealed that fall-out does not present any danger which would justify at this time the adoption of particular restrictive measures concerning the operation of aircraft. Our conclusions have been made known to the operators of those aircraft and the question is still under study.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary question? Is the minister aware that senior officers of B.O.A.C. have not only made studies but have taken steps to protect aircraft and their passengers against those hazards?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I read a press report to the effect that when certain B.O.A.C. aircraft arrive in London, their external surface is cleaned. My departmental officials are also aware of what is being done in Great Britain and from experience they came to the conclusion that such precautions are unnecessary here at the moment.

(Text):



C.P.A.-APPROVAL OF FLIGHTS FROM WESTERN CANADA TO LONDON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the house whether in his talks with his opposite number in the United Kingdom government he has been successful in obtaining the approval of that government for landing rights at London for the C.P.A. Vancouver-Calgary-London run, as announced by the minister in the house over a year ago?


Léon Balcer: There has been no change in the attitude of the United Kingdom government on this matter.
(Translation):



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Defence Production. In view of the serious inconveniences to hospitals, to religious and educational establishments as well as to the general public in the town of St. Laurent and the surrounding area, arising from the noise made by thermal jet airplanes going through test flights at Canadair, may I ask the minister, as I did in the past, whether his department is willing to co-operate with the authorities of that company which has already spent tremendous amounts of money to muffle the noise made by those aircraft?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minisier of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, as in the past we are prepared to co-operate with the authorities of the Canadair company, because almost all the work carried out by that company in Montreal is done under the supervision of the officials of my department.
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question based on his reply to a question of mine on Wednesday last to the effect that the distribution in Canada of the preparation liefcort was stopped before
Inquiries of the Ministry action had been taken in the United States. My question is this. Is the minister not aware that the United States, according to United States food and drug commissioner George Larrick, took action to ban the import of the drug liefcort on August 24, a full month before action was taken by the minister?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I clarified my answer of the day before yesterday, and if the hon. member would read Hansard he would see that clarification.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did see it, but it
is not a clarification.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Allan J. MacEachen (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a
question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement issued by the directors after a meeting of the Nova Scotia federation of agriculture held last night, to the effect that emergency conditions still prevail with respect to supplies of feed, is the minister prepared to accede to the request made last night by the federation and reconsider his decision on the extension of the corn subsidy?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar sort of question on October 10. This question refers to another wire or series of wires which have been sent since I made that statement. I will look at the matter again, but if the facts indicate that there is a sufficient supply of feed grain in the mari-times, I have no intention of changing my decision.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. A report just released by the national employment service shows that there were 17,500 persons seeking jobs in the Vancouver area at the end of September, an increase in number from the end of the previous month. Can the Prime Minister reconcile this situation with his statement in this house on October 2 that an unemployment survey indicated that the employment situation-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that he is now making an argument in the form of a question, and I do not think that under that guise the question is at all admissible at this time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. When you have 17,500 persons seeking work in the Vancouver employment area, does this in his view represent full employment?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government proposes to take early steps to replenish the unemployment insurance fund.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, that matter will receive consideration in due course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the fund has reached a perilous state, does the Prime Minister not think the suggestion implied in the question ought to be acted on quickly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member was advancing an argument under the guise of a supplementary question.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: And it was a poor
argument too, a typically poor argument.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Minister of Labour a question which would be of a statistical nature. My question is this. What was the balance in the unemployment insurance fund as of September 30 last?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I really believe the hon. gentleman knows that a question of that sort is definitely one for the order paper.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it is this. Is your suggested ruling that this is a question for the order paper made on the basis that it involves statistics, or upon what basis is it made?


Mr. Speaker:: Not only do I feel that the question is statistical, but I believe that in the ordinary course it is not of the nature of a question that should be asked on the orders of the day, in that the information is that urgently required, as I interpret the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think the question is one of great concern and urgency.


Frank Howard: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Two members are seeking the floor on the same point of order. I recognize the hon. member for Essex East. I will then hear the hon. member for Skeena.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The advisory committee on the unemployment insurance fund in its recent report has indicated to the government that the fund has reached a perilous state.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The point of order is this. In view of that fact surely it is open to the hon. member to ask the government what it is going to do with regard to a fund that belongs to two segments of our population in order to see that there will be enough money available to assist the unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Skeena. I am not going to get into any argument with any hon. member, but the hon. member for Skeena was asking for statistical figures; he was not asking for replenishment of any fund.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is the consequence.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a matter of interpretation which I am not going to enter into. I recognize the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: You just now indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the question I was asking was of a statistical nature. On a number of occasions you yourself have suggested that we review certain citations in Beauchesne. I have done that, and I may say that nowhere in Beauchesne or in the practice in this house is there any suggestion of denial of the right to ask a question of a statistical nature, as you have just ruled. If that ruling is to persist I find that, with great respect, I shall have no other recourse than to appeal the ruling and have the house make a decision with respect to it.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on the point of order?


An hon. Member:: There is your authority.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. gentleman opposite laughs. I do not think it is fair that the Speaker should be called into question by other hon. members without someone rising to his defence. There has been a remarkable effort on your behalf,

Mr. Speaker, to make the rules apply. Yesterday and today the hon. member tor Skeena, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Essex East have asked questions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr, Chevrier:: Let us have the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe hon. members were afforded the privilege of being heard on this point. I think this is a courtesy that is due to all hon. members in this house.


Mr. Starr:: Liberal closure is being applied.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: During the last two days questions have been asked for the express purpose of raising argument, questions that were obviously out of order. The hon. member for Skeena predicated his question by stating it was going to be out of order.


Frank Howard: That is not correct; no, sir.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: According to Your Honour's ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think while the hon. member has the floor and is speaking, hon. members should not make interjections either approving or denying what he is saying. I do not believe this is proper conduct in this house. I would appreciate, on behalf of all hon. members in this house, the courtesy of an orderly hearing of the argument.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena said there was nothing in Beauchesne relating to questions of immediate urgency. He apparently did not read page 149 of Beauchesne, the sixth line from the bottom, which indicates that only matters of immediate urgency may be heard on orders of the day. In addition, he has probably not read the statement in Beauchesne that questions on orders of the day are matters for the Speaker to determine, that they are merely a matter of practice and not a matter of the rules. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, for the five years I have been here, questions of a statistical nature have not been accepted. I believe the hon. member for Skeena should give Your Honour assistance in keeping order in this house of minorities rather than raising questions to cause embarrassment to the Chair and difficulty in carrying on the proceedings of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Labour, what was the state of the unemployment insurance fund at the last report of the advisory committee?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition the fact that the point of order has not been cleared up. Would he please, therefore, let his question stand until we have cleared up this point?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the point of order. I do so in particular because of the remark just made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. Actually he has misquoted what the member for Skeena said yesterday, and the misquotation goes right to the pith and substance of one of the matters that is concerning us.
The hon. member for Skeena is fully aware of the citation in Beauchesne which says that questions must have some urgency. What he objects to, and what I object to, is the new twist that has been put upon this by Your Honour by saying that what is involved is the urgency of getting a reply. I submit with all respect to Your Honour that you have confused this with the wording that relates to standing order 26. In respect to standing order 26, relating to motions to adjourn the house to discuss matters of urgent public importance, there is wording in Beauchesne that says the urgency in that case means the urgency of having a debate. The point the hon. member for Skeena made yesterday was that nowhere in the citations in Beauchesne is there any wording that suggests that questions on orders of the day can be asked only if there is urgency in getting a reply.
It is our view that questions have to have some urgency, some immediacy, but that they cannot be denied because they are only urgent questions rather than questions concerning which it is urgent to get a reply. It seems to me that this is a fine distinction and it is something that does not exist in Beauchesne so far as questions on orders of the day are concerned. If I may say so with all respect, Your Honour is adding confusion to the situation by transposing into our practice with respect to orders of the day questions the phrase that appears with regard to motions under standing order 26. By the same token, I suggest that there is nothing in the citations in Beauchesne regarding orders of the day questions that denies the asking of questions merely because their answers are of a statistical nature.
I recognize, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has just said, that the judgment as to whether or not a question is in order is in the hands of the Speaker. This puts a tremendous responsibility upon Your Honour. But I suggest that Your Honour has to have consideration not only for the practice

Inquiries of the Ministry of the last five years that some members can quote, but for the practice of the last 20 years that some of us can also quote. I feel that too many new twists, new interpretations, are being brought into the rules in respect of questions on orders of the day. I agree with the hon. member for Port Arthur, who pointed out last night that this should not develop into what it is fast becoming, a contest between members and the Chair. This orders of the day period is a time when members on the opposition side and the government side put questions to the ministers.
I recognize immediately that we have a responsibility. I deny the hon. member's statement that my colleague or I have asked questions we knew were out of order. I think every question I have asked has been a proper one to ask on orders of the day.
I submit there should be very serious consideration before new rules that are not in Beauchesne at all are carried into our practice regarding orders of the day questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully appreciate what hon. members have said in this regard, and I thank them for their observations. I realize that there has been a change in the orders of the day question period as compared to previous occasions in this house. I had hoped that once we had cleared the debate on the speech from the throne I could present to the house a statement, at the earliest opportunity next week, of what I feel should be the guideposts for the question period. I do not wish to get involved in a piecemeal discussion at this time in that regard. In this context I would prefer to defer my explanation in regard to this matter until such a statement has been made, which I trust will be on either Monday or Tuesday. We have a great many questions on Monday, so I think I would prefer to defer it until Tuesday.
In so far as the reference by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is concerned, that this seems to have degenerated into a contest between hon. members and the Speaker, I say that is the last thing I wish it to be. I sometimes have felt, and I am not being facetious, that all the fast curves and the high, hard ones have not been confined to a certain contest that has been taking place in the United States and in which there has been a general interest by all hon. members. I feel it would be a rather poor situation should the Speaker have to sit as a sort of constable or policeman to police the conduct of hon. members; that would be the last thing on earth I would wish. The position of the Speaker is that of arbiter in this house, to observe the rules which are made by this house and which are binding on the Speaker.

In so far as the orderly conduct of business is concerned, I submit to the house that it is as much the responsibility of hon. members as it is of the Speaker. I bespeak their cooperation, and can assure them they will have the co-operation of the Chair.
In the light of what I have just said perhaps we could defer the point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena until I have made a full declaration on the subject of questions during orders of the day.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as I raised the initial point of order I must say the suggestion that you are going to make some statement outlining guide posts to be followed on orders of the day is not received without some misgiving. It appears to be a completely new departure from past practice over many years with respect to questions on orders of the day, but provided there will be an opportunity given to discuss the question of your guideposts, when they are issued, perhaps we can defer the particular point of order I raised.
I would like to reiterate that in raising the question you had ruled out of order, or were in the process of ruling out of order, I did not, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) indicated, preface it by any reference to anything. It was prefaced in precisely this way, and I shall read it again for the benefit of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. This was the original question I asked:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Minister of Labour a question which would be of a statistical nature...
Your Honour made a ruling on that and we will defer that particular matter as you suggest, but I am afraid that so far as we have been able to ascertain in looking into Beauchesne, if these questions are to be ruled out of order because they are of a statistical nature, then with great respect there is no other course but for the house to make that decision, as distinct from yourself.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If we can consider the matter deferred until Tuesday, I will now recognize the hon. member for Fort William.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have already asked the Minister of Labour a question in the following terms. What was the state of the unemployment insurance fund at the last report of the advisory committee?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have always tried to be cooperative and helpful to all hon. members seeking information in this house, and indeed

I have volunteered information when it has not even been requested. However, when a question of this nature is asked, naturally I have not got the information. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he could get his question answered much sooner if he placed it on the order paper.
(Translation):



EXTENSION OF BENEFITS TO WORKERS IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Does the government intend to do something so that Canadians who work in the United States may be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits?
(Text):


Michael Starr: This question involves a very detailed answer, and I do not think it is proper to give it on orders of the day. I suggest to the hon. member that he place it on the order paper, and I am sure he will get a satisfactory, detailed answer.
(Translation) :


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I did not ask the minister how he would go about it. I just want to know whether he intends to settle this problem.
(Text):


Michael Starr: Well, if that is all the hon. member wants for an answer, then I say yes. (Translation):


Raymond Langlois: When, Mr. Speaker?
(Text):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a communication from the mayor of Fort William pointing out the hazard to aircraft caused by seagulls at the lakehead airport and, if so, is his department giving consideration to the solution of this problem?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to find any trace of a communication of this sort from the mayor of Fort William, but I can assure the hon. member that the general question of hazards created for aircraft by birds, at or in the vicinity of airports, is one which we have under continuing active study, and in fact we are at present in touch with the national research council in connection with further programs of investigation into this problem.
27507-3-29i
Inquiries of the Ministry



ST. HONORS, QUE.-REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is it his opinion that an authorized capital expenditure of $500,000 at the civil airport of St. Honore would really be unreasonable compared with the loss of about $5 million incurred by the federal government in the tragic incident at Bagotville, without taking into consideration the loss of human lives which cannot be assessed in terms of money?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should realize that his question sets forth some arguments and observations which are not in order.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport tell us how many accidents and how many deaths must happen before he considers the construction of a civil airport instead of a military airport?


Léon Balcer: I believe that this question is completely uncalled for.
(Text):



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Carlier-La-salle):: I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Since La Presse publicized on Wednesday, October 10, that a probable site for the world's fair may be Pointe St. Charles, and since expropriation costs of this area may exceed the $5 million Montreal contribution, has any decision been reached as to the choice of a specific site on the island of Montreal for the 1967 world's fair?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, what appeared in the press was, generally speaking, speculation. The question of a site for the world's fair is a matter which is under consideration, and a report will eventually be made on it.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. McNulty (Lincoln):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Since

Inquiries of the Ministry tomorrow is the 150th anniversary of a critical stage in the winning of Canadian nationhood, in which our Indians played a large part, would the hon. lady consider issuing a special stamp to commemorate the battle of Queens-ton Heights?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, a number of requests have been received from various localities in the Niagara peninsula for a special stamp commemorating various stages of that war. The matter has been considered and I believe a stamp will be issued, possibly along the lines of commemorating 150 years of peace or something of that nature, which might give credit to many groups.
With respect to the Indians who, of course, played a very great part at that time, during the last few years a couple of stamps were issued honouring Indians. I do not think they will be singled out for special mention in the stamp I have just roughly described, but some commemorative stamp will be issued. I regret that I am not in a position to give further information.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I would like to ask the minister of northern affairs whether he is presently considering a change in policy for national parks, relative to the operation of private commercial enterprises within them, as current press stories indicate.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question I am happy to inform the hon. member and the house that because of the substantial increase in the number of visitors to our national parks, resulting from the increase in the tourist industry and so forth, we have under consideration at the present time changes in policy and program that will be announced when these become available.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As a supplementary question, could the minister let us know whether, in his opinion, this will require any statutory changes so that we will have the opportunity to debate or discuss the changes in policy?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: When the decisions are made the house will be fully informed.



INQUIRY AS TO WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask

the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether the government has reached any decision to embark upon a winter works program in the national parks as was done last year?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, this is under consideration. We are considering projects, and so forth.
(Translation):



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REPORTED OMISSION OF EASTERN CANADA IN PUBLICITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the advertisements of Trans-Canada Air Lines, which are published in newspapers of the eastern United States and of New York city, inviting American tourists to come to Canada, show various Canadian cities, but that Montreal and all the eastern section of the country are excluded. Did he know about it?


Léon Balcer: I was unaware of that; in fact, I know that the corporations under my department work for all sections of the country, and they consider Canada as a whole.



REQUEST FOR BILINGUAL AIR TRAVEL PASSES

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Trans-Canada Air Lines have supplied us with passes printed in English only. Could they not be bilingual?


Léon Balcer: I shall pass on the request of my hon. friend to the T.C.A. management.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. When he proceeds to draw this to the attention of T.C.A., would he also draw to their attention that the current cards are printed in the United States. It might be preferable to have them printed in Canada.
(Translation):


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the question I asked the Minister of Transport, I was thinking of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and my question was about the advertisements appearing in the New York newspapers. That is why I put the question to the Minister of Transport and I am repeating it.

(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. My question arises out of a report appearing in the New York Times of October 11 commenting upon the address of General Lauris Norstad, delivered in Paris, advocating that the NATO alliance accept nuclear weapons control-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I definitely here see that this question is asking a minister to comment upon this or that newspaper report as to what it was that person has said. That is definitely an infraction of the type of question that must be asked on orders of the day.


John Ross Matheson: Then may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the Canadian government has had any discussions with the NATO commanders respecting the important question of nuclear weapons control. If so, has the government expressed any views on this matter?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I think is well known, the question of the control of nuclear weapons in NATO has been a matter of discussion for several years, and there have been very extensive and lengthy discussions on that subject.


John Ross Matheson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government expressed any views on this matter?



