1963-11-06

Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: I wish to raise a question of privilege arising out of the fact that Mr. Raymond Rodgers, correspondent for the St. Catharines Standard, has been expelled from the press gallery. I should like to attempt to establish a prima facie case of privilege based on one reason or a combination of several reasons, following which, if permission is granted, I am prepared to move a substantive motion which would take care of the matter.
First I should like to quote to Your Honour from Beauchesne, citation 103, paragraph 2 which says "the house has always asserted the right to provide for the constitution of its own body, the right to regulate its own proceedings, and the right to enforce its privileges." Again Beauchesne, citation 107, reads as follows:
Whatever matter arises concerning either house of parliament ought to be discussed and adjudged in that house to which it relates, and not elsewhere.
I contend that matters affecting the internal economy of the house are questions of privilege. There is, of course, public expenditure for the press gallery of the house, payment for which is provided through the internal economy commission. The amount is something like $100,000 annually.
The second point is that an exception has been made respecting the administration of the galleries, including both the press gallery and the diplomatic gallery. This exception has not been concurred in by the house.
The third point is that I think you will agree a legitimate breach of privilege can be established in the matter of time, that is to say that the matter of time is urgent.
Motions affecting the internal economy of the house, as I pointed out, are questions of privilege affecting the privileges of all members collectively and may always be considered in the house without the notice necessary in the case of motions generally. This is pointed out in standing order 17, and Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice on pages 375 and 376, where a case
is cited concerning the translation of the official debates which is reported in the debates of 1876.
The present matter relates to the principle by which persons are accredited to the press gallery, and the application of that principle to the credentials of a particular correspondent. The house in the past has delegated to the Speaker the enunciation of a principle and the application of that principle to particular cases. Over the years since that delegation of authority, however, we have perhaps lost sight of the fact that what is involved is the fundamental privilege of each and every member of the house to object to strangers in the galleries, according to standing order 13. Therefore each and every member is responsible for and must consent to any rule made by way of an exception to that privilege.
As well, we are also responsible for the application of that rule in this particular case. Each member's responsibility is even heavier in respect of the exception that has been made because due to the lack of space and facilities for the press gallery the exception is a discriminatory one that admits certain correspondents and excludes others. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the present difficulty has continued over several sessions and continues each sitting day of the house, so that the question of privilege is one that renews itself with each sitting and is immediately before the house on the occasion of each sitting.
On October 29 last, Mr. Speaker, you advised the house that the question of principle and the question of the individual case were of deep concern to you but that due to the pressure of other urgent matters it was physically impossible for you to determine the matter shortly. There can be no doubt that the effect of the unavoidable delay in the particular instance of this individual has had the result of deciding the matter during the interim before a determination of the principle, in favour of one of the parties against the other. This decision, founded only in delay, may ultimately be the correct one according to the justice of the case, or it may not be.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if I am granted a prima facie case of privilege I am prepared to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty):

Denial of Press Gallery Privileges
That the Sergeant-at-Arms, pursuant to standing order 88, be instructed to grant pro tem a card admitting Raymond Rodgers to the press galleries of this house.
I have a large number of other citations with me this afternoon which I could quote to you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not particularly wish to take up the time of the house. However, in my view these precedents will establish that there is an injustice by reason of delay. There has been a transfer of the administrative responsibility of this house to a body outside of the house who are not, in turn, responsible to us. Therefore, on this basis, I would implore that you grant a prima facie case of privilege so that I can move a substantive motion to clear up the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members who would like to speak on this question?