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to increase from two hundred million dollars to four hundred million dollars the limit of the liability of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation under contracts of insurance entered into under section 21 of the act; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. This is the first opportunity I have had to address the committee, and I thought I would beg your indulgence while I thank you for the honour you have bestowed upon me and the people of the riding of Winnipeg South in electing me your chairman and Deputy Speaker of
Export Credits Insurance Act the house. It has been my nature throughout my life to love and indeed even to pursue independence, and it is this philosophy that I will try to apply in my capacity as your chairman.
I wish to thank hon. members who have done me the kindness of making special reference during the debate just concluded to the elevation that I have received, and to each and every one of them, and to all of you on all sides of the chamber, I repledge my dedication to this chair, indeed a reverence for it, and assure you that I will act at all times, with your help, in a spirit of impartiality and fairness.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The house in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act. Shall the resolution carry?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the Export
Credits Insurance Act at present provides a ceiling of $200 million for export credits insurance under section 14 which the corporation may underwrite at its own risk. There is also a ceiling of $200 million for export credits insurance under section 21 which the corporation may underwrite upon the authority of the governor in council, and the risk is for the government's account. Finally, there is a ceiling of $300 million under section 21 (a) for long term financing.
Under section 21, in cases where the board of directors of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation is of the opinion that a proposed contract of insurance would impose upon the corporation a liability for a term or an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake, and if in the opinion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce it is in the national interest that the proposed contract of insurance be entered into, the governor in council may authorize the corporation to issue the insurance policy.
Under section 21 insurance policies in force today and commitments given for sales under negotiation have reached the $200 million ceiling. There is substantial additional business in the offing; therefore in order to help exporters make the sales it is proposed that the present ceiling of $200 million be increased to $400 million.
Under section 21 (a) the government has authority, through the corporation, to finance export sales of capital goods. This financing is provided only in cases where credit terms extending beyond five years are required. These separate facilities for long term financing were made available little more than a year ago, and to date contracts totalling some $50 million have been signed. Commitments

Export Credits Insurance Act to provide for financing total $108 million. Thus $158 million out of the $300 million available has been committed.
While this long term financing is in the nature of export trade promotion, at the same time from the point of view of recipient countries it represents aid to their development programs. All other capital goods exporting countries which provide long term credits to developing countries get recognition for the aid they are providing in this manner. Thus Canada has a fund of $300 million which is being used for aid to the developing countries, and at the same time is of tremendous benefit to Canada's capital equipment manufacturers.
The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 21(a) is to enable the corporation to accept promissory notes direct from importers. The present act restricts the corporation (a) to guaranteeing an instrument- that is, a promissory note-given by an importer to an exporter and (b) to purchasing a guaranteed instrument. The proposed change would facilitate the negotiating of business and improve the administrative procedures.
Both export credits insurance and export credit financing are important features of our drive to get Canadian manufacturers into the export markets of the world. The government for its part is doing everything possible to encourage exporters. With these facilities in Canada we are offering Canadian exporters the equivalent of anything available to exporters in any other country.
The service provided by the Export Credits Insurance Act is available to every Canadian producer, no matter what kind of product he wishes to ship abroad; farm products, fishery products, industrial raw materials, manufactured goods, any kind of product. It is designed to help and encourage all Canadian producers to extend their operations into the export field, by taking the risk out of the export business; it guarantees payment to the exporter. The operations of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation cost the taxpayers of Canada nothing, as the premiums charged for the services rendered are set to just cover the cost of operation. They do not provide a profit for the corporation or the government.
This legislation, as it has operated since December, 1960, when the government decided to use section 21(a) to make long term financing facilities available to exporters, provides Canadians with a service which is equal to that supplied by any other country in the world, and superior to that provided by all but a very few.
This is the kind of measure that is good for Canada, as it enables all Canadian producers

to enlarge their operations, and by so doing reduce their costs and make their products more competitive. By making their products more competitive as against those from other countries, both in the Canadian market and abroad, our producers increase their sales and provide more jobs for Canadians.
The need for amending the act to increase its ability to serve Canadian producers is a good indication of how our export trade has been expanding during the past two years. It has been growing at a rate of approximately 10 per cent a year, and this measure is intended to help that growth continue.
The purpose of the act is to help Canadians help themselves to sell their products in all markets of the world, and thereby expand the country's economy and provide more jobs for our people. I hope all hon. members will approve of this measure, and will support its passage in the house. I also strongly urge them to advise the producers in their constituencies of the services made available to them by this act, so they may make use of those services and thereby enlarge their operations.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I thank the minister for the explanation which he has given of the resolution. The resolution seems to do two things. It asks the committee to pass on the expediency of increasing from $200 million to $400 million the limit of liability of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation under contracts of insurance entered into under section 21 of the act; it also asks for approval of the right to introduce a bill to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act. I assume we shall have an opportunity to see those other administrative changes when the bill is presented to the house, and that there will be time to consider them before the measure comes up for second reading.
The history of this legislation appears to me to be good. I think the provisions which have been made for export credit have done a great deal to assist the development of trade in this country since the end of the war. It is interesting to note the changing problems which have faced exporters as the years have gone on. The problems facing exporters now are wholly different from those which existed when the act was brought into force in 1944. The administration of the act seems to have been good, and the measure has undoubtedly contributed much to the development of our export trade. I would think, therefore, having heard the minister's assurance that authority to expend additional funds is required, that there should be no objection on the part of the committee to this resolution.

Export Credits Insurance Act
There are some questions I should like to ask and some explanations I should like the minister to make in connection with the proposed increase. They are of a purely factual nature, but sometimes it is difficult to obtain the kind of information required in connection with a resolution of this sort. In his opening remarks the minister stated that the amount authorized under section 13 of the act, that is the authority of the corporation to insure, was $200 million. Section 14 of the act provides simply that the limit of the authority of the corporation to insure shall not at any time exceed a total of ten times the aggregate of the amount of the subscribed capital and the surplus of the corporation. The first question which arises is, what is the subscribed capital and what is the surplus of the corporation at the moment? The minister will recall that the word used in the act in section 14 is "surplus" and that the financial statement deals first with the capital surplus paid in by the Minister of Finance and then with the earned surplus. The issued capital is shown at the sum of $15 million and there two items of surplus, capital and earned, making a total of more than $20 million, and it is difficult to see how the hon. gentleman arrives at the figure of $200 million under that section. I have no doubt there is an explanation, and I shall be glad if the minister will give us this information when he replies, because I think it should be on record.
The latest financial statement is, of course, contained in the annual report up to December 31, 1961. If the minister will tell us what changes have taken place in the capital set up since then we would be most obliged.
Then under section 21 I understood the minister to say that commitments at the present time have reached the authorized limit of $200 million, or very close to it. I should like the minister to place on record a list of those contracts. Perhaps he wants to do it in a form which would give the nature of the contracts and not the individual transactions, but I think we should have it. Then under section 21(a) the amount committed, I take it from his remarks, is $158 million. The amount authorized under that section is $300 million, so I take it there is no need to increase the authority there.
I do note from his remarks that he is making some changes having to do with the dealing in paper, the guaranteed paper, and the promissory notes under section 21(a). That raises the question which I raised when the amendments to this act were before the house on another occasion, namely whether or not the operations under section 21(a) should be carried on under a separate corporation, because the operations under section 21(a) are
in fact operations in the nature of financing or discounting of paper with regard to exports. There was no strenuous argument in the house as to whether or not that should be done.
I should like the minister to advise the committee whether he has considered that matter further and, if so, what his views are about it. It may well be that it need not be done, but it is something which should be looked at; because the operations of section 21(a), while very beneficial and supplementary to those under sections 13 and 21, are of quite a different nature. It is a point of administration which should receive careful consideration and watching, so that if the experience in administering the act does indicate that the two functions should be separated and that the functions under section 21(a) should be given to a separate corporation, it will be done.
In asking for authority for an extra $200 million under section 21 the minister merely indicated that the present $200 million had been committed. He did not indicate the requirement for the additional $200 million, and I should like him to indicate as best he can what he expects that $200 million to be used for. There is a nice question here as to the amount which should be granted by way of increase which has not been dealt with by the minister, as I think I can show in a minute, and I am sure he will seek to deal with this point.
Another point that has always concerned me with regard to this legislation is that all our export credit transactions are not financed under this one piece of legislation. There was quite an argument in the house during the last parliament as to why the sale of wheat to China was not financed under the authority of this act, bearing in mind that all previous sales of wheat which had been made to communist countries were financed by credit under this act, and bearing in mind also that the act provides what seems to be the type of machinery required for financing that kind of transaction. I think it fair to say of the last house that hon. members generally approved the sale of wheat to China. I think there was no controversy on that point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Well, the hon. member for Athabasca interjects, but may I remind him that he will find that exact remark in my previous speech on this measure.


Mr. Bigg:: I did not interject.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry; it was another hon. member. In any event, that is an exact quotation of what I said earlier on that very subject, so there can be no doubt about it.

Export Credits Insurance Act
I	think it is a fair statement to say that there was no opposition at all to the sale of wheat to China.
The question raised by me was as to the legality of the guarantee given by the government; because instead of giving it under this statute, where authority is clear, the government gave it under an order in council which does not make any direct reference to the authority for that order. When I placed a question on the order paper as to what was the authority for that order in council, I was given an answer which I must say was not a model of clarity; that is putting it very gently. In any event, it appeared from that answer to he claimed that the authority lay in section
II	of the wheat hoard act. Of course section 11 of the wheat board act, according to the best opinions I can find on the subject and certainly from my own reading of the section, and from anybody else's to whom I have shown the section, does not authorize any such guarantee at all.
The significance of that is this; that under the Export Credits Insurance Act, with which we are now dealing, the necessary orders in council are required to be tabled within a certain time limit, and an opportunity is given hon. members to find out the facts and deal with the matter. I want to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the extra $200 million he is now asking is intended to be used to finance the further sales of wheat to China, or what are his intentions as to the use to be made of this sum.
I for one take exception to the method used for the guarantee on the large wheat sale to China. I think it withheld from the house the right to know about and to discuss a matter that is of prime concern, and which must remain the responsibility of the house, namely the expenditure or commitment of public funds or taxpayers' money, however worthy and beneficial to the community at large. I have always been mystified as to why the government did not adopt the proper method of bringing that transaction before the House of Commons, either by bringing it under this act or, of course, by means of an item in the estimates, as can be done. Therefore I hope the minister will deal with that point.
The minister also made a general reference in his remarks to the increase in export trade. The feature about that which alarms many hon. members is that a very large proportion of that increase in export trade, at least on the figures available for last year, represents sales on credit to communist countries. That raises a difficult question, but one that it is a mistake to brush aside, and it should be faced. I hope our export figures will go up

sharply, but it would be a foolish person indeed who did not recognize that there are very great problems facing our exporters.
I am critical of the government for not taking other appropriate measures to increase our export trade. The government have brought in amendments to this measure from year to year as required. They seem to use this act, as far as I am concerned, rather well in relation to the needs of the exporters; but with regard to other more important matters of policy in relation to other governments or to other countries, in my view they have been either mishandled or neglected. I hope that in granting approval of this resolution for this increased authority under the Export Credits Insurance Act, we are not to be interpreted as in any way acquiescing in or condoning what I regard as the scandalous mishandling of our international trade negotiations.
I have reference to what I regard as the wholly wrong method of handling of the common market problem, starting off with the action of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance with their speech at Ghana, which speech incidentally was not released to the House of Commons although it was released to the press. It seemed to be a rather strange way of doing things. In any event, when we obtained the text from the press we found that it showed a shocking lack of understanding of the nature of the developing trade problems of the world and the appropriate methods by which to meet them.
I do not intend to redebate the matter now, but anyone concerned with the development of export trade must indeed have been greatly troubled by the negative and destructive approach of the Prime Minister at the recent meeting in London, where his whole approach to the problem was to prevent a healthy development of export trade and to fail to seek in that relationship and in that context to develop our trade. Then again there is to be considered the failure of the government to appreciate the tremendous changes in trade policy that have come about in the United States in the last few months, more particularly in their relationship to the common market. It seems to me that we should have immediately taken steps to come into proper relationship with those changes so that when the negotiations are carried on with the common market it will be our industry and our producers who will have the opportunity of participating in any advantageous agreement that can be made and not merely an agreement for the benefit of the particular industries and producers of the United States, with our benefit being merely

to the extent that we produce the same things or have the same industries. It seems to me that in that matter there was on the part of the government a failure that is not helpful in increasing our exports.
Then, of course, there is to be taken into consideration the whole unfortunate attitude with regard to trade with Cuba. As far as I am concerned it has always been a reflection on the present government. I cannot put the matter any more directly than that.


An hon. Member:: Tell us your idea.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member raises that question. We start right off with some of the nonsensical remarks of the minister, one of which was that you cannot do business with any better businessmen anywhere in the world than the Cubans. I think you just do not handle a difficult subject in that way in apparent conflict with our neighbour to the south with whom we do a greater volume of trade, by a very large margin, than any other country in the world. When they are adopting one policy we do not carelessly go about acquiescing in what may amount to back door methods of defeating their policy. I believe the government has become a bit more watchful following some episodes early in the year and at the end of last year, and 1 am appreciative of this fact. To that extent I give them credit. However, that is a difficult situation. I think the government's handling of it has been clumsy to say the least.
There is one other aspect of this matter of export trade that I should like to mention. This measure before us, as I say, should be helpful to the export trade. However, there has been one bad weakness on the government's part, and it is this. In dealing with the balance of payments problem, which is so current in these days as indeed it has been for some considerable time, or when that subject is being debated or discussed, it seems to me that the government are looking only at the part that has to do with commodity trade or merchandise trade. Merchandise trade is only part of the problem in the field of balance of payments. The minister again has made grievous mistakes as, for instance, when he liquidated our fleet that was carrying our exports to the West Indies, with the effect of having all those exports that we sent to the West Indies now shipped in the main in foreign bottoms and paid for in foreign exchange rather than in Canadian currency. Losing that earning capacity was a bad mistake. There is also the question of insurance of the ships and other related matters.
Export Credits Insurance Act
Again I mention that matter because this measure must be looked at in its proper context. It appears to be a good measure. We shall wait until we see the bill itself but, as it is worded, the resolution would appear to indicate that it is a good measure with regard to the part of the export trade problem with which it deals. My only hope is that the government, which seems to have made so many and such grievous mistakes with regard to the other larger part of the subject of foreign trade, will follow the example of their actions under this act. In that way we could perhaps really get to the solution of our problems which, I am sure, must weigh heavily on the minds of all hon. members on all sides of the house. I would ask the minister whether he has available for tabling information about the contracts under sections 13, 21 and 21(a) and if he will table it at a convenient opportunity.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Section 14.


George James McIlraith: Section 14 is the limit of the authority to insure. If that information is available I would appreciate receiving it with a view to doing a bit of questioning on it before the resolution passes.


Mr. Thompson:: At the outset I think we should note that we have three pieces of constructive and essential legislation before us to consider today. I think we should remind ourselves that if it had not been for the fact that we have kept parliament sitting against the wishes of those who would try to wreck it in the hope of some quick advantage, these useful pieces of legislation would have been indefinitely held up, to the great inconvenience not only of Her Majesty's loyal subjects but that of the entire Canadian economy as well.
I think this particular piece of legislation is worthy of support, as it enters into one of the basic needs of our economy with regard to facilitating the exportation of our surplus production. The increase that is suggested from $200 million to $400 million, ought to make a worth-while contribution in connection with this entire problem. The only comment I have to make-and I may say I am speaking generally and not specifically-is that the capital for this corporation comes from the consolidated revenue fund. If it is to be increased I think it would be much more practical if it were done through the facilities of the Bank of Canada rather than through the taxpayers' pockets. Why should our internal currency be deflated for a guarantee fund that will be frozen to cover the export situation?
In this regard, I think we have come to a crisis in our problem of international settlements. In the same way that we were in

Export Credits Insurance Act serious trouble internally in the 1930's in regard to the gold standard, so are we now externally in trouble in the 1960's. I believe that serious consideration should be given to this aspect of the problem. I have a number of times suggested that the time has come for us to consider the establishment of a permanent export-import bank that would deal with the problem that is being raised at this particular time through a different approach than the one that is now being taken. But in saying that I am not trying to minimize at all the importance of the point at which this legislation is aimed. I note that there are other amendments of an administrative nature that are being contemplated, but there is very little detail given about those. I trust that they will be made available to us.
In so far as this increase in the assets of the corporation is concerned, and following up the reference the hon. member for Ottawa West has already made, I wonder how much of this money is to be used to finance credits that have been extended to the different communist countries in connection with the sale of wheat. Does this mean that the money will be used to cover past sales, or will it be used for future sales that are contemplated? I think I should make my own stand clear in this regard. It has been confused, perhaps, in the heat of political battle during the election campaign. It is not a question of being against the sale of our surplus wheat to communist countries. It is a question of whether we are fulfilling our obligations to those who are on the friendly side of the fence in this battle of ideologies in which we are engaged today.
In that regard, I wonder what thought the minister has in connection with facilitating the use of these credits about which we are talking to such neighbours as we have in the Caribbean and in Latin America. Certainly with the international threat that confronts us in our own hemisphere at the present time we ought to be giving some lead to this hemisphere in facing up to our responsibilities to the nations that are friendly with us and who are caught in the squeeze that is taking place in the economic struggle so far as the communist ideology is concerned as opposed to the western way of life. This applies specifically right here on our doorstep. It applies, I believe, to the Caribbean right now. It applies to Latin American countries. Following up again some remarks which the hon. member for Ottawa West has made, I believe it applies specifically at this time to the commonwealth as well.
So far as we are concerned, the question involved in whether or not Britain joins the European common group at this time is, what are we going to do in the future if she does?

Perhaps this thing is being precipitated on us faster than we are prepared to meet it. At any rate we still have to face up to it, because Britain in her dilemmna at this time is being forced into some action. I feel, therefore, we should give careful consideration to assuring that a good part of this increased credit is used in connection with commonwealth trade. I believe, too, this could be a starting place with regard to some kind of revision of the settlements problem within the commonwealth of nations. Here we have an organization, which does not need a treaty of Rome to preface it with a political foundation. We have that understanding and that mutual respect for each other that would permit us to go ahead to a greater degree than we already have.
I note also that the minister mentioned the fact this change will permit the government to finance the export of capital goods as well as primary goods. I feel this is essential also and, without going into the details, the general principle is good and deserving of support from every one of us as we are trying to face up to the crisis in which we are at this time.


Mr. Scott:: 
George Harris Hees: If it is satisfactory to hon. members I would like to keep fairly current with their questions. I shall not take more than five minutes. The hon. member for Ottawa West asked four questions. First he asked about the operating capital of the corporation under section 14. The operating capital is ten times the aggregate of the subscribed capital and the surplus. The capital is $15 million and the surplus $5 million, making a total of $20 million; therefore the operating limit is $200 million.


George James McIlraith: Just to clarify that, what about the earned surplus?


George Harris Hees: It does not give the earned surplus. It is the surplus.


George James McIlraith: It just says "surplus" in the act.


George Harris Hees: Any earned surplus is passed back to the Department of Finance.


Mr. Drury:: It does not show that.


George James McIlraith: The balance sheet does not indicate that.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member asked me to give him the basis for the 200 million limit,

Export Credits Insurance Act and I am trying to do that. Section 14, page 7, of the Export Credits Insurance Act reads as follows:
The liability of the corporation under the contracts of insurance issued and outstanding shall not at any time exceed a total of ten times the aggregate of the amount of the subscribed capital and the surplus of the corporation.
In section 10 it says the following:
The authorized capital of the corporation is fifteen million dollars, consisting of the five million dollars authorized prior to the coming into force of this section and an additional ten million dollars.
Then over on the next page, in subsection 4 it says:
The amount of five million dollars credited to the capital surplus account of the corporation prior to the coming into force of this section shall continue to be the capital surplus of the corporation.
Therefore it is ten times the $15 million capital plus $5 million capital surplus, making a total of $200 million as the operating limit of the corporation under section 14.
The hon. member also asked what are the outstanding commitments under sections 21 and 21(a). First of all the commitments under section 21, liability under current policies, are as follows: Czechoslovakia, $15.6 million for wheat; Poland, $51 million for wheat; Brazil, $0.3 million for steel rails; Mexico, $10.1 million for steel rails; United States, $61.8 million for aircraft, making a total of $138.8 million.
Then, Mr. Chairman, our additional outstanding commitments at the present time are $34 million for wheat for Poland; under negotiation or other possible wheat sales amount to $21 million, and for possible aircraft sales to $6 million. Therefore we have a total of $138.8 million of existing liabilities and an additional $61 million of commitments giving us a total of $199.8 million out of our $200 million.
The hon. member also asked what business we have done under section 21(a). The business done up to December 31, 1961 is outlined on page 13 of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation's annual report, issued December 31, 1961. In addition to that the corporation has done the following business this year: $1 million worth of road graders, the Dominion Road Machinery Company, passed by order in council 1962-753; General Motors Diesel Limited, locomotives to the amount of $6,048,000 under order in council P.C. 1962-338; and for R.C.A. Victor the item is not specified but I suppose it is electronic equipment, to the amount of $1,620,000 passed by order in council 1962-123. That is the total business done under section 21(a).
The hon. member also asked whether section 21(a) should not be under a separate organization. The answer to that is no. This has

been considered by the corporation, and it is felt there is no reason for putting section 21(a) under a separate organization. The experience of the other two countries mainly concerned with this type of operation is that in the United States their export and import bank handles both insurance and finance, and in the United Kingdom their export credit guarantees department handles both insurance and finance. We see no reason for handling section 21(a) under a separate organization. The operations of insurance and financing are being handled very well by the corporation at the present time, we believe.
The last question the hon. member asked again raised the question of the $50 million wheat deal with China. He asked why it was not handled-


George James McIlraith: It is $100 million.


George Harris Hees: The $100 million wheat deal with China. The hon. member asked why that was not handled under section 21. The answer is that in the spring of 1961, when the wheat sales to China were being negotiated by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, the ceiling of liabilities that Export Credits Insurance Corporation could approve under both sections 21 and 21 (a) was $200 million. The liabilities under policies in force and commitments given totalled $162 million, leaving only $38 million available. As hon. members are aware, the initial wheat sale to China was of the order of $50 million, so it would have been impossible for the Exports Credits Insurance Corporation to insure those sales under the ceiling of liability then in force.
The hon. member inquired whether this extension being asked for now would be used to finance wheat sales in the future, and of course-


George James McIlraith: Sales to China.


George Harris Hees: -sales to China, or any wheat sales. The answer is that it would depend upon the circumstances existing at the time and what other outstanding commitments there were. But I would assume that in future wheat sales to any country would be handled by the corporation, provided there was enough money available at the time to handle those sales.
The hon. member for Red Deer made a very constructive and interesting speech. He did not ask any specific questions. I can assure him that the suggestions and ideas he put forward received great attention from myself. I found them very interesting.
My neighbour the hon. member for Dan-forth, who is very close to me, made a very interesting speech also. I listened to it with interest and appreciated the remarks he made

on behalf of his party. I appreciate very much the committee giving me the opportunity to answer questions in this way, and I thank hon. members who, with great consideration, allowed me to keep current with these questions. During the rest of the day I will be looking forward to hearing speeches by other hon. members expressing views on what I consider is a most important measure.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may ask a question of the minister and make a very, very brief comment. I noted with interest the minister's remark that in his opinion any wheat sale to China that is made in the near future will be financed through this act if there is money available.


George Harris Hees: I said, in all probability.


Hazen Robert Argue: "In all probability" is good enough. I did not want to misquote the minister. The minister outlined some possible future commitments under this act. One item to which he referred was a possible $21 million for the sale of wheat. This is the thing that concerns me in all these statements by the minister. From what he has said there is no indication that China is prepared to take up the balance of the contract soon, because I do not think the $21 million referred to by the minister is anywhere near the amount that would be involved, if this is the case.
I would hope that China will complete the agreement; I would hope this sale can be made soon; I would hope the financial arrangements which are necessary will be made under this act. If it should be that there is not money, then do it under an amendment to the act or by some other means. But it is a bit disturbing to me that the minister has not been able to say this morning that possible sales in the near future would involve much more than $21 million. Therefore I wonder whether he has any information as to the possibility or the likelihood of China going forward with the balance of the agreement and taking up this wheat. There is a tremendous surplus in the country, and farmers are most anxious to have this sale completed.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to comply with the hon. member's request and give him the information, but I am afraid I am -not able to do so. That information must be obtained, of course, from my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, under whose jurisdiction the wheat board operates and who handles these wheat deals. My job, through the Export Credits Insurance Corporation is, to handle export credits and export financing when credit and financing
Export Credits Insurance Act are requested; and if they are requested by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture I am very glad to comply. But I am afraid, however much I would like to give the answer, I cannot do so because it must come from my colleague.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the remarks the minister has now made. I am not endeavouring to be critical of the minister in any way, but it is amazing to me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in a position at this time to say that China is likely to take up the balance of the wheat called for in the agreement. I appreciate that it is not in his department; I appreciate that he has to hear from his colleague the Minister of Agriculture. However, I am absolutely amazed that the Minister of Agriculture has not given this information to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or, more specifically, has not been in a position to assure the house and the farmers in the country that this agreement will be completed and the deliveries made in the near future.


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Chairman, I first wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver South for yielding the floor in order that I might make a brief observation at this time. This is the type of legislation which I think might well be coupled with the greater use of Canadian ports. I was struck by the fact that in his opening remarks the minister said that with which I think we all agree; that is, this measure is good for Canada. I want to suggest that it might perhaps be even better for Canada if it were associated with either regulatory or incentive action to assure that those who benefit from it would spread the benefit by the use of Canadian ports.
The minister, who has a reputation for being sympathetic not only to trade matters but to Canadian ports, particularly in his earlier capacity as minister of transport, well knows that the federal treasury has a very large capital investment in Canadian ports. This is now running to some $368 million, including $39 million at Halifax, $36 million at Saint John, $154 million at Montreal, $40 million at Vancouver and so on; and there are other substantial capital asset investments.
Under this legislation the corporation is empowered to insure certain export contracts and also to finance long term exports of capital goods. I wish at this stage only to ask this question of the minister before the bill passes all stages in the house. Would the minister, in consultation with the corporation, consider the possibility-as other nations do- of coupling this kind of legislation guaranteeing insurability of certain exports and

Export Credits Insurance Act financing promissory paper of other importers with regulatory control to provide that those who benefit from it should utilize Canadian ports throughout in these transactions covered under sections 21 or 21(a)?
If this is not possible within regulatory authority, would the minister consider, in consultation with the corporation, having the corporation make clear to the beneficiaries, including Canadian manufacturers, other producers and the importers, that it is the avowed purpose of the present government where Canadian taxpayer funds are involved, either actually or potentially, that the beneficiaries thereof shall utilize Canadian ports not only for the benefit of those ports but of all those backed up behind the ports-railway workers, highway employees, transport workers and the like.
I would ask the minister to tell us at a later stage in the consideration of this legislation-legislation which I am sure will recommend itself to all members of the house-whether he does not think it would be desirable to insist upon Canadian ports being used under regulatory authority; or, if that should not be possible, whether he does not think it would be wise for the corporation to take all the steps it possibly can to acquaint the beneficiaries of this measure with the fact that since Canadian taxpayers in all parts of Canada are helping to finance this legislation, Canadian ports should have their proper share of the advantages which flow from it.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. My first words will be to thank all of you for the confidence you placed in me by approving unanimously my appointment as deputy chairman of committees. With your co-operation and your indulgence when I shall speak English, I hope to prove equal to the responsibilities pertaining to this office. I shall do my best to conduct our proceedings with fairness and equity, and if it ever happens that someone felt wronged by any of my rulings, it would be without any ulterior motive on my part, I can assure you, because I am anxious to co-operate with everyone of you so that our debates will always be for the common good and in the best interests of the Canadian people.
(Text):
May I with my first words thank you for the confidence you have placed in me in

adopting unanimously my appointment as deputy chairman of committees. With your co-operation and indulgence in respect of my English, it is my hope to fulfil all the obligations of this office. I shall attempt to preside over our deliberations with justice and loyalty, and should anyone feel that I have been wrong in a decision he may be assured that I shall not have done so wilfully, since I have at heart a desire to co-operate with everyone so that our deliberations will always be for the good of all and in the interests of the Canadian people.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I feel sure all members will join with me in congratulating you, the deputy chairman of committees, in assuming your duties for the first time. I know we are all sure that you will do an excellent job in your new position.
Mr. Chairman, before the luncheon break, the hon. member for Ottawa West made a suggestion which I have considered, and which I think is a good one. He suggested that from the point of view of clarification it would be an improvement if the surplus of the corporation could be more clearly described as the capital surplus of the corporation in section 14. I believe that the description referred to would be better if it read as follows:
The liability of the corporation under the contracts of insurance issued and outstanding shall not at any time exceed a total of ten times the aggregate of the amount of the subscribed capital and the capital surplus of the corporation.
I shall have this matter checked by the Department of Justice and, provided it rules that the inclusion of the word "capital" is satisfactory, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would suggest it as an amendment when we come to the specific item in the bill when the matter comes up on second reading for consideration.
(Translation):


Mr. Ouellel:: Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to congratulate you on your appointment as deputy chairman of committees. You said that this is the first time such an honour has been conferred upon you; likewise, it is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing the house.
I must commend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) for introducing an amendment to the Export Credits Insurance Act. Could the minister tell the house whether Canada has lost any money with a foreign country since the Export Credits Insurance Corporation was set up and, if so, what was the amount of such loss?
According to yesterday's newspapers, every second a human being dies in the world because of starvation. That is truly sad, I

agree, but I leel Canada must administer the Export Credits Insurance Act on a sound business basis because we are already most charitable and our generosity is acknowledged all over the world. Under the circumstances, we must look after the interests of Canada.
If we have not lost any money on world markets because of this statute, I feel it would be in the interests of the house to approve this resolution which will benefit our trade, because exports are our main concern.
Therefore, I should like the minister to give to the house the amount of our losses, if any, since the adoption of this statute.
(Text):


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the committee is indebted to the minister for having made his additional statement, and for the answers he has given to questions which are raised. I am particularly interested in the development of this corporation because I went back to study the wording when the bill was in resolution stage in 1944. It was then worded in this manner:
Whereas, it is desirable to promote the revival oi trade by establishing a corporation to insure against loss caused by insolvency, delays in connection with the export of Canadian-produced goods, and during the period of transition from war to peace by providing for loans or guarantees to governments of other countries or their agencies-
I think all hon. members in this committee will agree that we have come a long way from the original concept of this corporation. The minister is obviously no longer interested today in the revival of trade. He is no longer a revivalist. I think he is an expansionist today, and I think it is worth paying some attention to the change which has come over the corporation and its concepts.
I have read the annual report for the year ending December 31, 1961, and I would say that it is a statement of a corporation that is exceedingly well managed. I would point out that across the years they have stood behind the sale of over $1 billion of Canadian goods exported to foreign countries, and out of defaults they have incurred a loss of only some $925,000. I believe that is a loss of about one tenth of one per cent, and I am quite certain that any Canadian businessman would like to have his losses out of noncollections reduced to that amount.
I think that a compliment is due to the important and responsible civil servants who are the directors of this organization. In addition, I notice that there is an advisory board. While I do not know personally all the members of the advisory board, I know them by
Export Credits Insurance Act reputation and I may say that they are an exceedingly competent group of Canadians. The only thing that concerns me is that, according to the annual report, it is quite obvious that this advisory board is brought together only once a year. Provision was made for some $2,800 only, I think, for a meeting of the advisory board. I would counsel the minister to give some thought as to whether or not it would be advisable for this advisory board to work more closely with the directors than they have been doing.
The minister suggested that we as members of parliament should be salesmen for the corporation and that we should go back to our people and advise them that these facilities are available. I believe the advisory board are in a better position to do that kind of thing. Two of them are resident in the city of Vancouver and they are very competent people. If those who are interested in using this protection in order to export goods abroad were to get in touch with these members of the advisory board, were to know who they were and were to discuss matters with them, I think it would facilitate many of the representations they make to the corporation itself.
Just before we rose at one o'clock the minister, in reply to the hon. member for Ottawa West, was good enough to give him a breakdown of the responsibilities the corporation has today. This is my only critical comment, and I wish to tell the minister that I am extremely critical with regard to this matter. I refer to the fact that all the eggs are in very few baskets. This certainly was not the original concept of this corporation. It seems to me the concept was to support small manufacturers in Canada. I would hope the minister would admit to us now that he would much prefer to supply backing through this corporation to 10 companies of $100,000 each than to one company of $1 million. Here we have Czechoslovakia with $15.6 million for wheat; Poland with $51 million for wheat; Brazil with $0.3 million for steel rails; Mexico $10.1 million for steel rails; the United States $61.8 million for aircraft; and an additional $34 million for Poland for wheat; possible aircraft sale, $6 million. Then we find the $200 million is gone because the figures total up to $199.8 million. I wish to say to the minister that I would be a very poor salesman for my particular riding as we do not grow very much wheat there. I think one of the weaknesses of corporations such as this one is this. Our government corporations which are doing extremely beneficial jobs seem to have had it impressed upon them that it is almost unthinkable that they do any advertising. I believe the time has come when we should let the public know these services

Export Credits Insurance Act are available by some means or other, certainly by some means that are more effective than those employed at the present time. I would draw that matter to the minister's attention.
I am quite certain that we have in Canada firms which are doing an excellent job in the new field of electronics. Some of them are known already as exporters and do not need the facilities provided by this corporation. However, I think there are many others. Rather than restricting the matter to two or three commodities and to 10 or 12 corporations, I would think we wish the widest possible use of the facilities of the corporation and I think that some advertising in that direction would be beneficial.
My one final concern about this matter is that there might be a tendency-and I wish to put this on the record-or a danger, because of the size of each of these commitments, for corporations to use the facilities of this guarantee as a crutch-and I think the minister needs to be careful in that regard-rather than making arrangements as far as they possibly can, which again was the original concept when the bill was first introduced. There was almost the feeling at that time that we are doing this as a last resort. We would much prefer the corporations to make their own arrangements, but because of political difficulties at the end of the war and, I take it, a tremendous world disturbance in currencies, the government set up this corporation. I think the minister would agree that he would still prefer that as many as possible of the sale arrangements with foreign countries by Canadian corporations be made without the use of this corporation, and that in actuality what he is attempting to do is to make possible sales of Canadian goods in those territories where, without the support of this corporation, they would not be possible. However, I suggest that we should be careful that this facility is not used as a crutch by the larger corporations; and I think there is some indication of that danger in the figures which the minister was good enough to provide to the house before we rose at one o'clock.