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, this particular issue has concerned a number of members in the house, particularly the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty), for many months. It is quite apparent that the person involved, Mr. Rodgers, is under considerable difficulty in carrying out the duties that he has as a result of his relationship as an accredited correspondent of a newspaper. We feel that the delay that has taken place has been unfair to him, and it has been unfair to the constituency in which his paper is printed. We think it is unfair to the house. Speaking not only for myself as an individual member but for the members of our party, we want to support the plea that has been made that this be considered a proven case of privilege. We would support the idea that the Sergeant-at-Arms be instructed to proceed as suggested.
I think hon. members are aware that the facilities that are provided to the members of the press gallery are supported by a vote of this house. I think hon. members are aware that for some years the internal administration of those facilities has been carried out under the constitution of the press gallery association.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Slate):: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to raise a point of order. My point of order is very brief, and it is this. I believe it is usual in such cases, before debate is embarked upon on one of these motions, for Your Honour to decide whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. Without seeking to restrict anyone's rights, it seems to me that Your Honour should make that decision; because the hon. member for Port Arthur, if I apprehend his remarks correctly and I listened carefully, is discussing the motion. Before we embark upon a debate on the motion, we should know if there is a question
[Mr. Olson.)
of privilege. I should respectfully suggest also that if you have any doubt about it, as usual you take it under advisement for another day very soon. Of course I recognize there should not be any delay.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the Secretary of State has a great deal of merit. On the other hand, the question to be decided is a very important and delicate one. I would prefer, before trying to give a right decision on the point of privilege, to hear any hon. member who wished to say anything.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think I am speaking in support of the argument that this is a matter of privilege. You used the word "delicate" to describe the situation. I think all hon. members realize that the situation is delicate. It really relates to the fact that we are aware that our proceedings in this house do not gain great significance in the country as a whole until they are reported abroad, and therefore we move with a great deal of delicacy in so far as those people are concerned who are reporting upon this assembly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The use of the word "delicate" was not intended to convey the meaning being read into it. When you are discussing the personal rights of an individual, that is always a very delicate operation or matter to decide. I am not influenced whatever by whether or not the members of the press gallery like my decision.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am delighted to have that assurance, Mr. Speaker. Let us come back to the question of the privileges of the house, which it seems to me have been broken or impinged upon by the action of the press gallery association in denying the use of facilities provided by this house, through a vote of the house, to someone who is an accredited newspaperman. It seems to me this is a breach of the privileges of all of us, and I beg you to allow the point and let us get on with getting the matter cleared up.
I will not argue now as to whether the move to have the Sergeant-at-Arms enforce the use of the facilities in Mr. Rodger's favour is good, but I do feel we cannot get anywhere until we have a motion, and to have a motion we required your approval of it and a proven case of privilege.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I support this question of privilege quite strongly. In Lincoln we have the St. Catharines Standard with a daily circulation of some 30,000, serving an area with a population of around 130,000. Not only is there great personal inconvenience for the Standard representative but there is also greater inconvenience to the people of my constituency,

and I respectfully feel Your Honour should approve of the procedure suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, recent experience may have shown it is somewhat dangerous to allow too much discussion on a point of privilege, because privilege is an extraordinary proceeding and should be stated as briefly as possible. Nevertheless, I think the discussion this afternoon illustrates the fact that this is more in the nature of a complaint than a privilege, but before reaching that conclusion may I be permitted to call the attention of hon. members to citation 104(5) in Beauchesne:
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity. If he is not so satisfied he may allow the member to make a statement with a view to ascertaining whether or not a prima facie case can be made out.
Of course that was the reason for listening carefully to the hon. member for Medicine Hat. Further, citation 113 in Beauchesne reads in part:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the house. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or to apply a remedy.
Of course it is my duty to arrive at a conclusion as to whether a prima facie case of breach of privilege of the house has been made out. Also, a question of privilege is a question relating to the rights and privileges of the house as a whole, or of its members individually, and to the conduct and honour of such members. What is submitted to the house today seems to be more in the nature of a complaint, criticism or grievance concerning the internal economy and administration of the house, and in my opinion should be treated as other possible grievances against the internal economy and administration of the house. The rules governing the internal economy commission are set forth in detail in the House of Commons and Senate Act.
Now, inasmuch as this matter has been under consideration for many months, in fact even years, it hardly qualifies as having been raised at the earliest opportunity, but I admit that is a rather slim limb on which to rely. Some time ago I told the house that the matter was still under active consideration, and that is the position today. Therefore I regret to say that the question as raised does not satisfy me as being a prima facie case of a breach of the privilege of the house.
Question of Privilege


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, then might I ask unanimous consent of the house to move the following motion:
That the Sergeant-at-Arms, pursuant to standing order 88, be instructed to grant pro tem a card admitting Raymond Rodgers to the press galleries of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the moving of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, while I regret to object, this motion has taken many hon. members by surprise. There has been no notice of it. Your Honour has indicated there is not a matter of privilege involved. Therefore it seems to me that the ordinary rules with respect to motions should apply to this as to other motions.