George Harris Hees: May I answer a couple of questions? The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska asked me whether I could let him know the total amount of losses which the corporation has experienced in its life of 17 years. May I say that the corporation has made payments amounting to $10,613,580 -and I shall be glad to send these figures over to the hon. member-and has made recoveries amounting to $8,515,892, for a net loss on claims of $2,097,688 over the 17 years. As I have told the hon. member and hon.

members, the corporation aims to operate as closely as possible to a break-even point. The net losses on those claims have been covered by the premiums charged on the insurance issued.
The hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned the advisory council and the interdepartmental committee. He asked for some information on the advisory council. May I say that the advisory council met in June of this year and will be meeting again next month. As I think he knows, individual members of the council consult with officers of the corporation, and are consulted by officers of the corporation quite frequently. The interdepartmental committee of deputy ministers and men of that calibre meet as often as necessary to work out policy for the corporation.
With regard to putting too many of our eggs in one basket, as he described it, I should like to clear that point up. I was asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West if I would outline the business that had been done under sections 21 and 21(a), and I did so prior to the luncheon recess. The business done under section 21 is business which is not ordinary, regular day to day business, but that which is decided to be good business by the corporation and is proceeded with for that reason. These are usually large and rather extraordinary sales of wheat, machinery and things of that kind. However, the regular day to day, what might be called bread and butter business of the corporation is done under section 14. A very large number of transactions are carried out under section 14 involving producers of every type, size and kind all over the country. I should be very glad to let the hon. member for Vancouver South have a record of the transactions that have been made. They are very numerous. I can assure him that the corporation has no intention of placing all of its eggs in one basket. We are very anxious to do business with all types of producers in every part of the country. I feel that clears up the point for the hon. member.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister has already pointed out the need for an increase in the ceiling on the amount of insurance available, I shall not, therefore, elaborate on that. This need, of course, is due to the greatly increased exports resulting from the government's drive to increase sales abroad. In 1961, Mr. Chairman, exports reached record levels. At the end of July, 1962, exports were 11.3 per cent higher than for the same period in 1961.
Now, as a result of the constantly increasing effort of the government to increase exports, sales abroad will undoubtedly continue

to increase and appropriate financial arrangements must be made to expedite those increased sales. What is the government actually doing to increase sales abroad? I feel, Mr. Chairman, everybody is aware of the fact the government is doing a great deal in this respect. However, I always believe in presenting the facts and I am going to do so for the next few minutes.
The first thing I should like to mention briefly that the government has done to increase sales abroad is the export trades promotion conference held in Ottawa in December, 1960. There were 110 trade commissioners who were brought home from posts abroad for this conference. They met with 1,365 businessmen representing 1,133 Canadian firms for a total of 10,502 half-hour interviews concerning export opportunities. As a result, 1,000 new agencies were established and 860 more are pending.
The second thing I should like to mention is the provincial trade and industrial promotion conference. Twelve of these conferences were held in all ten provinces of Canada between February 1961 and February 1962. There were 4,309 businessmen representing 2,472 Canadian firms who attended. The final conference, I may say, was a completely bilingual meeting in Montreal attended by 1,100 businessmen. I may say that the program was equally divided between exports promotion and domestic problems.
The third thing I should like to mention is trade missions. This is a field of promotion that is concerned with export sales, and is most important. During the period 1961-62 there were 47 missions sent out from Canada. During the period 1962-63 there will be 22 trade missions sent abroad. In the period 196364 it is contemplated that 33 will be sent abroad. I should like to mention the purpose of some of these trade missions. In January, 1962, a clothing mission was sent to Europe. In February, a home heating and associated builders supplies trade mission was sent to Europe. Again, in February of this year, a fisheries products mission was sent to Latin America. There was a forest products mission to the Middle East in March and April. A general trade mission went to Australia and New Zealand in March and April. There was a trade mission to Israel in March and April. An electrical appliances mission was sent to Europe in March and April. A wood products mission went to Britain in April. There was a heavy equipment mission to Latin America last May. An iron ore trade mission was sent to Europe in May. An electrical distribution mission went to Latin America and the West Indies last June. An electronics products mission was sent to Latin America in September.
Export Credits Insurance Act There was a leather and leather products mission to Europe during August and September of this year. A timber mission went to European common market countries last September. I had the privilege of accompanying that mission for part of the time and I will have some comments to make about it. There will be a forest products mission to Latin America in October. An appliances, commercial machines and medical supplies mission will be sent to the Middle East in October, and there will be an organic chemicals mission to Latin America in November. I am mentioning these as concrete examples of what has been done and what is being done to promote our trade abroad. The people say they want facts, and there they are.
Now, another thing Canada has been doing to promote our sales abroad is sample shows. Four of these have now been held this year. Sometimes people refer to these sample shows as fly and buy. These have been held at Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Businessmen from the United States are brought over to see the samples of Canadian firms in these cities and to buy them. These shows have been very successful. I should like to mention the one held in Toronto on May 22 and 23 last. There were 122 exhibitors and 123 buyers. There was a show held in Montreal on June 19 and 20 last, at which there were 135 exhibitors and 128 buyers. At the show held recently in Winnipeg on October 2 last, there were 51 manufacturers and 58 buyers. One will be held in Vancouver during this coming week on October 16 and 17. At the moment according to information the department has at its disposal, there will be 46 exhibitors and 64 buyers.
Then, another aspect of the government's efforts to promote sales abroad that has been very successful is trade fairs. I have a list of trade fairs here, Mr. Chairman, at which various Canadian firms have exhibited. The period covered is from January 1962 until March 1 of next year and, of course, some of these fairs have not been held as yet. More than half of them have been held and I should like to mention a few of them. There are approximately 35, but I will mention a few just to give hon. members an example of what is happening.


Mr. Caron:: On a point of order. (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 59 says that speeches in committee must be relevant to the matter under consideration. And yet, although we are talking about export and import insurance, the hon. member talks about the exhibitions held by the Department of Trade and Commerce here or abroad, but not about insurance. At the
462	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act present time, he is only pointing out what the Department of Trade and Commerce has done during the last four years. That is not relevant to the matter under consideration.
(Text):


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize the hon. member for Hull does not understand what was being said-


Alexis Pierre Caron: I rise on a question of privilege. I do not believe the hon. member has the right to use those words.


Rémi Paul: Order.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was going to say, Mr. Chairman,-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Oxford has the floor.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes, but I brought forward a point of order and I should like to have a ruling on this.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman-


Alexis Pierre Caron: The point is that of relevance in our debates.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member was speaking to the point of order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes, on a point of order.


Rémi Paul: I think the hon. member for Oxford was going to speak to the point of order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He did not say so.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Hull could wait a minute to hear him.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He has to say so if he wants to go on in that way.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If I may be allowed to intercede on the point of order, I should like to say that the resolution before the committee concerns the increased ceiling on the insurance available for exports. I was merely trying to explain to hon. members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, why it was necessary to raise this ceiling on the amount of insurance available. I was explaining what is going to be done and why it is necessary to have this increased ceiling. If the hon. member for Hull does not understand, then I cannot help him.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you call on another hon. member, Your Honour, you have an obligation to render a decision on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Hull.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Hull raised a point of order about a statement made by the hon. member for Oxford in connection with the resolution we are

now studying. Perhaps the hon. member for Oxford will leave that particular aspect of the subject and we can consider the matter settled.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As has already been mentioned, there are a number of these types of exhibits which have helped to assist increase the sale of Canadian products. They will continue to do so in the future.
Another thing the government has done, and will continue to do in order to promote sales abroad, is the big job called operation world markets. This is another reason why we will need an increased ceiling on the insurance that can be made available. I know the Prime Minister has made announcements concerning this matter, and I do not wish to be repetitious, but I would like to mention four aspects of this operation.
There will first be a world markets machinery and equipment buying mission next March. Second, there will be a national Canadian sample show to be held in Toronto next April, to which more than 500 buyers from around the world will be brought to see Canadian producis. Then there will be a Canadian trade commissioners conference in Ottawa later that month.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Since the house met this morning, it seems to me that everyone has talked in favour of a bill. Why is it then that the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) tries to talk us into adopting it?


Rémi Paul: I believe all members have a right to express their views on resolutions or any other type of measures submitted to the house, and it has often been said that out of debate light is born. Frequently, suggestions by members of the house have been instrumental in improving draft legislation submitted to the house. Therefore, I believe every member has a right to take part freely in the proceedings of the house.
(Text):


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The last phase of operation world markets will be a second national export trade promotion conference to be held in Ottawa from April 16 to May 3 next year. These are some of the important things the government is doing to promote greater sales abroad; and again I repeat, for the sake of those who do not seem to be able to understand, that the reason we are asking for an increase in the amount of insurance available is to help finance and expedite the increased
[Mr. Caron.J

sales from these programs which have taken place, are taking place and will take place in the immediate future.
I mentioned earlier that I had the privilege of accompanying, for a brief period, one of our trade missions to the European economic community. This was the timber trade mission which visited five countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany, France and Italy. I was only able to accompany it to the Netherlands, West Germany and France, but in view of some of the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver South last Wednesday I think it might be of interest to the house to give a brief account of what goes on in these trade missions. Apparently some hon. members are quite unaware of what happens.
The trade mission consisted of representatives of 16 business firms, representing the timber trade in Canada. They came from all parts ot the country and from every province. British Columbia, I might add, was mainly represented by MacMillan and Bloedell, Seaboard, two or three other firms and the North British Columbia Lumbermen's Association. The mission visited all centres which had an interest in the timber trade. It visited Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Bremen, Hamburg, Le Havre, Genoa and other comparable cities.
During the daily programs members of the commission had the opportunity of seeing how timber was used in these countries and the type of building construction native to them, so that our salesmen could have an idea of what uses timber is being put to in Europe. They also had an opportunity of discussing timber uses with architects and of showing them types of timber, some of which had previously been unfamiliar to the architects. On other occasions interviews were set up between European buyers and representatives of Canadian companies at which sales of west coast timber, hard plywoods from Quebec, timber from the maritime provinces and Ontario, were discussed. Our people were glad to find out what were the proper European specifications, what type of timber they wanted and how our prices compared with those of other countries.
As I say, I only mention this in passing because a number of people do not seem to be aware of what these missions accomplish.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


Arthur Laing: I would like to ask him what relevance his account of that visit to Europe has to the inadequacy of the government's position with reference to sales of timber in the United States?
Export Credits Insurance Act


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize that the hon. member's remarks last Wednesday dealt with Canadian lumber sales to the United States, but some remarks of his dealt with trade and trade measures generally. For that reason I thought he might find this of interest.
I think he would be interested to know that there is a great reservoir of good will for Canada in Europe, and I would almost be tempted to say that, other things being equal, such as price, quality and the like, Europeans would be more likely to buy from Canada if we have fully comparable products to offer them. Of course if we have better products, then so much the better.
As a result of talks I had with our trade commissioners and other people I found out something I thought to be of great interest. They said that some Canadian products which had been shipped to Europe-I will not mention the trade itself because that might prove embarrassing to some of our manufacturers- were not up to standard. Certainly some of the products that have been shipped to Europe in the past are not quite equal in calibre to similar or identical products from some of our competitors overseas. Some of our products lacked the finish or uniformity of similar or identical products coming from Europe.
I want to pass this information on, and I hope it will get to the appropriate sources in this country. If we hope to continue to increase our export sales-and we have to do this-our manufacturers must realize that European countries and other places in the world are not prepared to accept slipshod workmanship, and articles that are exported must be as good as or better than similar or identical articles from other countries in the world. Most of our manufacturers are doing a wonderful job, but there are one or two instances-and I will not mention the trades concerned-where this has not been the case. I hope those trades will note these remarks.
I could not help observing this when I was over there. Hon. members who sat in the last parliament will recall that we used to hear from time to time in this house remarks by the hon. member for Welland to the effect that nobody in Europe would accept Canadian money. I do not know where in Europe the hon. member was at that time, but in the places I happened to visit, in every hotel and every exchange place the top two currencies on the list were the United States dollar and the Canadian dollar.


Rémi Paul: Order. I think the hon. member is going beyond the limits of the resolution. We are not discussing all the

Export Credits Insurance Act transactions or all the business of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We are discussing a measure to increase our exports. I am sure my remarks will help the hon. member to stay within the limits of the discussion.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your suggestion. I will of course be happy to carry out your instructions. I do not have very much more to say. I just wanted to bring to the attention of the committee some of the reasons for raising this ceiling. Apparently a great many people are interested in some of the things we are doing to promote trade, and perhaps more people will be interested in the future.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I can only say that in view of what I have tried to explain to the committee, I am indeed rather surprised at the speech made last Wednesday by the hon. member for Vancouver South-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -because it-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Mi. Nesbitt:	because in tbnt epeech he
did not seem to realize at all what the problem was concerning our exports abroad. I hope I have been able to enlighten him a little in these remarks.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, I did not get into the throne speech debate either, and I shall not use this as a substitute at this time. I just have two, I think fairly simple questions, for the minister. There seems to be a little contradiction in this respect. I have been reading the brochure put out by the corporation, which says that exports to the United States are not covered, and yet the annual statement of the corporation seems to list exports to the United States.
The brochure says:
Credit insurance is obtainable from commercial companies for sales to XJ.S.A. buyers.
Yet they seem to be included in the statement of the corporation. My second question is: what was the value of Canadian fish products covered by the corporation in export insurance last year?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member's first question, I think he is referring to business done with the United States under section 21. Business to the United States is not normally insured in the regular way under section 14, which is the normal day to day insurance business which the corporation does, because there are private corporations in Canada which perform that function for exporters. With regard to goods insured under section 21, that
[The Deputy Chairman.]
is a special item of business, a special sale not normally insured by the corporation. Therefore it was done, as I explained earlier, under the special section 21, under which the government takes on the responsibility of the insurance for a particular risk.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister another question following that? In the annual report of the corporation they have two headings, one under section 21 which lists $219,000 with the United States, and then it says, "Amount at the corporation's risk, $1,438,000". I took this to be the ordinary type of export insurance.


George Harris Hees: It is not broken down under section 14 and section 21?


Robert William Prittie: This is on page 15 of the report, and it says in the left hand column, "Amount at the government's risk under section 21", and then it says, "Amount at the corporation's risk". Does that mean section 21 as well?


George Harris Hees: No, that is section 14. With regard to the question about the amount of fishery products insured in the past few years, 1 will get that luXoimation for the hon. member. I have not got it at hand, but I will get it for the hon. member as soon as possible.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I have two relatively simple questions to put to the minister. Does the minister have any statistics with reference to the number of applications, or the amounts, which would indicate the use being made of this corporation either in the different provinces or in different parts of the country such as the Atlantic provinces?
My second question is: can the minister indicate what use has been made of this fund by fish exporters and exporters of fish products in the Atlantic provinces?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked me as we walked out of the chamber at the luncheon break if I would get him this information. I understood he wanted it for his own province of Newfoundland. I have obtained that for him. The answer is that in 17 years the Export Credits Insurance Corporation had 12 inquiries from Newfoundland and only two applications have been received, both of which resulted in policies being issued; but both policies have expired and there are none in force at the present time.
As I have outlined to other hon. members during this debate, we are only too anxious to insure products of all kinds from all parts of Canada, and I can assure the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo that the small number of

policies that have been in force from the province of Newfoundland does not reflect any lack of interest on the part of the corporation in insuring products that are shipped from Newfoundland. We would like to do a great deal more business with shippers and businessmen generally in the hon. member's province.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for his answer, but my inquiry went beyond my own province. I was interested in getting a breakdown among provinces, but I did not wish to give the minister too much work. I am also interested in the Atlantic area, the Atlantic provinces as a whole.
I wonder whether the minister could obtain at some other time the information as to what use is being made by fish exporters or the exporters of fishery products in the whole maritimes area, because Newfoundland is perhaps not the only province that is not getting the best out of this corporation.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to obtain that information for the hon. member.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to say a few words on this resolution I would first like to convey my congratulations to you in your new position as deputy chairman of committees. I am sure that under your guidance and direction committees will progress with fairness, justice and great expedition.
The resolution which is before us, which deals with two amendments to the Export Credits Insurance Act, is the first piece of legislation that has come before this twenty fifth parliament. I admit that I am very much in accord with what was said by the hon. member for Red Deer, namely that this is one more case when we should put party affiliations aside and get on with the nation's business. This piece of legislation is important to Canada and to the export industries. I am pleased to see this legislation is being piloted through the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think it is a just and well earned recognition of his great work on behalf of the export of Canadian products that he should have the honour of piloting the first bill through this new parliament. It must give him a great deal of satisfaction. I know he is regarded throughout this country as Canada's No. 1 salesman. It is through his aggressiveness and his visionary efforts that Canada has achieved her present position in the export field. It was through his efforts last year that we were able to reduce our deficit on international payments to $982 million-the first time for six years it has been below the
Export Credits Insurance Act $1 billion mark. Under the minister's direction, too, we achieved for the first time a surplus of $173 million of exports over commodity imports.
The amendments now proposed to the act deal, first of all, with section 21, which has to do with insurance and, second, with that part of the act which is concerned with export financing. The corporation issues insurance which protects Canadian exporters against non-payment on the part of foreign buyers. It is important to an exporter that he should have protection in this regard. For the interest of the house, the risks that are insured by the corporation are as follows: the insolvency of a foreign buyer, the failure of a buyer to pay to the exporter within 12 months after the due date the gross invoiced value of the goods he has accepted; the blockage of funds, or transfer difficulties which prevent the Canadian exporter receiving payment; war or revolution in the foreign country concerned; and any other cause beyond the control of both the exporter and the buyer arising from events outside Canada, in the continental United States of America, for instance, the cancellation of an export licence, or the imposition of an import restriction on goods not previously subject to licence. This is the type of insurance the corporation provides for exporters. It makes this protection available at no cost to the taxpayer; it is all done on a break-even basis, and it is not available from any private source.
During the past 12 months, the corporation has insured more than $110 million worth of exportable goods covering a very wide range of Canadian products. Incidentally, these products must be of Canadian manufacture to the extent of 80 per cent or more. Such goods have been shipped to more than 90 foreign countries. The corporation has further commitments to Canadian exporters amounting to about $100 million. It is for these reasons, and because of the great increase in Canadian exports-an increase which is averaging about 10 per cent a year-that the committee is being asked to approve an increase in the fund to $400 million.
The amendments to section 21 (a) which the committee is asked to consider involve nothing more than changes of a technical nature. It is a matter of processing the promissory notes in a more efficient way. I am happy to support the two amendments which are before us because I know this legislation is of great assistance to exporters in my own community. I know that the Canadian General Electric Company, which manufactures transformers and sells them to underdeveloped countries, makes considerable use of this service. The countries which import these goods are often
4*6