Mr. Peters:: There is no machinery for that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like unanimous consent to move another motion, which I think may meet the unanimous wish of the house. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the question of Raymond Rodgers' right to use the facilities of the press gallery be referred for quick study, and report back to the house on its merits, by the standing committee on privileges and elections.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak for all my hon. friends when I say that there would be unanimous consent to that motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the moving of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which concerns all the members of this house, as a result of the promise made by several cabinet members.
It has to do with the famous list of consultants which was referred to yesterday, that several cabinet members agreed to have tabled in the house; I tried to have a look at that list just before we met this afternoon but it had not been tabled as yet.
That promise was first made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis). On page 4428 of

Question of Privilege
Hansard tor November 5, 1963, right hand column, the Postmaster General stated:
The famous consultant list they talk about so much. I happen to have in my hand the Tory list.
Then the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said:
Table it.
The Postmaster General answered:
I have no objection.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) then said:
Read it.
And the Postmaster General:
I am going to read it first and X am ready to table it.
It is a commitment.
Then the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) said:
On a point of order.
To this the Postmaster General replied by committing himself further:
I am ready to table it.
Later on, on a point of order, I said:
I think that, if the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) wants to talk to this house about a schedule or list, it would be normal to table it.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Des-chatelets) added:
After reading it.
Thus the obligation to table the list after reading it.
A little later, Mr. Speaker, you said yourself:
I am not entitled to anticipate-
You can find it on page 4429, right hand column.
-I am not entitled to anticipate any more than the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is entitled to anticipate, and if we were to hear the Postmaster General for another minute or two I feel reasonably sure he would be about ready to table the document.
Whereupon the Postmaster General answered:
I am ready.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that we have there, repeatedly, undertakings on the part of the Postmaster General and even of the Minister of Public Works to table this document, but it has not been tabled as yet.
Now, I think it is also the privilege of hon. members to have tabled in the house not only the list mentioned yesterday by the Postmaster General, but also the list mentioned some time ago and which, it would seem, is in the possession of the Postmaster General, that is the one which is now in the Post Office Department. The Postmaster General himself referred to it when he stated- and that proves that it is in his possession:

If my hon. friends are as pure as they think they are, they will not object if I talk about their own list. This list is even worse than the Liberal list-
That is a clear indication that there were two lists. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that it is the privilege of hon. members to see both lists, more especially as a motion was made for the production of one of these lists. Its existence was denied at the time but is admitted now by the Postmaster General, as can be seen on page 4429 of yesterday's Hansard.
That is why I ask that both lists be tabled, as was promised yesterday during the discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is quite easy to determine if one has regard to the authorities. The lists referred to are, I understand, private lists. If they were public lists it would be a different matter. My reason for making this statement is founded on the statement, in May, sixteenth edition, at page 461 where the following appears:
Indeed, it is obvious that, as the house deals only with public documents in its proceedings, it could not thus incidentally require the production of papers which, if moved for separately, would be refused as beyond its jurisdiction.
I do not know of any case where private papers belonging to private members have been produced without the consent of the private member or members concerned. I understand these papers now at issue are private papers; therefore I do not believe we have the right, on a question of privilege, to ask for their production. If on the other hand the minister wishes to produce them, that is up to him; but there is no question of privilege arising as far as the Chair is concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; there can be no discussion of the ruling.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the decision-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege-


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the ruling you have just given-I realize that those two documents are private documents, but with the unanimous consent of the house I do not object to table them. I am ready to table those two documents, with the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The Postmaster General has ottered to produce the two documents, which are private documents, but he cannot do so without the unanimous consent ot the house. Is that agreeable to hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has been decided.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. We agree that the Postmaster General table his list, but no proof is being given to the house that we also had a list.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope hon. members will recognize that the matter has been decided as far as the Chair is concerned, and that we shall not repeat some of the disturbances we had last night.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: No. If it is on this question, the matter has been decided.


Azellus Denis: Pursuant to leave granted
earlier this day, I now table the two lists in question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that the wish of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed. DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE



TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime Minister):: The Prime Minister advised the house on Monday that he had written to the premiers of the provinces about the agenda and other arrangements for the forthcoming federal-provincial conference. My right hon. friend said that after the letters had been received by the premiers he would table them, and in his absence I am now doing so on his behalf. The letters are in the languages in which they were sent out.
The letter to each premier encloses a paper setting out the proposed agenda and an outline of procedures with annotations referring to comments and suggestions which had been received from the premiers in response to an earlier letter to them. As these annotations refer to letters from the premiers which should not be tabled without their consent
Questions
having been secured, the enclosure to the letters I am tabling omits them.
It does, however, set forth the agenda, the proposal for the committees of the conference and other procedural suggestions precisely as they were included in the documents sent to the premiers. These cannot, of course, be regarded as final until they are approved by the premiers and by the conference itself. However, as they are based on comments which have already been received from all concerned, they will indicate the consensus as to the matters to be discussed and the manner of conducting the conference.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I wonder whether, with the consent of the house, I could ask the hon. gentleman to tell us again what has been omitted from these documents. I could not quite catch what he said.


Lionel Chevrier: I indicated that what had been omitted were certain comments and suggestions which had been made by the premiers. These are not being tabled because before doing so we would have to obtain the consent of the premiers.


John George Diefenbaker: Will that consent be asked for?


Lionel Chevrier: If it is the wish of the house I could report to the Prime Minister accordingly, and I am sure that would be his desire.



QUESTIONS

Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The following questions are being answered today: 1,078, 1,261, 1,328,	1,394,	1,420,	1,444,	1,452,	1,459,	1,472,1,475,	1,489,	1,502,	1,505,	1,506,	1,508,	1,519,1,521,	1,527,	1,529,	1,530,	1,532,	1,536,	1,538,1,541,	1,545,	1,547,	1,550,	1,561,	1,565,	1,567,
1,569, 1,576, 1,590, and 1,597.
If questions numbers 1,129, 1,217, 1,386, 1,387, 1,409 and 1,486 could be made orders for returns, the returns would be tabled immediately.

Mr. Speaker, if you would call starred questions 1,484, 1,485 and 1,598, I would ask that the others stand.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



JUSTICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the Department of Justice been reorganized in such a way that one senior officer of the department is responsible directly to the Minister of

Questions
Justice for the operation of the criminal law section, and also responsible for the liaison of the work of this section with the parole board, the R.C.M.P. and the penitentiaries branch so that the operations of these various sections may be integrated so that one officer of the department is thoroughly familiar with the operations of all these groups to advise the Minister of Justice as recommended by the Fauteux report?
2.	Has the Department of Justice organized and sponsored a national conference attended by representatives of Canadian universities who are interested in the development of education in the fields of correction and law enforcement to formulate university programs for the training of workers trained in the fields of correction and criminology as recommended by the Fauteux report?
3.	Has the Department of Justice implemented the recommendation of the Fauteux report that the federal government give special financial support toward the development of university education in criminology and related fields, such designated subsidies to continue until these programs are firmly established and, if so, where, and what are the amounts of the grants?
4.	Has the government implemented the recommendation of the Fauteux report that financial assistance be granted to pre-service training by students in the fields of correction and criminology through tuition assistance and scholarship plans designed to encourage persons with superior qualifications to prepare for careers in correction and law enforcement?
5.	Has the government any information regarding the provinces which have established systems of adult probation as recommended by the Fauteux commission and, if so, of those which have, how many probation officers has each province, and what are the professional qualifications, and years of experience of each?
6.	Is the federal government taking any steps to ensure that courts at all levels uniformly interpret punishment as the correction of the offender rather than retribution by society, as recommended by the Fauteux report, and, if so, toward this end have any meetings or conferences been arranged by the government among judges, crown prosecutors, probation officers, psychiatrists, psychologists and representatives of the Department of Justice?


Lionel Chevrier: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	All of the provinces, with the exception of Quebec and Prince Edward Island, have established systems of adult probation. No information is available with regard to Newfoundland. No information is available as to the number, professional qualifications and years of experience of the probation officers.
6.	Officials of the Department of Justice have attended seminars of judges and magistrates on sentencing arranged by provincial attorneys general and universities.



FEDERAL BUILDINGS, WHITE BEAR INDIAN RESERVE, SASK.

Mr. Southam: 1.	What buildings have been erected by the federal government, giving the cost of each, either

wholly or in part between June 21, 1957 and April 22,	1963 on the White Bear Indian reservation,
Carlyle, Saskatchewan?
2.	What federal government buildings, if any, are planned for 1963 on this reservation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Nil.
2. Construction of a storage shed, estimated cost $450, is planned for this year.



COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PORT SIMPSON, B.C.

Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1961, has any proposal been received from the government of the province of British Columbia or from any minister or department thereof for community development at Port Simpson, B.C. and, if so (a) when (b) what was the nature of the proposal, and (c) what was the nature of the reply?


Mr. Munro:: No.



TUNNEL BETWEEN QUEBEC CITY AND LEVIS

Mr. Dionne: Has the Minister of Public Works received representations concerning the construction of a tunnel between the cities of Quebec and Levis and, if so, what action will be taken with respect to such representations?