Export Credits Insurance Act not able to pay spot cash for them. Sometimes payment is delayed as long as 10, 15 or 20 years, and it is only by means of the long term finance available through the corporation that the company can make such sales. I can think oi another concern in my constituency, the Guelph Engineering Company, which is making valves and exporting them to Belgium. They, too, are making use of this act and its accommodation. I also think of those who raise purebred livestock in my community. They are exporting livestock to many countries throughout the world and they, too, are making use of the accommodation provided through this corporation.
As I say, I am very much in agreement with these amendments. X shall support them, and I hope every member in this committee will do likewise. Not only do I think hon. members should support this resolution but I suggest they go back to their constituencies and inform those who are engaged in export industries of the wonderful facilities available to them. In closing, may I say I support this resolution so that Canada can continue to make progress in the field of export business, which has been so evident under our direction in the last few years.
(Translation):


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I should like to join all those who offered congratulations to you on your election as deputy chairman of committees. I also wish to congratulate you on the first remarks you so eloquently made this afternoon. We were certainly happy to hear you say that in your new position, you will follow the rules of fairness and that each one of us will have the opportunity of expressing his views without interference.
(Text):
I should also like to associate myself with those who have expressed the view that we are this afternoon considering changes in the procedure of a corporation which appears to have been very well managed indeed over the years since its inception. Its record both of helpfulness and the exercise of good judgment is apparent from the balance sheet and from the operating statement in the corporation's annual report. I hope that after the proposed increase of the area of its activities the corporation's judgment will continue to be as good as it has been in the past and that it will continue to be as helpful to Canadian exporters and producers.
I listened with interest to the statement made by the minister in introducing his resolution, and felt it was helpful. I did, however, regret his tendency-a tendency of which the hon. member for Ottawa West was somewhat critical-to engage in declamatory statements

of a propaganda type in connection with our foreign trade. Our foreign trade is in a difficult position and we on this side of the house do not feel it will be helped by the making of idle boasts nor by any feelings of complacency.
If I heard the minister correctly, at the outset of his remarks he made the statement that this was a non-profit organization.
Indeed, its object was neither to make a profit for itself nor a profit for the government. This corporation, however, for the past couple of years has, quite rightly under our laws, paid an income tax which is a tax on corporate profits in the amount of about $750,000 a year. Any corporation which pays this amount of income tax is obviously a profit-making organization, and perhaps it is right that it should be making a profit. I do resent, however, any attempt to mislead the people of Canada with the statement that it is non-profit-making.
I was also a little distressed to hear the hon. member for Oxford, in his somewhat tiresome outline of his vacationing in Europe, apparently laying a foundation for the claim that 't was these exercises which had made necessary this increase in insurability or the right to incur additional insurance. One would have been led to believe that these trips had been highly successful and conducted with great success, and that what was needed, following upon these ventures, was to increase the amount of money available and prosperity would be upon us. The same complacency was reflected in the speaker who preceded me, who pointed out that under our distinguished Minister of Trade and Commerce a favourable balance of trade on commodity account has been incurred in 1961 for the first time in a great many years. Unfortunately, this glowing record has been somewhat marred, even though there has been introduced an austerity program accompanied by devaluation of the dollar. I would draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that there has been an increase in our exports in the first half of 1962 over the previous year; but at the same time there has been a very substantial increase in our imports over the first half of the previous year. In the first six months of 1962 the favourable balance of trade on commodity account has disappeared, and indeed in the first six months we are faced with a deficit of some $49 million. This is one of the hard facts of life, one of the regrettable circumstances to which we have to face up, and it is a challenge we have to meet. I would suggest that we are not going to be able to meet this challenge by proclaiming to the public that the things which have been done

by the government, and indeed by the business community, have been eminently successful, and that all that is needed is a little more of the same. As a matter of fact, the steps taken have not been successful. We have manifestly not met the challenge, and I suggest that something more imaginative than what we have been getting for the past five years is essential.
I should like to say a word, if I may, directly about the act. As I understood the minister, the resolution contemplated two distinct actions. One was a proposal to raise the amount available for insurance purposes from $200 million to $400 million. I personally would be glad to agree to this, but on the basis that we hope we will be able to find the means to increase our export opportunities by this amount, and not because what the government has already done is going to make this necessary. We have not done enough as a country and mere is roquiieu to be done.
As to the second item, it is a proposal in respect of the long term capital financing to permit the corporation to accept bills and negotiable instruments, including promissory notes, for purchases of our export goods direct from the buyer himself. As I understand the act, this started out as purely an insurance operation; in other words, it was up to the seller, Canadian, and the buyer, foreign to make their own buy and sell operation, to arrange for satisfactory terms of credit and financing, and the Export Credits Insurance Corporation then stepped in merely to guarantee the payment by the buyer. And in its initial stages this was limited to commodity short term credit.
Over the years, as a consequence of amendments made necessary, I suggest, by the changing nature of world economy and trading arrangements entered into by European countries and the United States, it became necessary to give assistance in providing guarantees for longer term operation, but this was still essentially in the nature of an insurance function. But now, if I understand the minister correctly, this corporation is going to assume, to some extent anyhow, a banking function which is quite different from an insurance function. It will be a banking function in that the credit which will be sought by the buyer will be provided by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, and the debt, the obligation, will be manifested by a note given by the buyer and taken directly by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. I think this will be a debt which will be the direct responsibility of the government, rather than an obligation secured by the assets of the corporation.
Export Credits Insurance Act
This means, then, that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation will be slipping rather by the back door into one of the major functions of the United States export-import bank. I think a number of Canadian businessmen have for years been urging that this is a function which the government of Canada should fulfil, but I would urge the minister, if my interpretation of the second half of this resolution is correct, to proclaim that we have gone beyond the mere function of insuring credit and are now engaging in a straight government banking operation. My own personal view is that that is a function which, in order to meet international competition,'the people of Canada should have this government perform for them. If we are going to do it, let us be honest about it and not do it under the guise of running exclusively an insurance scheme, as a member of the Berne convention on credit insurance, in a quiet and unobtrusive way, got into a banking operation. I would be glad if the minister would advise me whether I have in fact misinterpreted the object, and indeed the function, of the second part of the resolution.


George Harris Hees: If I may do so, once again I should like to address myself to some of the questions that have been asked. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked me whether I could let him know the amount of insurance that had been asked for by firms in the Atlantic provinces. The answer is that the corporation insures six fish exporters in Canada having an annual volume of $3,440,000. Of those policyholders, four are in the Atlantic provinces and do an annual volume in excess of $3 million. The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount began his remarks by taking me to task for being, as he said, both boastful and complacent. I should be interested in knowing in what way I was either boastful or complacent. It was certainly not my intention to be either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Look in the mirror.


George Harris Hees: I thank the hon. member. That is what I would expect from him. In my opening remarks it was my intention simply to outline what the corporation had done and why it is necessary to do what it proposed. If that was taken as being boastful and complacent, then I am surprised, and I am not convinced that anything I said was either complacent or boastful.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. member concerning the operations of the corporation at cost, may I say that the excess of premium income over expense and valid claims since the corporation started operating 17 years ago is only $1.9 million,

Export Credits Insurance Act after insuring export sales of $1,050 million. Thus the excess is less than one fifth of one per cent which is available to meet losses which might arise under insurance at present in force. I do not think you can operate a business of this magnitude any closer to the line than that.
Then the hon. member spoke about the regrettable position of our exports and imports, that although our exports had been steadily rising year by year, he was very upset over the fact that our imports are in excess of our exports this year and in some way he appeared to blame the government for that fact.
As we all know, imports are made up of the total purchases of 18 million Canadians. If the hon. member or hon. members can suggest any way in which we can cut down our imports without imposing unfair restrictions on our fellow Canadians, I should be interested to hear it. I like to see exports exceed imports.


John Ross Matheson: Why?


George Harris Hees: Because that situation gives us a favourable trade balance. It puts us in a more favourable international payments position, and that is something that is most desirable in the running of any country.
The hon. member spoke rather disparagingly about the fact that our imports exceed exports this year. May I say that they exceed them by a figure that is about one fifth of the amount that imports exceeded exports in the last year in which the late Liberal government was in power in 1956. I would therefore suggest to hon. members on the other side of the house that, when they criticize the government for having imports in excess of exports, they might look back at the performance in this regard under their own government.
With regard to the government assuming a banking function may I say this. You might call the function that we perform under section 21(a) a banking function. When I took over this portfolio I found in my meetings that I held immediately with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of which I believe the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount is a prominent member, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and other important bodies there was a universal demand that the government provide long term financing to match what is being done at the present time by other countries. As a result of these suggestions made by these important business bodies in this country this government undertook to extend the operations of section 21(a) to include long term financing for capital goods. I think any businessman in Canada, especially

those who manufacture capital goods, will tell you that this has been of great benefit to them. Many millions of dollars of Canadian business has been done simply because it was possible for Canada to extend the same long term financing facilities to those capital goods manufacturers as are made available to similar manufacturers in the United States, Great Britain, and other countries. It was for this reason that Canada undertook this new function under section 21(a). If that is a banking function, and I suppose it is, I am glad that we undertook it.
The proposed change in the operation of section 21(a) is as a result of requests that we have received from countries to which we have extended credit under that section. These countries would like to deal directly with the Export Credits Insurance Corporation; and it is in order to accommodate them that this slight change is being made. It is not a fundamental change. It is a change of detail whereby the Export Credits Insurance Corporation is allowed to deal directly with the importer instead of dealing with the importer through the exporter. It is simply a means of cutting out one step in the procedure, ui cutting cut red tape; and T think we would all agree that is desirable. When the measure comes before the house I hope that hon. members will agree that is desirable.
I hope I have answered all the hon. members' questions. Once again may I say that I appreciate the courtesy shown by hon. members in allowing me from time to time to rise and answer questions as they are asked.


Mr. Foy:: I wonder whether I might ask the minister a question with regard to rates. It is just a simple question which I am sure the minister can answer. In the annual report at page 5, it is stated that there are approximately $66 million worth of commodities insured at a premium of approximately $1,100,000. This figures out to about 1.6 per cent, the amount of the premium to the amount of the commodities. I was wondering how the rates are calculated for insurance premiums. I was wondering whether or not the rate is calculated having regard to risk with different countries, or whether it is calculated on the basis of different rates with different countries. I should like an explanation, if the minister does not mind.


George Harris Hees: I am glad to answer that question. On the insurance under section 14 the rates charged vary according to a number of factors, including the country to which the shipment is to be made, the type of goods and in general the risk calculated by the corporation. The premiums average, on the whole, three quarters of one per cent. As 1

say, they vary from country to country according to the risk involved in doing business in a particular country and the chances of receiving payment from importers in a country and the type of goods involved. Each type of transaction is calculated individually and the best possible rate is made available to the individual exporter.
If the hon. member desires some specific information about certain types of products, if he will speak to me afterwards I will make sure he is given the specific information he would like.


Walter Frank Foy: I appreciate the minister's offer, but if he does not mind I would rather drop him a line and have him send it to me.


Mr. Addison:: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question relating to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation annual report. The report states that in 1961 pvports to a value of $65,007,223 were insured under this section and the premiums on the 55 policies issued amounted to $1,093,854. This works out, according to my calculation, at $1.66 per hundred. It is certainly not the three quarters of one per cent the minister mentioned.


George Harris Hees: What page is that?


John Hollings Addison: Page No. 5.


George Harris Hees: Is that under section 21?


John Hollings Addison: Section 21, yes.


George Harris Hees: When I said three quarters of one per cent on the average, I meant the average day to day regular business done under section 14. Section 21 would, in all probability, have a higher average premium because it relates to special operations which are over and above what the Export Credits Insurance Corporation believes it is justified in entering into. They are passed to me, as minister, and I take them to the cabinet. If it is decided to go ahead and insure an operation of that kind, it is for a very special reason. They are usually large scale operations with more risk than the average day to day business; but it is considered for one reason or another in the national interest that the corporation should insure these risks. They are in excess of the normal risk and that would be the reason for the higher premium.


John Hollings Addison: May I just ask a supplementary question? I notice that in Hansard for February 18, 1954, the Right Hon. Mr. Howe speaking on this same subject stated that the average premium rate was 82 cents per hundred on all exports covered to date. This is less than 1 per cent of the selling price, and this is under section 21. I wonder,
Export Credits Insurance Act in view of the minister's comments about the risk involved if it means that the risk has deteriorated by approximately 50 per cent?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, he would be referring to general business under section 14, and other business, whatever that other business would be, would be done under section 21. It all depends on how much business is done under section 21. As I say, if only business under section 14 is considered, I am advised that the average rate is three quarters of one per cent, that is .75 instead of the .82 with which Mr. Howe dealt at that time. The reason for the higher rate about which the hon. member is talking is the business done under section 21, and is the rate of interest that is charged in accordance with the risk considered to exist by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.
(Translation):


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I am following the discussions with much attention. I understand that what we are requested to do today is to increase the capital from $200 million to $400 million.
I do not believe that the principle of the act should be discussed. It seems to me that we are losing rather valuable time in this way. The Minister of Trade and Commerce let me have some figures-I think he said so earlier today-indicating that since the insurance corporation was established it had on one occasion to underwrite a billion dollars, whereas the losses were only $2,097,688.
It seems that the house agrees to pass the bill and to accept the increase requested by the minister.
Here, we discuss things and I really do not know why. I begin to think that, when democracy is abused, it disappears.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I wasted the time of the committee. As the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said with some common sense, the house is in principle favourable to the legislation before us.
I do not want to deal with other subject matters, because, as the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) pointed out a moment ago, the principle of relevancy must be observed in this house. I must, nevertheless, state that I disagree with the views of some hon. members, for instance the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Ouellet) and the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Drury). It is important to discuss this legislation, and to discuss it very seriously, more particularly to see that the public be informed of any action taken in this house to improve Canada's export trade.

Export Credits Insurance Act
This export trade is vital for us because, after all, facts are there to prove that, with a population of 18 million in this country, and a production large enough to supply a people perhaps four times as numerous with primary, secondary and other products, we definitely have to seek the needed markets outside this country if we, in Canada, want to have maximum production, and the full employment that goes with it.
On the morrow of the war, competing nations launched a policy of export credits which enabled them to obtain markets that would normally have been ours. As the years went by, we therefore had to follow in their steps. And, thanks to certain efforts, we sometimes overtook them.
Today, in the world as we know it, it is impossible to do any business with foreign countries without offering to the possible buyer the terms of sale and payment which will meet competition. And it is the reason why we have to show some imagination and devise legislation to improve the situation like the one now before the house.
Thanks to this measure our manufacturers will be able to finance their sales on foreign markets. Our manufacturers and merchants will then be able to make sales which they could not even consider without this amendment now before the house.
If I take the floor today, it is for two reasons. First, because I think the people are not sufficiently aware of the benefits provided by this measure concerning export credits insurance.
I think it would be wise to ask hon. members, each time the occasion arises, as well as newspaper men, to point out to our population, by all means at their disposal, that there are very useful export credit facilities for those who wish to increase their business.
A moment ago, the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, whom I am happy-with certain reservations-to see here in this house, blamed the Minister of Trade and Commerce for being, to use his own words, declamatory about what has been done in the field of trade and industry, about what he is now doing, and about what he intends to achieve.
I believe it is somewhat daring to blame the minister for being proud of what he has accomplished for, after all, thanks to his efforts to promote our export trade and to the measures he has introduced in this house since he has assumed the direction of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the volume of our exports has increased sharply. In fact, according to figures which are already six months old, our exports to the common market countries have increased by


more than 16 per cent, while the increase is more than 90 per cent to eastern Europe, 36 per cent to Latin America and more than 35 per cent to the Asiatic countries.
These figures surely indicate that under the direction of the minister, the Department of Trade and Commerce has obtained results which are very beneficial to the whole population and to the Canadian economy in general.
The important thing that we have to deal with is surely the promotion of the development of the Canadian economy in all fields, and I believe that it would be hard indeed to find, in this house or elsewhere, people who will deny that increased sales will result in an increased industrial productivity, which will mean more employment for our citizens, more benefits for the industry, the employer and the employee, and, consequently, more benefits for the state, benefits which will be distributed for the greatest welfare of the Canadian community.
Mr. Chairman, may I repeat that, according to my way of thinking, the main objective of all our economical activities at present is to look for the appropriate cure to remedy the depressed situation of the economy, where it is to be found, so as to overcome this dreadful plague of unemployment, which is unfortunately striking certain parts of our country.
The main task of the members of this house is to see to it that, with the rising of the level of business, we can also adequately raise the level of our economy so as to secure full employment and the prosperity hoped for.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the resolution now before us, even if it receives general support, must be presented by all our advertising media as one of the essential measures for the future of our economy. It is because this question is so important that I have taken part in this debate.
Several approaches can be used to improve the state of our economy. Some advocate methods which might bring about inflationary pressures. Others see the solution of all our problems in the full nationalization of industry. And, it must be pointed out, certain citizens see-and wrongly so-in socialism or in semi-socialism the cure for all evils.
I, for one, believe that in a country as young as ours, with such a bright future ahead, socialism is but an approach of premature senility. In my opinion, before venturing to apply economic theories not yet proven nor established, we must take good care not to

bring about in this country an inflation which might have here the same disastrous results as those we have noted where socialism has become a form of government.
What is certain, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that, thanks to this amendment, everyone will benefit from an increased business flow, and thanks to this measure now before the house, I am convinced that all manufacturers and merchants will now have the opportunity of increasing their business. And this is in keeping with our desire to work for the welfare of the Canadian community.
(Text):


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: My original intention on rising to speak was to deal with questions of a legal and technical nature which had come to my attention in dealing with the statute in professional practice; but at the start I would like to make some observations with regard to statements made by hon. members opposite, particularly those made by the last speaker and by the hon. member for Oxford.
During the course of his travelogue the hon. member for Oxford appeared to stray far away from the point, something which was commented upon by my colleague the hon. member for Hull. I myself was somewhat baffled in trying to find what relevance his remarks had to the actual statute.
The function of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation can be likened to that of a credit department in a corporation, but the remarks of hon. members opposite appear to be related to other aspects of a corporation's business, such as sales and productive effort. I have no difficulty in associating myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South in congratulating the management of the corporation on performing a very effective job of work. However it appears that hon. members opposite have taken the success of this particular function as a jumping off point to make some parenthetical remarks about their trade policies. I can tell them that any parenthetical remarks they may make at this time will not satisfy hon. members on this side of the house. A full and clear study must be made of Canada's trade policy, and in particular of efforts which so far have so sadly been lacking on the part of the government to achieve favourable trade agreement position for Canada in relation to some of the emerging realities in international trade.
The minister, in part, anticipated some of the remarks I was going to make, in pointing
Export Credits Insurance Act out that there will be some amendments to the strict technical terms of the statute, and in particular in accepting the amendment suggested this morning by my hon. friend from Ottawa West and the hon. member for Kingston. Members on this side of the chamber will look forward to receiving the bill at an early date in order to have the opportunity of studying it and also the opportunity of making a full presentation of our views, particularly some views which have arisen among the legal profession with regard to the actual terminology of the statute. Therefore I welcome the assurance that the bill will soon be presented to us and that this opportunity will be made available to us.