Mr. Badanai:: No, this government has received none.



DISARMAMENT-STUDY OF CONSEQUENCES TO CANADA

Mr. Mather: Are the Departments of Trade and Commerce and National Defence at work on a study of disarmament consequences to Canada and, if so, when may a report be expected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In response to a request by the United Nations secretary general, the Canadian government prepared a study on the economic and social consequences to Canada of general and complete disarmament. This study was prepared by various Canadian government departments and published in volume II of the secretary general's report on the economic and social consequences of disarmament, document E/3593/add. 1, April 11, 1962. A copy of this report is available in the library of parliament. Various departments are now compiling additional information on this subject and it is expected that this additional information will be sent to the United Nations secretariat in the near future.



MACAMIC, QUE.  PAVING OF POST OFFICE SITE

Mr. Laprise: 1.	Have tenders been called by the Department of Public Works for paving the site of the post office at Macamic?
2.	Who were the bidders for that contract?
3.	What was the amount of the tender of each of the bidders?

4.	Who had the responsibility for distributing the forms of tender?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes, a tender has been received from D. Lamothe Limitee, of Nor-anda, P.Q.
2.	D. Lamothe Limitee has been the only bidder.
3.	$1,875.
4.	No other tender has been called because that company was proceeding with important paving work for the municipality which resulted in savings for the department.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT DIRECTORY

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Was a booklet "Department of Transport Directory" and in the blue section a "list of officers of boards, commissions and corporations reporting to the minister", dated at Ottawa, June 1963, printed (a) in English, and (b) in French and, if so (i) of those printed in English, how many were distributed (ii) of those printed in French, how many were distributed?
2.	What was the cost of publishing these booklets (a) in English, and (b) in French?
3.	Who authorized their publication, (a) in English, and (b) in French?
4.	What disposition will be made of the booklets which were not distributed?
5. How often are these booklets published?
6. Will any new issues of this directory be published in both English and French and, if so, how many in each language?
Questions


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1 and 2. Yes. 1,500 copies printed in English at a cost of $1,264.91; and 1,320 distributed to date.
3.	The departmental publications committee established in accordance with treasury-board circular direction.
4.	Number printed is related to expected distribution requirements, with a small reserve which is distributed on a continuing basis to meet additional requirements at headquarters and regional level.
5 and 6. Frequency of publication is determined from time to time by the departmental publications committee which has a present objective of once a year. So far as a French edition is concerned, the booklet is not for the purpose of providing information in narrative form but is simply a listing of names, residences, and telephone numbers of personnel.



RIDEAU WATERWAY LOCKS

Mr. Maiheson: 1.	How many vessels passed through the following Rideau system locks in each of the years 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, namely (a) Upper Brewers (b) Newboro (c) Smiths Falls detached (d) Burritts Rapids (e) Ottawa?
2.	How many men were employed on all Rideau waterway locks, and at what cost during these years?


George James McIlraith: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Yes.
*not including maintenance staff.



JACQUET RIVER, N.B., POSTMASTER

Mr. MacRae: 1. Was a civil service competition held recently to fill the position of postmaster at Jacquet River, New Brunswick?
2.	63-J549; closing date, June 29, 1963.
3.	Five.
4.	Pettigrew, Douglas Bonar; Hickey, Arthur Charles; Audit, Monica Elizabeth.
Note: Messrs. Pettigrew and Hickey are entitled to the veterans preference.

Questions
5.	No. On September 19, 1963, the commission was informed by the Post Office Department that it was looking into the question of the advisability of amalgamating Jacquet River and Durham Centre post offices to serve one postal area.
6.	The civil service commission is responsible for determining the method by which a vacant position in the civil service will be filled. Under the Civil Service Act the commission is responsible for making appointments by means of open competition whenever it is possible to do so and if it is in the best interests of the service.



MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH PROJECTS

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What psychiatric research projects being conducted by the universities, government, and private foundations are being financed by federal health grants?
2.	What is the value of each grant?
3.	What is the total value of these grants for mental health research being done in each province?
4.	What is the total value of these grants for Canada?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. Under the mental health grant, federal funds have been allocated in 1963-64 toward the conduct of research into the prevention and treatment of mental illness and for the promotion of mental health in Canada at various Canadian universities, hospitals and other health agencies.
2.	Sixty three research projects are being supported in the present fiscal year. The value of each grant varies from $150 to $45,600.
3.	Newfoundland, nil; Prince Edward Island, nil; Nova Scotia, $14,363; New Brunswick, nil; Quebec, $289,986; Ontario, $204,445; Manitoba, $27,048; Saskatchewan, $117,390; Alberta, nil; British Columbia, $60,314; Northwest Territories, nil; Yukon Territory, nil.
4.	$713,546.