Mr. McBain:: 
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Is it because the government has no other bill to introduce, that attempts are being made to foist the principle of this bill upon us?
(Text):


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the interjection of the hon. member, but I am leading up to what I hope will eventually come under this act. I am sure, also, that the contacts made by the representatives of the Ontario flue cured tobacco growers marketing board while they were abroad will be very helpful in promoting future sales of tobacco. It is quite feasible and possible that tobacco sales to prospective purchasers in European countries will need financing, and I hope the committee will give favourable consideration to the early passing of this legislation in order to make available the additional amount of money required by the corporation.
I was very interested to hear the minister this morning suggest that all hon. members of parliament take advantage of the functions of this corporation. I have found the president, Mr. Aitken, to be very co-operative in providing information to myself along these lines. By making this information available to all hon. members I think we will be put in a more favourable position to pass along to our own local industries some of the benefits and advantages provided by this crown corporation.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word or two with respect to the bill before the committee. I think we must be grateful to the hon. member for St-Antoine-Westmount, for indicating what really is a fact, that the function of this legislation has changed over a period of time, and latterly from primarily an insurance function to a banking function. I think I am correct-and


if I am not, I would ask the minister to correct me-in saying that as late as the last amendment, what really happened was that a Canadian seller and a foreign buyer got together, made a deal, and through the facilities of the banking system somewhere obtained credit. The note which became the evidence of this transaction was then delivered, through the banking system, to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, and in that fashion the sale was guaranteed. Through this new approach by the government we have actually direct access by a seller to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. We can avoid, therefore, the transaction through the banking system.
I am sure that we on this side of the chamber are heartily in favour of anything that is going to step up our export industry; I think we are all agreed on that. We are indebted to the minister in a number of ways. I think every hon. member on this side of the chamber recognizes that he has been a most aggressive salesman. Another thing we appreciate from the minister is the fact that when matters are raised in this house and in public, quite frequently he is factual and honest with us to an extent that breeds confidence in these matters, which frankness we do not always enjoy from every member on the treasury benches. Even going back to the Ghana episode, there were many instances when we felt the minister was prepared to bare facts to us. In this fashion perhaps we in this committee of minorities can be more co-operative with respect to measures such as the one before us which are designed to develop and improve the economic situation of Canada.
I believe I am correct in saying that under the GATT negotiations of 1947 as amended, if commodities are subsidized in export by any of the GATT signatories there is provision for the country importing those goods to impose dumping duties. I think we have to be honest enough with ourselves to recognize what is the kind of transaction we are now performing. We had a little word of advice and counsel from the Associate Minister of National Defence a moment ago, telling us of the advantages of private enterprise and how this was something that would stimulate investment. Actually what we are doing, it would appear, is publicly subsidizing finance in this particular instance. Let us face that. Collectively the Canadian people are doing something here in the credit line, as well as the insurance line, that apparently has not been done in the past.
We are concerned when we hear suggestions that these $200 million, this 100 per cent increase, is now necessary because we are simply expanding so well. The hon. member

Export Credits Insurance Act
for St. Antoine-Westmount a few minutes ago alluded to the trade deficit in the first six months of the year, the current problem. I do not think we on this side are particularly worried about an immediate problem if the long term solutions seem to indicate progress. But a number of thoughtful people are rather concerned about this six months period because it appears to be indicative of other problems. "The Industry", published by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, refers to the past six months as being actually our Achilles heel. Indeed, in some respects one might question whether or not the austerity program is really designed to meet the immediate and short term problem demonstrated by this Achilles heel of the past six months.
We on this side want to face these trade problems honestly and bravely but one of our difficulties is that we do not have ready access to a lot of relevant facts-facts, for example, relating to the exchange rate, the balance ox trade, and so on-which are important if we are to be constructive and co-operative. We are disturbed by evidence which is reaching us from other sources such as the National Institute Economic Review. This periodical, which is one of the principal authorities on this subject in Britain, indicates that Canada has dropped from first to eighth among the nations of the world in per capita foreign trade and from fourth place to fifth place in absolute volume of trade with other countries. According to the same publication, in all but two years, 1953 and 1954, in the long administration of the Liberals Canada stood first among the nations of the world in per capita foreign trade. By 1960, Canada had declined to eighth place behind even Trinidad and New Zealand. In absolute volume of trade with other countries, Canada had been fourth for many years. In 1960, Canada had slipped back to fifth place.
Along with these facts we read that Canada's living standard has dropped from second to third place. I do not wish to depart unduly from the subject under discussion, but I interrupted the minister a moment ago- and I apologize for having done so-to ask him why he considered it important to have what is called a favourable balance in trade. It seems to me that most economists agree it is a desirable thing to have a balance- a long term balance is what we are interested in, not a short term balance; we are prepared to accept that within short cyclical periods there may be adverse balances which, in the long run, produce development and growth. We are concerned, however, with these other factors which are completely relevant to the problem we are dealing with at the present time. We do not believe that you can ignore the important operations which are taking
place in other parts of the world in the common market area, in Latin America and in the United States. However brilliant the minister may be as a salesman or as a promoter he can never be successful if the over-all policy of our country is such as to ignore these larger developments. It has been suggested that we are simply dragging along as a tail to United States policy-that we show no evidence of what this country is prepared to do should Britain, for example, join the common market-as we think is desirable- or, in the contrary situation, should Britain decide to remain outside.
It seems to us that these are the more profound issues which lie behind this question of Canadian trade. While we are anxious to expedite the passage of any legislation designed to improve matters, we believe we should face the fact that for some years the Canadian trade picture has nut been heaitny. We recognize that profound changes have taken place in the world since the sellers market which followed the war. The former Liberal administration, we realize, cannot take all the credit for the situation which existed during that period and, similarly, the present government finds itself faced with far reaching changes which are bound to affect the world trade pattern. On the other hand, we question whether these profoundly important events have found a suitable response in the policies of the present government. I am sure that for our part we shall be agreeable and co-operative with regard to this measure, but there is one reservation I should like to make. We do not want this corporation to be used for nationalistic tactics, like the tariff surcharges which was another nationalistic tactic. To do so would ultimately weaken our position in an expanding trade community. This is one of the reasons we are concerned about the exchange problem. This, again, could be considered as a nationalistic tactic which is out of step with the times and with the great opportunities presented to us, particularly by the situation now developing in Great Britain with respect to the common market.


George Harris Hees: I thank the hon. member for Leeds for his thoughtful remarks. I should like to answer two questions which he raised. First, he was worried that consequent upon our amendments to this act we would in some way be bypassing the banking system. I should like to assure him that in the longterm financing arrangements we would not be avoiding or bypassing the banking system. The corporation will pay the exporter by cheque through the banking system, and will ultimately receive payment from the foreign buyer through the banking system.
474	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act There is no intention to bypass the banking system in any way, and the proposed amendment dealing with section 21(a) is simply a minor amendment designed to facilitate our doing business with a number of countries which have requested that we do business with them more directly.
We also have no intention of using the Export Credits Insurance Corporation as a nationalistic tactic, to use the phrase which I believe the hon. member used. The whole function of this corporation is to provide a service which has been found during the past 12 years to be in the interests of Canadian exporters whether they be industrialists, miners, fishermen, producers of primary products or manufacturers. They need this insurance and they need this export financing. In all the other major industrial countries of the world such facilities have been provided in roughly the same way. In the United States, for instance, there is the export-import bank and in Britain there is a similar type of corporation. The Canadian government operated to provide the facilities for our producers both in insurance and in long term financing. Again, I wish to thank the hon. member for the very thoughtful presentation of his views and I am glad to be able to assure him on those two matters about which he was concerned.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have a question which I should like to put to the minister, but before doing so I may say that I doubt whether there is any member of this house who would not give full support to a measure which would increase the ceiling or limit on the amount of guarantees to Canadian exporters in order to enable them to increase their exports to the countries with which they trade. In this connection I am sure the minister will recall that one of the first communications he received after he was appointed Minister of Trade and Commerce came from myself. In it I outlined the tremendous advantages both to the exporting country and to the importing country of such institutions as the export-import bank in the United States, and the corresponding German agency. I expressed hope at that time that there would be a similar development here. Now, admittedly two years later, a move is being made in the right direction.
My question arises out of the second part of the resolution. The minister said, I believe, that it was intended to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act. If I followed the minister's remarks this morning correctly, these changes have to do with machinery which would make it possible for the government to accept bills of exchange and other negotiable paper,


including promissory notes, from the buyer rather than from the exporter. The question which concerns me is this: would the government be discounting the bills of exchange? If not, what is the point of getting a bill of exchange?


George Harris Hees: The purpose of this amendment is to do simply this. At the present time, when a deal is being consummated between an exporter and an importer, the importer agrees to pay the exporter by a series of notes, which the exporter endorses over to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. The corporation then holds the notes, receives payment from the importer, and by arrangement, pays the exporter on certain dates for the goods, the machinery, or whatever it may be, that he is exporting. This amendment is designed to allow the importer to deal directly with the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, and saves the necessity of the exporter bringing the notes to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation and endorsing them over to the corporation.
That is just one step which is eliminated. It will also allow the Export Credits Insurance Corporation to sell the note, the instrument, which it has received from the importer, and to sell that instrument or any part of it to any buyer who finds that kind of instrument attractive. The purpose of that is that then there is not so much drain on the $300 million which is available to the corporation for doing this kind of long term financing. This amendment will also allow the Export Credits Insurance Corporation to make a loan to the buyer of the instrument, if the buyer of the instrument wishes to obtain a temporary loan on that security from the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. This will enable the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, in its opinion, to do its business more easily. That is the purpose of the amendment.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That, Mr. Chairman, is the thing that is bothering me. That would indicate that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation is going into the banking business, if it is going to sell bills of exchange to third parties. That is an extraordinary development in credit insurance. Is that not more properly the function of an export-import bank?


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Chairman, the operation which the Export Credits Insurance Corporation carries out under section 21(a) was literally forced upon it by the unwillingness of Canadian banks to perform this function for our exporters. For many years, I understand, there have been conversations with the banking community on behalf of our exporters suggesting to the banking community that they undertake this role of providing long term financing for our exporters. But the

Export Credits Insurance Act
banks in Canada were unwilling to perform this function, and so, if the function was to be performed, it became necessary for the government to perform it through the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. There was no desire on the part of the government or the corporation to get into this business. It was literally forced into it to provide a necessary service to our exporters. The chartered banks formed an export corporation-I am sure the hon. member is familiar with that operation-which provided financing for medium term business; that is up to five years but not more. So the Export Credits Insurance Corporation has been forced into a banking operation, which it had no real desire to get into, because of the need to provide this financing service for our exporters. But being in that kind of financing operation, through no choice of its own, it now desires to do the job as efficiently and as well as it can. That is the reason for these changes.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in this debate, but would the committee bear with me if first I expressed my personal appreciation and the appreciation of the people of Edmonton for the honour done our city by hon. members of this house in choosing my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West, as its Speaker. I am sure that Mr. Speaker has already added to the honour done our city by the way he has handled his job. I know I speak for the hon. member for Edmonton East as well as myself, and in fact for all residents of the Edmonton area, when I wish him well, and we hope that his tenure of office will be long, successful and happy.
In this debate, Mr. Chairman, I have been following just about all the speakers with considerable attention. I realize that the subject can wander quite widely, dealing as it does with financing trade around the world.
I am sure that an hon. member can quite readily discuss every aspect of government policy in connection with exports on the ground that only by looking at all other efforts closely can we determine whether the government really needs this amount of money for which it is now asking in order to assist this method of helping finance our exports and increasing those exports.
The hon. member for Ottawa West made some remarks about the changing position of trade patterns and the changing problems since the war which I thought deserved to be dealt with a little more fully, and which I thought, considering the method by which he handled them, should be answered somewhat sharply. I noticed that the hon. member's speech on this matter merely said that he did not like the way we handled these problems,
but was entirely devoid of any constructive suggestion as to how we could have handled our trading problems better. In fact he was devoid of any specific criticism as to in what area we have made an error. I am sure that if the hon. member looks at his speech tomorrow in Hansard, he is going to find that it amounts to no more nor less than sour grapes.
I think that what is required if we are to add anything to this debate, and if we are to justify to the country the granting of this money to the government, is that we should take at least some look at what the changing trade patterns have been, and at what have been the changes in trade problems. I was happy to hear the parliamentary secretary to the minister give us a run-down on some of the things this government has been doing to meet these problems. I am sure most members of the committee are aware that since the war we have seen revived and renewed industries in such countries as Germany, Italy and Japan, who have, with the latest machinery and techniques, with new methods of financing, and in fact with some help from former enemy countries, hit traditional markets with an impact never felt before. We have had to face that in good part as Canadian businessmen with some worn out machinery. We have had to see new and severe competition in established markets, and in fact have had to absorb this loss at home. But the fact that Canada's export trade is in the position it is now is certainly some indication of the success of this government's efforts in meeting the new trade problems and patterns. One of the new problems that directly bear on this subject I believe is the new method of trading and securing trade from other countries. It is no secret to members of this house, I am sure, that the government of Japan, for instance promotes-I was going to use the word "permits" but I think "promotes" would be the better way of putting it-trade cartels, that it actually assists in the merger of large well financed and well organized companies in order to form cartels for the purpose of most effectively moving into overseas markets. Other countries have such trading organizations and many countries have schemes somewhat similar to ours in order to assist the exporters in financing their sales whereby either the government insures or finances them and in many cases goes further and finances a new industry in order to move into these new markets.
I therefore say that any suggestion that this government has not faced new problems or the changes in the problems can only come from members who have not taken the trouble or who have not had the capacity to

Export Credits Insurance Act understand the vast change that has taken place in government handling of these trade patterns in the last few years.
I am sure that every businessman in Canada who is exporting or hopes to export has looked with considerable interest on the trade conferences called. From the attendance at those conferences and the spirit with which businessmen have entered into them, it is obvious that these conferences are most helpful. Trade missions to other countries have been singularly successful. I am personally acquainted with many people who have gone on them and who are now doing business selling products in South America, Central America and other parts of the world, something they have conceded to me would never have come about were it not for the action of this government.
In short, Mr. Chairman, I think what hon. members opposite have failed to observe really is that there is an entirely new concept of government and that this new concept was designed because of the changing pattern and changing problems of today's more complex world. It is no longer enough for any government or any political party to sit back and to say that ours is merely the task of creating an atmosphere in which private enterprise can flourish. With today's trade problems that is not enough. The government itself is obliged to take a more active part, as it has been doing, in making sure that the trade problems around the world are more thoroughly investigated by their trade officers.
The government itself has found it necessary to find new ways in which to pass along information to our own Canadian business. It has had to find out more details about the trade problems and the financing problems of the other countries and to maintain, through such things as the new design council, the productivity council and so on, new methods of getting the required information back to our manufacturers who, under a private enterprise system, really must carry the ball and make these sales.
The suggestion that we are going into banking is one that I have been struggling with for a long time. While we may not like to see the government acting as a banker, the fact is that in today's fierce competition, in our need for expanding markets we are obliged to use whatever methods are necessary to achieve that objective. Today's trading patterns have another complexion in that traditionally Canada has been a supplier of raw materials. However, especially since the advent of automation we have found that being a great supplier of raw materials is not the best way in which to provide the steady, well paid jobs to which the people of

this country are entitled. In the last few years we have been trying to become more and more a manufacturing nation. This attempt, of course, has required a great amount of financing. It also requires an intensified search for markets at a time of increasing competition. I do not think we need to say any more than that in justification of the government's acting as a sort of banker, if that step is necessary.
I myself have had occasion to urge on the government something a little further than that, by reference to what happened in just one South American country recently. I was approached by a very large businessman in Canada who told me about a project recently undertaken by an Italian company, whereby the Italian company obtained a turnkey contract for the whole job of drilling a couple of hundred oil wells, I think it was, putting together the pipe line system and building the refinery to handle it, and turning over the key as a completed project to the government. I understand that the government that was getting this work done-and the total cost was approximately $196 million- was going to pay for it over a period of 10 years. We in Canada have facilities to do all that. We have the businessmen with the technical know-how, the mechanical skill and the personnel to be able to handle a project of that size. The gentleman who approached me was quite willing to organize it, to put it together and to go out and sell it. However, I do not know of any businessman we have who can take on a project of that size, namely, one of approximately $196 million, which could be completed in two years when he would have to wait for the payout over a ten year period.
My suggestion then to the government on this matter is that the further sum for which we are now asked may prove to be inadequate and that the act as it now reads may not be flexible enough. Perhaps there should be a little more leeway for the government so that, instead of handling so many small projects, they will also be able to handle a project of approximately $50 million or $100 million without going into a panic.
I am aware that, with changing conditions, some of these markets in some South American countries may be a little bit risky in some respects. As we know, there is much unrest in some of these countries. We know that, even where there is not much unrest, the financial situation of the country itself may not lead to too much confidence. All of these factors certainly must be taken into consideration. Wherever they are factors I suggest that the government, through its trade commissioners and external affairs offices, has the facilities which will enable

them to determine to a much greater extent than can the Canadian industrialist, just how important these factors are. I think these sources of information and government assistance, not only in determining the risk but with all other market factors, have been invaluable. I believe that sometimes the best way in which to make sure that the government is giving the best service along this line to the industrialist is for the government to have a small financial stake in there as well.
I thought I should comment on just one more remark made by the hon. member for Ottawa West who said he did not like the handling of the Cuban trade system. When I asked him to comment on what his stand was, he merely said that we should not annoy our good friends the Americans. I wish that he could have been a little more helpful in answering my question.