*REOPENING OF RAILWAY PROVIDENT FUND

Mr. Rideout: Is consideration being given to the reopening of the 1959 plan so as to allow provident fund employees to transfer to the 1959 plan?


Mr. Cantin:: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that this matter is not under consideration at the present time.



*AIR TERMINAL BUILDING, LONDON, ONT.

Mr. Irvine: 1.	How many bids were received on the tenders called for the new air terminal building in London, Ontario?
2.	Who were the tenderers, and for what amounts?
3.	Is any portion of the building to be air conditioned and, if so, what areas, and is this included in the general contract figure?
4.	Will there be an opening ceremony and, if so, will the minister concerned be in attendance?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Eight bids were received.
2.
Bidders	Amount
W. A. McDougall Ltd., London,
Ont.	$ 998,899
Ellis-Don Ltd., London, Ont.	1,006,500
Louis Donolo (Ont.) Ltd., Toronto
19, Ont.	1,049,065
McKay Cocker Construction Ltd.,
London, Ont.	1,054,511
The Foundation Co. of Canada
Ltd., London, Ont.	1,058,500
The Frid Construction Company
Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.	1,061,500
Curran & Herridge Construction
Co., Ltd., Sarnia, Ont.	1,104,000
Johnson Bros. Co. Limited, Brantford, Ont.	1,138,386
3.	The entire building will be air conditioned and this work is included in the general contract figure.
4.	It is standard procedure that a ceremony be held at the opening of new terminal buildings and this practice will probably be followed. The question of whether the minister concerned will be in attendance will be decided in due course.



CONSUMER SUBSIDY ON BUTTER

Mr. Peiers: 1.	What effect has the 12 cents consumer subsidy, as applied to butter had on the butter sales in (a) Canada (b) export?
2.	What increase in the domestic market is attributable to this subsidy (a) in consumption (b) in production?
3.	What amount of the increase was diverted into (a) ice cream (b) soft ice cream (c) other dairy requirements?


Mr. Hays:: 1. (a) During the 17 months in
which the 12 cents subsidy has been in effect May 1, 1962 to September 30, 1963, total butter sales increased approximately 19 per cent over the same months of 1960-61.
(b) There was no effect on exports as the Canadian domestic price was above world prices. Only a few thousand pounds of butter are exported annually.
2. (a) Total consumption of butter during the 17 months May 1, 1962 to September 30, 1963, the period in which the subsidy has been in effect, was 488.9 million pounds compared with 410 million pounds in the same months of 1960-61, an increase of 78.9 million pounds.
(b) Total production of butter during the 17 months ending September 30, 1963 was 573.8 million pounds compared with 534.5 million pounds in the same months of 196061, an increase of 39.3 million pounds. Since May 1, 1963, butter production has dropped 10.4 million pounds, 4.8 per cent, over the same period in 1962, May 1 to October 1.

3. (a) and (b) It is estimated that in the 17 month period during which the subsidy has been in effect, 13 per cent ol the increased sales of creamery butter, or 10.2 million pounds, was used for both hard and soft ice creams. There is no separate information on the quantity used in each type of ice cream.
(c) It is estimated that 4 per cent of the increase, or 3.2 million pounds, was used in manufacturing other foods.



EDMONTON AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING

Mr. Lambert: 1.	What is the estimated cost of construction and equipment of the Edmonton international airport, including purchase of land, construction of runways, lighting, terminal building, ancillary services, equipment, access roads, grants to the province of Alberta and the municipal district of Leduc with respect to road relocation and construction?
2.	Of the estimated cost, how much has been expended as of October 15, 1963?
3.	What is the take over date of the terminal building and related facilities, and when is it planned to officially open the said terminal building?


George James McIlraith: 1. $32,000,000.
2.	Actual expenditure as of September 30, 1963, $27,137,475.
3.	A provisional take over took place on October 25, 1963. The target for the official opening ceremony is February 1, 1964.