George James McIlraith: when it is in order, I will.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am afraid that during the question periods in the house and during the last campaign, every comment on that situation by hon. members opposite has been in the same vein, "Do not annoy the Americans." There is never any suggestion about Canadian interests, never any suggestion about what they would do differently as compared with the policy of this government. I would suggest to hon. members opposite that they should have a little more regard for our own country and a little less regard for the possibility of stepping on the toes of our large friend to the south. After all they are powerful friends, but also very understanding, with a system of government about the same as ours. They appreciate frankness, and I am sure it does not help much to be continually saying, "Do not annoy our American friends".


John Hollings Addison: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, particularly in view of the signing of the Kennedy trade extension act of yesterday. Since the government has decided to go into the banking business, I suggest we change the name from the Export Credits Insurance Corporation to the export bank and insurance corporation.


Mr. Mather:: As most hon. members who have spoken before me have suggested, Mr. Chairman, there seems to be general agreement in all quarters of the house in favour of the principle of this measure that is before us. Personally, I should like to express appreciation to the minister for his lucid presentation of the legislation. As my own colleagues who spoke earlier have suggested, we in this section of the house are particularly gratified 27507-3-31
British North America Act with the success of this corporation's efforts, indicating as they do, the virtue of efficient planning and public enterprise business.
The one concern I have on reviewing the success of our trade efforts as expressed here today, has to do with the large volume of that success which is apparently tied to the export of Canadian wheat to China. My colleagues and I are in agreement with this trade; in fact, we have urged for many years that it be started. When we review the facts of the case, I am a little concerned myself at seeing how much of the success of our recent trade efforts has been geared to these sales to China. I feel we should realize that had it not been for three successive typhoons which destroyed part of the wheat crop in China, the Chinese would not have been buying wheat from us. Had they not been buying wheat from us, our trade picture would have been much poorer than it is. It would be facetious to suggest to the minister, but not without point, that he investigate the prospects for typhoons in China in 1963. Again, I should like to compliment the minister on his presentation.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hees thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-63, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; it being five o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and proceed with the business of private and public bills.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-9, to amend the British North America Act 1962 (redistribution) .
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill. I brought it before the house in each session of the last parliament, and while we had some interesting debates it never received approval, was never sent to a committee or given any great examination. The purpose of the bill is set out in the explanatory notes, as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to introduce in subsection (1) of section 51 of the B.N.A. Act, 1867 the underlined words "independent of the Parliament of Canada," so that the readjustment of the representation in the Commons be done in future by an independent body rather than by a committee of the House of Commons.
In going through my notes, Mr. Speaker, I found this from the Ottawa Citizen of March

British North America Act 7, 1959. The heading is, "See Federal Election
May or June of 1962". The article reads, in part:
Douglas Fisher (CCF-Port Arthur) said Friday in the Commons he has "a pretty good hunch" that the next general federal election will be in late May or early June, 1962.
He based his prediction on the belief that if Prime Minister Diefenbaker calls the election for a later date he will be faced with a redistribution of the 265 seats in the Commons.
My prediction was on the mark and this parliament, of all parliaments, Mr. Speaker, considering its makeup, is faced with the question of redistribution. In view of what is expressed in the speech from the throne I can only assume that the government intends to proceed in this matter. However I would hope it would not proceed with the bill that was brought before us at the end of the last session, when parliament was just dissolving, the electoral boundaries commission bill.
I know that many of the new members in the house are not aware of all the complications, difficulties and problems related to redistribution, but yet the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker), new as he may be but being aware of the problems of his constituency, must realize that his constituents are a perfect example of the failure of what is just basic democratic justice, that is, representation by population or equal strength of votes.
Without going into too great detail in relation to this, I would like to offer to new members of the house a paper which I prepared some time ago listing all the areas, in square miles, of the various constituencies in Canada, their populations in the census of 1951 and 1956, their estimated populations in 1957, and I hope very shortly to have it brought up to date covering the 1961 population figures.
Basically our constituencies are supposed to be determined by their population. That principle is inherent ever since confederation, although it has been badly marred in its operation. The principle is that the vote of each Canadian should be equal one to the other. Let me give this example at the present time in rough terms, because it is the most apparent one. I do not want to comment on the reasons for the disparity, but a voter in Scarborough needs 19 people voting with him to have the effect of one single voter in Iles-de-la-Madeleine.
Let me put it another way and stay within a single province. The vote of the voter who put the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) into this house, was diffused five times from the vote that brought the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) into


the house. An example with less disparity is that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) sits in this house with a factor of not quite half of the hon. member for Port Arthur, whatever party he may represent, because the population of Port Arthur is that much larger.
In our constitutional arrangements under the British North America Act with regard to determining constituencies, the requirement is that after every census each ten years, a redistribution takes place to take into consideration the changes in populations; but through a number of adjustments that have been made, Canadian politicians-and I do not think this is any disgrace on their part-have compromised and compromised away the equal vote principle over the years.
I can give some examples. There is a population of approximately 100,000 on Prince Edward Island at the present time and there is a population of almost 300,000 in a constituency such as Mercier in Montreal and York-Scarborough in Toronto; yet Prince Edward Island has four seats. Other examples of such populous constituencies are York Centre, Carleton, one Edmonton constituency as well as a couple in Vancouver, each of which is represented by only one member.
The reason in this particular example is that there is a so-called Senate floor written into section 51 of the British North America Act, which provides that no province can have less representation than the number of senators it has. At the present time two provinces, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, have this Senate floor. This is fine. As provinces, this guarantees them representation in this house that cannot go any lower; but what is happening to a province such as Saskatchewan? We have a 15 per cent escape clause written into section 51 as a result of the activities of the Right Hon. James Gardiner and other politicians of that province. They did not want to face up to the number of seats Saskatchewan was going to lose after the 1951 census, so they put in an escape clause which, if it remains in for the next redistribution, will save Nova Scotia from losing one seat, as well as Saskatchewan, although it cannot serve Saskatchewan so well as it did last time.
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, still above the protection of the Senate floor, are being reduced more comparatively than the provinces that have already reached the Senate floor; and because we have a ceiling on the number of seats in this house, namely 265, provinces such as Ontario, Alberta and Quebec, whose populations have grown faster, are not given the requisite number of seats

in any adjustment, that in terms of equity might come from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
This is a very complicated situation, and all I can argue from the record, from the past statements of the Prime Minister, is that the application of change in this situation should be dealt with by an independent commission. That is the reason why I have brought this bill forward. It seeks to amend the British North America Act and underlines the point that we should have a redistribution commission independent of parliament.
In order to make my case for the bill I can do no better than refer to Bill No. C-87, which was introduced late, towards the end of last session, and which I hope all new hon. members will study. It was a bill entitled:
An act respecting the establishment of an electoral boundary commission for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.
There are many criticisms we can make of that bill, but there was no opportunity to make them during the last session. Instead of setting up a commission that is independent, that bill proposed setting up a commission that would report to parliament, or lay its report before the Speaker. There was no requirement in it that its report should be acted upon at any time, and I want all hon. members to look at some of the escape clauses in that bill which would in effect ruin any impartiality the commission might have.
In saying that I am not talking about the impartiality of the people who might compose the commission. I am talking about the escape clauses that exist in the bill, and in clause 12 of it there is this final escape clause:
notwithstanding anything in rules (a), (b) and (c) -
-which set out the rules under which the commission could operate-
-where, for any reason, the commission is of the opinion that the strict application of those rules in any particular case is not practicable or would be likely to produce an inequitable result, the commission may make such departure therefrom as appears to it to be practicable or to be necessary in order to avoid that result-
That is nothing but a blank cheque. I do not know what it is a blank cheque for, but the whole intention surrounding this commission was that it was to be an ad hoc one. That is, it was to be set up for this occasion, and the only permanent man named on it was to be the chief electoral officer.
Can hon. members imagine the devil of a position the chief electoral officer would be in if he were to be the only permanent member? The other members could send in the report and they would leave the chief 27507-3-31i
British North America Act electoral officer to answer for it. In passing I may mention that two of the other members were to be judges, and some of us have doubts about the complete impartiality of judges.
It is not my intention to tear the electoral boundaries commission bill apart, but I do want to give forewarning to hon. members that in some ways this cannot be a partisan issue. I would like new members to look at that bill and see what the government proposed. I would like them at the same time to examine the bill I now present, and I ask for their support because I think my bill would force or require that any legislation the government introduces on this matter would be a better bill, a more impartial bill, than the one they presented in the last parliament.
There is to my mind a real urgency here, and I address this urgency to my friends of the Social Credit party. At the present time it is apparent that this government stands sustained in this parliament as long as it has the voting support of Social Credit. I put it upon the conscience of Social Credit members, not in any flamboyant way as did the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) when she was needling them the other night, but just from this point of view. If they are going to sustain this government for long enough, say 18 months or two years, I would like them to begin to think that we must have redistribution and we must proceed with it; because as every month and every year goes by the injustices, the inequities of our present situation continue. If they do not give cooperation in seeing that we get redistribution at the same time as they support the government, it is quite possible that we will almost reach the next redistribution before the Canadian people are represented as they should be, and as our law really requires.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that, because this bill is so simple and because the principle it supports is so apparent and so logical, it would not find any difficulty in receiving second reading and being sent to the committee of this house that has sat on a number of occasions in special circumstances with regard to electoral measures.
I think now is the time for us to have a germane discussion on this whole problem of redistribution. I can say to my Liberal friends, despite all their intense desire to get out on the hustings and get to the electorate, is there not a case made out, before we have such a test, that the Canadian people should have their rights of voting adjusted?
I have one last point, Mr. Speaker. In the United States this whole issue has reached tremendous proportions in the last 18 months. Malapportionment is what they call it in the
480	HOUSE OF
British North America Act United States. Some American individuals, zealous of their rights as Americans, took it to the courts. They took to the courts the fact that their vote was not worth as much as some of the rural votes, the fact that the United States congress is dominated by rural representation because of this malapportionment, and they won a verdict that has resulted, both in the states and in the whole federal apparatus, in an adjustment towards giving a decent break on this question of one man, one vote-on an equal basis.
I have tried to find, personally, a lawyer in Canada who can provide me or some of my friends with an injunction or an order of some kind-under the bill of rights, if you would-that would allow us, or me, or one of my friends to bring some kind of an action to prevent, if necessary, an election until the injustice of our present constituency representation system is corrected. So far it has been beyond the ingenuity, perhaps the brainpower, of my friends. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate may have richer sources to draw on. In any case, I feel there is a real issue here, both in abstract and practically.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain to hon. members why I have been interested in this question. I represent a riding that is almost one third of the land area of Ontario. It has a population splattered all over the place. It is a most difficult riding to represent well, in the sense of keeping in touch with your constituents. I tried to find out why this disproportion of a high population plus a huge area had been allowed to develop. I was told that at the times when redistribution did come up, the Liberals would get together in their little Ontario caucuses and say, "What sort of adjustments are you fellows looking for?" And they always found that the previous member for Port Arthur, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, really was too busy to take any interest. As a consequence Port Arthur remained the same, while all around constituencies were being adjusted.
One of the consequences of this partisan approach and the disinterest of Mr. Howe has left an anomalous situation that the New Democratic party representatives inherited. My hon. friend from Timmins has a lovely little pocket borough, as I call it, 35 miles by 35 miles, that he can jaunt around in an afternoon; and he has a population just about half of what Port Arthur has-and Port Arthur is 500 miles north to south, 365 miles east to west.
I am not complaining about this situation, but I would like the house to understand the kind of disparity that has resulted from our practices in the past. I think the onus to


really reform now is most important, not because I think an adjustment in favour of the urban voter is going to bring any great advantage to my party or to any other party, but I think it is a matter of increasing importance in the interests of this country that relate to the urban dweller. So many of our problems today are becoming increasingly related to metropolitan areas, large cities, suburban areas, to housing, planning, welfare and things like that; and at the present time- make no mistake about it-in almost every part of Canada those areas are underrepresented and the favour has gone to the rural and the traditional areas.
I can count on other hon. members in this debate pointing out some of the striking changes that are in prospect in Quebec and some of the other provinces. British Columbia, to an extent, and Manitoba in particular have given the federal government a lead in a sense, since they have put the apportionment of the constituencies on a fair basis. I would hope that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did you say, British Columbia?


Douglas Mason Fisher: -this simple bill will receive what it deserves, the very ready consideration and support of hon. members in sending it to a committee of this house.


Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur asks us to consider his bill favourably, partly on the basis that it is very simple and because its principle is apparent. It is for the very reasons that it is simple and its principle is apparent that I oppose it.
There is a resolution on the order paper dealing with the question of an electoral boundaries commission, to be reintroduced by the government this session, which appeals to me despite the strictures of a similar piece of legislation which the hon. member mentioned. It appeals to me because it does not include the very thing that I find objectionable in the hon. member's bill, and that is the operative phrase "independent of the parliament of Canada".
If we are going to pass a bill of this kind, if we are going to say that it is more desirable in Canada to do the business of Canadians and of parliament through commissions independent of parliament, then let us all pack up and go home, because if we are incapable of this function, we are capable of no function. It is time we started to think in those terms.
Granted, there have been, I have no doubt, abuses in the past. If you deal only in the past, if you deal only with the methods and considerations of the past, I suppose you can find a basis for a bill of this kind. But surely

it would be far better to find a method of dealing with this problem by which parliament retains its rights, by which parliament retains its responsibilities, before we pass a piece of legislation that takes it out of the hands of parliament and makes the whole subject independent of parliament. Parliament would never be able to regain its position, if that were done.
I am not one of those people now-perhaps five years ago I was-who believes that the solution of all our problems and the correction of some of the anomalies that exist in the government of the people of Canada at any level can be achieved by independent commissions which the politicians cannot touch. After all, whom do the people come to for their representation? They come to the politician. They do not expect to find the politician's hands so completely bound that he cannot act on their behalf when they bring him their legitimate problems. Over and over again it is becoming the case in Canada that when people come to see their elected representative, he cannot do anything on their behalf because he is confronted by a board or a commission or a tribunal of some kind, independent of parliament.
I am surprised to find that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has introduced a bill with these words in it, because I seem to recall that in times past he has dwelt at some length in this house on the erosion of the responsibilities of parliament. He has suggested on occasions in the past that we are becoming limited in our ability to act because the executive has taken away from parliament the powers of parliament. Do not these boards, commissions, tribunals and such also take away the prerogatives of parliament, giving them to people whom we cannot even reach through correspondence, or even in party caucus? I believe the suggestion that we could solve this problem by taking the ultimate responsibility out of the hands of parliament is no solution. It would only create another problem.
The suggestion that a commission of technical experts might make recommendations to parliament is in my view far more satisfactory because if those recommendations were based on a careful and impartial assessment of the electoral pattern it would be a very difficult thing, or a very foolish thing for a government to reject the findings of such a commission. I have no doubt that any such findings would receive careful scrutiny in the press and elsewhere. The people would be fully aware of them and if they appeared sound, were properly presented and logical in their reasoning it would be a very brave parliament or a very foolish government which would endeavour to upset them. Before
British North America Act changes of this magnitude are made I believe we must try to establish a procedure more satisfactory than the procedure of the past, but not as sweeping as the proposal put forward by the hon. member who, apparently, contrary to so many professions of principle he has made in the past, is now prepared to say to us: admit you are incompetent and dump the job on another board. That, I am not prepared to do and therefore I cannot support a bill such as this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Port Arthur on bringing this bill forward, because I think it is a good idea to have some preliminary consideration of the principles underlying this whole problem before we consider the legislation which the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke referred to as being in contemplation at this time. It may be that some of the things which have been said in this debate today will have a certain influence on the government in improving the proposals they intend to bring before us a little later.
I do not believe anyone seriously thinks the hon. gentleman's bill is going to pass or get a second reading, though, as I say, I believe it is helpful to have a discussion on this subject. I had always regarded the hon. member for Port Arthur as a sort of grass roots egghead. I must say therefore that I was astonished to discover yesterday-and I cannot congratulate him on this-that the hon. gentleman has now joined the Prime Minister in that witch hunt for bureaucrats. I must say the performance of the hon. member was perhaps a little more literate than that of the right hon. gentleman, but the principle was the same.
It is very odd to find the two of them in the same boat, and all the odder when one thinks that the hon. member is the grass roots branch of a party which more than any other party has prided itself on being composed almost exclusively of intellectuals, highbrows and academics. This may be the new element in the New Democratic party. However, having joined in the witch hunt for bureaucrats last night, the hon. gentleman today comes in to suggest the creation of super-bureaucrats, as the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke has just pointed out, who would be independent of everybody-even, presumably, of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I read the bill this morning when I heard it was coming up this afternoon and I can hardly conceive of anyone in this house seriously thinking that parliament could so abdicate its functions as to suggest that a responsibility which the constitution gave to parliament in the first place should be handed