REGULATION OF SUGAR PRICES

Mr. Mather: 1.	Is the government aware of the action taken by the U.S. administration to curb sugar price speculations by placing the trading of sugar futures on the New York exchange under government regulations?
2.	What is the situation respecting sugar price regulations in Canada?
Answer: 1. Yes. A bill has been submitted to the United States congress to enable the secretary of agriculture to regulate futures trading margins and the size of speculative accounts, but has not been under active consideration as yet and is not expected to be considered by congress until next year.
2. There is no commodity exchange in Canada in which sugar futures are traded. Canadian prices are determined by the cost of raw sugar in international markets. Furthermore, except in time of war or national emergency the regulation of prices is assigned by the British North America Act to the provinces.



SUBVENTION ON COASTAL SERVICE CONTRACT, MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the government to renew the subvention on the coastal service contract between Pictou, Nova Scotia, Charlottetown, P.E.I. and the Magdalen islands, now held by the Magdalen Island Transportation Company Limited, which expires on December 30, 1963?
Questions


George James McIlraith: This contract is due to expire at the close of navigation 1963. As is the case with all other contracts, an assessment of the service will be made by the Canadian maritime commission, after which consideration will be given to renewal of service and terms of the contract.



WHARF REPAIRS, SKINNER COVE, N.S.

Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Have tenders closed for repairs and improvements to the wharf at Skinner's cove, Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
2.	How many firms tendered on this work, and what was the amount of their tenders?
3.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes.
2.	Four tenders received, as follows: Joseph
Almon, New Glasgow, N.S., $12,785. R. A. Douglas, New Glasgow, N.S., $13,995. Colin R. MacDonald, Antigonish, N.S.,	$14,225.
Stanley Reid, Pictou, N.S., $14,232.34.
3.	The contract has not yet been awarded but is expected to be given to the lowest bidder.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION INTO B.C. FISHING INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard: What is the present status of the combines investigation branch inquiry relating to the production, purchase and sale of raw fish in British Columbia?


Lionel Chevrier: While the injunction proceedings in the courts against the restrictive trade practices commission have been concluded, it remains for the commission to complete its review of the oral and documentary evidence in order to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada as to making evidence available to the parties and then to hear the submissions of the parties before making its report. Therefore, it will be some time before a report is received. In the meantime an intergovernmental committee (federal and British Columbia civil servants) has been appointed to study the problems concerned with price and wage disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry in order to make recommendations for minimizing interruption of fishing operations in future.



PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES UNDER HOSPITAL SERVICES ACT

Mr. Howard: For each year since its inception, what have been the payments to each province pursuant to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Payments made to the provinces under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act for each year since its inception are shown in table I attached. This table will be found on page 19 of the annual

Questions
report under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963, which was tabled in the House of Commons on October 10.
Further advances on contribution made subsequently in 1963 for the months April to
August inclusive, by province, are shown in table II attached.
It will be noted that since the inception of the program on July 1, 1958, until the end of August 1963, total federal payments amounted to $1,169,596,823.02.

table i
Contributions by Canada-with Respect to July 1, 1958 to March 31, 1963 by Province and by Calendar Year
Province	1958 Total Contributions	1959 Total Contributions	1960 Total Contributions	1961 Advances on Contributions	1962 Advances on Contributions	1963 Advances on Contributions$	$	$	$	$	$Newfoundland	
1,990,135.23	4,788,013.82	5,603,586.29	5,656,923.57	6,737,187.55	1,615,418.07Prince Edward Island	
-	235,524.49	1,116,640.33	1,203,258.07	1,550,148.17	408,149.25Nova Scotia	
-	8,149,539.76	9,991,458.82	10,595,263.12	12,750,964.59	3,236,391.36New Brunswick	
-	3,331,614.19	7,409,672.94	9,086,618.46	10,395,505.09	2,707,863.06Quebec	
-	-	-	66,746,709.45	85,325,597.04	23,600,587.42Ontario	
-	72,610,303.71	86,732,452.12	95,016,981.49	112,514,191.97	29,245,652.51Manitoba	
4,779,865.66	11,556,009.75	13,229,363.97	14,086,400.97	16,263,890.65	4,201,244.82Saskatchewan	
5,775,875.67	13,276,380.46	14,893,775.21	15,119,648.10	17,053,916.82	4,374,957.78Alberta	
6,494,722.50	15,345,668.80	18,200,793.60	18,778,935.83	22,544,792.40	5,529,508.35British Columbia	
8,609,463.00	20,033,811.20	23,309,699.60	24,271,046.40	27,848,722.58	7,357,524.55Yukon	
-	-	124,314.31	269,520.51	315,257.35	65,895.29Northwest Territories	
-	-	208,049.96	362,037.05	463,972.44	128,879.98Total	
27,650,062.06	149,326,866.18	180,819,807.15	261,193,343.02	313,764,146.65	82,472,072.44Cumulative Total	
-	-	-	-	-	1,015,226,297.50
Questions