British North America Act over in a final way to someone else without any power of review. I must say I found myself in agreement with a good deal of what was said by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke about the desirability of having a non-partisan commission do the preliminary work and make a report. Indeed, I would go even further, perhaps, than the hon. gentleman would go. I would impose on such a commission the duty not merely of making a report but of drafting a bill of a kind that they thought would, in a non-partisan and equitable way, redistribute the representation in this house. I would make it an obligation upon the Speaker to lay that bill before this house, and upon some officer of the house to introduce the bill into the house.
But it does seem to me we could not properly abdicate our function of making sure that what was done did conform in a fundamental way with the constitution. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Port Arthur has said about the desirability of one man's vote equalling the vote of another, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this country is a federation of provinces, and that such a federation would never have been made in the first place if it had not been understood in those regions which in some respects are less favoured by geography, and in certain other ways, that they would have additional weight in the parliament of Canada to counterbalance to some degree their geographical and other disadvantages. It is evident, for example, that the territories would have no representation at all in parliament if the principle enunciated by the hon. member for Port Arthur were carried to its logical conclusion, because even if you added all the territories together there would still not be a population large enough to entitle them-


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a point of order, I think the hon. member is wilfully misrepresenting my position from this point of view. The bill would create an independent commission but it would have nothing whatever to do with the relevant section of the British North America Act which provides these floors and other devices which protect those areas whose geographical nature-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order and stating that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is wilfully misrepresenting. I do not conceive that to be a point of order, particularly as the hon. member is now arguing or answering the case that is being made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He has his turn to reply to or to argue any position. I do not think it is a point of order to interrupt an hon. member immediately to argue
[Mr. PickersgUl.l
the case against him, so I will yield the floor to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman though Your Honour is quite right in saying that there was no point of order. He was, I am sure unwittingly, quite insulting in suggesting that I was willingly perverting his words, because I was not seeking to do anything of the kind.
I was seeking to understand the obscurities in his mind and to throw a little light upon them. If I misrepresented anything I am only too anxious, particularly because I do not think this is a partisan subject at all, to represent them correctly.
But it seems to me that in his intervention he provided another powerful argument against his bill. An independent commission is not going to be independent, it seems to me, if it is going to be bound by all sorts of rules and regulations. I for my part would be far more interested in an amendment to the British North America Act which would correct any anomalies that any hon. member feels there are now in the fundamental law. In that respect, sir, I think that when we do come to consider the setting up of a nonpartisan commission which will report to parliament-I am not seeking to anticipate a future debate in saying this-it is very important that we should prescribe the broad rules under which that commission is to operate. We should not give them, as the hon. member for Port Arthur described it in his speech, a blank cheque, but we should tell them what the rules are to be, for example, what the maximum population for any riding should be. I think the hon. member made a real case there. It really is a scandal to have ridings as large as Scarborough and some of the others which have been mentioned. It is even more scandalous to have a riding such as that represented by my indefatigable friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador which contains about four fifths of the area of the province of Newfoundland and has a larger population than any other constituency in the province. That is an anomaly. It is an anomaly which now exists only because the government neglected its proper duty to redistribute before the last election. There are, of course, a good many other anomalies of that sort.
Another thing said by the hon. member for Port Arthur with which I agree is that it would be very desirable, if it can be accomplished, to have the redistribution take place before there is another election. I say "if it can be accomplished", it would be very desirable. In fact, under the constitution it could have been done before the last election. Before the last election the government had over 200

members in this house, they could have carried out their constitutional responsibilities had they wanted to, and it is rather unfortunate that this matter has been delayed as long as it has. However, I would not favour -and here I disagree profoundly with the hon. member for Port Arthur-putting any more impediments into the constitution in the way of inflexible rules which will prevent the people from exercising their will, however imperfectly they are able to exercise it because of the distribution of seats in this house, whenever that is necessary in the public interest-and it may very well be, almost any day, sir, as Your Honour well knows, because of the composition of this house.
So I would not want to see anything done which would freeze this particular house or this particular parliament for any length of time. However, I think that because it is a constitutional obligation, this is a matter in which the government should not delay. I think this particular piece of legislation should be brought forward by the government at once; that it should be given priority over everything excepting really urgent financial questions till it is dealt with; and that the commission should be set up equally without delay and urged to report with all possible speed. Because it is the duty of every hon. member of this house to uphold the constitution and to uphold what is, after all, as I think the hon. member for Port Arthur very rightly said, in a fundamental way the basic provision of the constitution, and that is that the people shall be fairly represented in this house which purports to speak for the people of Canada.
As to the desirability of having the basic work done for the redistribution by a commission, I do not think there is much disagreement in the house any more. I do not think there was in the last parliament, and I hope there will not be in this one. I did not understand the hon. member for Okan-agan-Revelstoke to object at all to having a non-partisan commission. I listened to him carefully, and I am sure I understood him to say that he favoured it. But he insisted that its report should come back here to be dealt with finally, in this house and in the other place, before it became law. That is precisely the position, of course, which is taken by my hon. friends in the official opposition. I do not know whether the hon. member for Port Arthur is speaking for the New Democratic party through this bill, which would take the final disposition of the matter out of parliament altogether, but I had always thought previously that that was also the position of the New Democratic party.
British North America Act
In any case, I do not think that anyone any longer wants to have a committee of this house do the preliminary work of redistribution. I think there is general agreement that this should be done by persons who are less partisan than we are here, and by persons who will be as non-partisan as can be found in the country. Here I would like to say that I hope we can find such people without making too great a demand upon the law courts, because whatever is done is going to displease a lot of people and there is going to be a real danger of imputing motives to those who do it, and of dragging judges into politics, which I have never favoured myself. It seems to me that there are other nonpartisan persons in this country who could be drawn upon to compose such a commission without calling upon the law courts.
There is just one final point. I think that when a commission comes to be set up it should be set up by parliament and its membership settled in parliament. It should not be left to the governor in council to appoint the commissioners. Because surely the last thing we want to do, under the guise of getting a non-partisan commission, is to switch the redistribution from this house to the governor in council. That is what we would be doing if we accepted a bill which gave to the governor in council even the formal power to appoint the commissioners. They should be named in the legislation itself.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time on this measure which is now before us, but I felt that I should make one or two observations in connection with the bill as presented by the hon. member for Port Arthur.
I believe the bill now before us has wide ramifications. Many measures are brought before us, of course, and many of them are more or less controversial. While this bill has been designated a comparatively simple one, it would seem to me that it is tied in with issues and problems which demand a great deal of careful and thorough consideration. The issue itself is, I believe, one of general concern. The reasons for this suggestion have been pointed out by the various speakers as they have contrasted the number of voters in the various constituencies. I am sure we all agree that the issue itself is one of great importance in order to ensure Canadians a fair representation here in the House of Commons.
The purpose of the bill, no doubt, is to try to remove this important and necessary

British North America Act matter from the influence of partisan politics. However, there are a number of questions that would have to be answered before we would consider ourselves to be free to support the measure presented. I was not just sure whether or not the hon. member for Port Arthur was speaking in favour of an independent commission whose report would not be submitted in any part or at any time for the consideration of parliament. However,
I would agree with those who have suggested that it would be more or less an abdication of our responsibility to appoint a commission, to allow them to proceed to draw up the boundaries, and then to have the matter passed without having it given consideration here in the House of Commons. A great many matters would need to be taken into consideration. A great many factors would have to be noted. The suggestion has been made relative to the appointment of the members of the commission. I would submit that this is a matter of tremendous importance. As has been pointed out, in order to remove it from partisan politics, we would require to know who were going to be members of that particular commission and under what circumstances they were appointed. Other matters would need to be considered as well, including the matter of whether one commission would be sufficient to carry through with the responsibilities outlined in the measure or whether they would be able to delegate some authority and responsibility to other bodies as well.
The hon. member for Port Arthur proceeded to pass along to the members of this party some friendly suggestions and advice. He suggested that we ought to give serious consideration to the matter of continuing to support the government in view of some of these considerations. He also proceeded to suggest to the Liberals that it might be advisable to delay an election, if I understood his suggestion correctly, until this problem was resolved. The question that arises in my mind is as to just why the hon. member for Port Arthur and his colleagues supported the Liberals in their efforts to overthrow the government and precipitate an immediate election. I find it hard to understand the connection between those two suggestions. Those are the only observations I wish to make at this time, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad a while ago to hear the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) express, in his usual unassuming way and with some humour, the rather socialist ideas which are typical of the New Democratic party.

The member for Port Arthur told us that the constituency he represents had an area of 300 miles by 500 miles, that is to say, almost of the same size as France. Even if the area he represents is as large as the territory General de Gaulle looks after, its importance is somewhat different.
Be that as it may, I believe that a redistribution of the electoral districts of Canada will become absolutely necessary. But how should it be done? I am inclined to agree with the person sitting next to me, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming), who feels that a commission should be set up to define the boundaries of the districts to be represented in the forthcoming parliaments. I am of the opinion that a commission should be appointed to study the technical aspects of redistribution and report to a parliamentary committee which would examine the situation and decide upon the changes to be made.
I realize that French Canadians do not always show the utmost respect for parliamentary rule. For my part, I believe that such a procedure would show the greatest consideration for each province and, consequently, for the people of the different areas of Canada.
When my friend the hon. member for Port Arthur refers to unequal representation in such ridings as Scarborough, Iles-de-la-Made-leine, Mercier and Vaudreuil-Soulanges, he speaks of entirely different situations. Thus, when he mentions representation according to population, he means that each citizen is to be put on an equal footing, that is to say, that the voters should be divided into equal numbers. That is absolutely wrong. Indeed, he claims that we are all equal. Well, I suggest that the only time we are equal is when we are born and when we die. Throughout our life, in everything that happens, in everything we do, we see that we are not equal.
I do not mean by this that one area of the population is not equal to another, that one individual is superior to another. We are all equal with respect to taxation and, therefore, with respect to representation in parliament. Apart from that, we are not equal.
It would not be logical to compare a riding of 50,000 or 60,000 voters in a large city with a rural riding of 12,000 or 20,000 voters.
We must realize that city people have identical problems, while rural people have different ones. For instance, you have on the one hand the worker living in a city who is only a tenant and whose sole interest is to increase his salary in order to provide for the welfare of his family while on the other hand, you have the farmer who owns many acres

of land and a herd, who has a responsibility, not only towards himself, but towards the whole community and who must all year round keep an eye on all developments and on measures introduced by the government in the public interest.
If I draw a parallel between those two citizens, I submit that when voting time comes around, the farmer will be able to make a more objective decision and show less partisanship than the city dweller who has never been concerned with administrative matters or been involved in election work.
Besides, that is proved by the fact that when an election is called, there is always a great number of city people who do not vote. Why? Because it is not in their interests to voice an opinion or still because they do not know for whom or for what to vote. On the other hand, one finds very seldom in rural ridings an elector who does not hold decided views or change opinions when some party offers certain advantages or advocates a policy more beneficial to rural citizens.
It is not my intention to draw a parallel between city people and farmers, but rather to indicate that certain rural citizens are interested in politics, in general, compared to those living in cities.
An example of this is to be found in the influence exerted by Canada. Actually, our country, with a population of only 18 million inhabitants approximately, exerts a much greater influence at the United Nations and within international organizations than some nations of Africa or South America which have much larger populations. Why is that? Simply because our country is entirely civilized, because our cities and towns are well organized and our citizens are in a better position to express pertinent views about the current situation than certain citizens of those less privileged countries with a lower level of education.
This shows undoubtedly that representation should not be proportionate to the number of electors, but should be established rather according to the various regions, the different racial, cultural and industrial groups, and in ratio to the number of people with more interest and education than the others.
Consideration will also have to be given to representation by province. In my opinion, certain provinces do not have the representation they should have. I feel it is most im-27507-3-32
British North America Act portant that we examine in a new light the number of seats which are given to a province so that each of them may enjoy proportional representation.
We must recognize the fact that each of the ten provinces has different characteristics, different problems and is self-governing. Consequently, each province must have proportional representation if Canadian unity is to be maintained.
I am sure all our Liberal friends in the opposition will join with us in that regard. Even if we do not quite agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill)-


An hon. Member:: Even Social Credit members.


Marcel Bourbonnais: -I think the Liberals will join us so that parliament may always remain supreme and be the final authority concerning the question of redistribution.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: In rising to speak on this measure, Mr. Speaker, I find myself in complete agreement with my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Revel-stoke. When I first looked at the bill I noticed the underlined phrase, "independent of the parliament of Canada". I am very much against that principle. It seems that now we are continually confronted with boards and commissions which are independent of parliament, independent of a member, and so on. I have always been against that idea, and particularly in so far as it relates to a question such as this.
It may be well and good to talk about one vote being equal to another vote. However, we must have representation by the people and we must have representation for each segment of the country, for each industry in the country. What would happen if this principle of one vote equal to another were adopted? What would happen if this idea were projected 20 years from now, with the drift towards urban living? We would have hardly one seat in this house which was truly representative of agriculture. The control of parliament would be in the hands of the large urban centres. There would hardly be a seat in this house which would be dependent upon agriculture, and agriculture would not have its proper representation, as a result of the economic importance we must place on this industry today.

British North America Act
This question of redistribution has come up from time to time federally, just as it has come up in every province of this country. While I do not agree with the government of Alberta very often, I find myself in agreement with them on this question. The government of Alberta considered redistribution within the last couple of years, and they took into consideration the importance of the different industries in that province, the different segments of the province, along with the principle that one vote should be equal to another vote. It is all right to say that we should have an independent board. I gathered from the hon. member for Port Arthur that he wanted this to be a permanent body. What would it do in between each ten-year period? Certainly it would be an inflexible body. It would go on for years and years studying this same question. It would be very difficult to reach and very difficult to change. Certainly, in my opinion, this board would not be as good as the commission that could be set up under the resolution that is now on the order paper.
This commission would report to parliament, and would give parliament an opportunity to have a voice on the question of redistribution, to make sure that there was representation for the various industries. Certainly, when the census is taken every ten years we can see the continual shift of the population. I could give figures which would indicate that perhaps 10 per cent of the population depends upon agriculture for its living. Certainly these remarks could be related to other industries such as the coal industry in the maritimes, the oil and gas industries and so on. I feel quite strongly that all these industries need representation.
The hon. member for Port Arthur also indicates that he accepts the permanent floor placed under representation in the B.N.A. Act. He accepts it with regard to Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. He, therefore, accepts a deviation from his principle which he has outlined of one vote equal to another. I think we must go further than this initial deviation which he has already accepted, and we must accept the fact that industries of prime importance to this country must have representation in this house. This representation must be a continuing thing. We should not be able to look ahead 10 or 20 years and see this representation dwindling away so that ultimately important segments of the country will have no
voice in the development of this country. After all, Mr. Speaker, we are sent here to govern, to regulate the economy and to develop this country. Without representation from the various segments in the country, without representation from the different industries in the country, this would be a very difficult job to do.
May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business will be on Monday and for next week as well?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will start on Monday, Mr. Speaker, with the bill founded on the resolution which was passed today in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with the Export Credits Insurance Act, and take second reading. The second item will be the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture dealing with the Farm Credit Act which is No. 16 on today's order paper. The third item will be second reading of Bill No. C-3 in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare dealing with food and drugs, and the fourth item, the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the electoral boundaries commission, which is No. 14 on today's order paper.
I imagine this will take us the most of Monday and Tuesday. The order of business I have announced will hold except for the fact that I want to consult with one of my colleagues. If there is a change in the first two items, I will let the members of other parties know by noon on Monday.


Lionel Chevrier: May I bring to the attention of the house leader the fact that the Minister of Finance indicated the estimates would be tabled on Tuesday. I take it there has been no change in that, and I presume we will have an opportunity of discussing them during the course of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, if the Minister of Finance announced the tabling of the estimates, that of course will be done. Whether or not they will be discussed later that week, we will advise the house later on.


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