Questions Table II
Advances by Canada for months April to August, inclusive 1963
	Advance on
Province	Contribution
Newfoundland	$ 3,392,419.27
Prince Edward Island	797,379.26
Nova Scotia	5,934,466.72
New Brunswick	4,907,205.33
Quebec	43,027,084.92
Ontario	54,889,690.37
Manitoba	7,923,501.19
Saskatchewan	8,517,532.01
Alberta	11,084,473.93
British Columbia	13,533,710.66
Northwest Territories	225,000.18
Yukon Territory	138,061.68
Total $	154,370,525.52
Total for Table I	1,015,226,297.50
Cumulative Total $1,169,596,823.02	
Sydney, N.S., $43,653; Liverpool Lumber Co. Ltd., Liverpool, N.S., $49,933.62.
3. March 2, 1964.



TREATMENT CENTRES FOR EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many residential treatment centres for emotionally disturbed children are there in Canada?
2.	Where are these treatment centres located?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. and 2.
It is not possible to know the total number of such centres since they do not report to the dominion bureau of statistics and are not required to meet objective accreditation standards for treatment. However the Department of National Health and Welfare knows of 11 such centres located in Montreal, Toronto, Newmarket, Windsor, Kingston, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina, Vancouver, Victoria and White Rock. There are as well seven hospitals in Canada which admit children with psychiatric disabilities and 12 hospital training schools for the mentally retarded.



TENDERS FOR FISHERMEN'S WHARF, PUGWASH, N.S.

Mr. Coates: 1.	Who was the successful tenderer for construction of the fisherman's wharf at Pugwash, Nova Scotia?
2.	How many bids were received, and what was the amount of each tender submitted?
3.	What is the expected date of completion of this project?


Hubert Badanai: 1. R. A. Douglas Limited of New Glasgow, N.S.
2. Four bids were received: R. A. Douglas Limited, New Glasgow, N.S., $40,585.75; Colin R. MacDonald Limited, Antigonish, N.S., $43,507; R. K. Chappell Construction Ltd.,
	$
Newfoundland	4,045
Prince Edward Island	1,612
Nova Scotia	12,799
New Brunswick	10,841
Quebec	95,293
Ontario	146,390
Manitoba	18,301
Saskatchewan	28,966
Alberta	32,367
British Columbia	42,787
Yukon	n/a
Northwest Territories	n/a
Canada	$393,401



HOSPITAL OPERATING COSTS

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the total cost of operating Canada's hospitals for each of the past five years, province by province?
2.	What was the total cost of operating Canada's mental hospitals for each of the past five years?
3. What was the per diem cost of operating Canada's hospitals for each of the past five years?
4. What was the per diem cost of operating Canada's mental hospitals for each of the past five years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Total operating expenditures of public general and allied special hospitals for each of the five years for which final figures are available, in thousands of dollars:
1958	1959	1960	1961$	$	$	$6,154	8,138	9,436	10,4601,752	2,106	2,575	3,01514,181	18,385	21,858	24,88212,228	16,253	20,843	23,649108,460	110,072	131,604	167,319163,246	195,671	229,969	258,26522,878	27,966	31,363	35,98732,016	35,955	38,729	39,97836,884	43,178	47,002	50,85446,361	52,460	59,463	64,127n/a	n/a	n/al	474n/a	n/a	n/af	5444,161	$510,183	$592,842	$679,005

2. Total operating expenditures reported by public mental hospitals in Canada in thousands of dollars:
	Number of	Total operating
	hospitals	expenses-all
	reporting	provinces
1957	37	63,9201958	38	72,0011959	37	66,023*1960	41	86,7251961	34	75,039*""Excluding	Quebec for which records are	not available.	3. and 4.	Public general	and allied	Public mentalspecial hospitals	hospitals1957	$14.18	$3.581958	15.71	3.951959	17.21	5.21*1960	19.47	4.671961	23.07	5.90*
'"Excluding Quebec for which records are not available.



DIVISION OF VOTES, 1963 ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,532
Mr. Malheson:: 1.	Has any department or agency of the federal government information which would indicate, by parties or groups, on the average, how many votes were received, in the 1963 federal election, by a
(a)	Ralliement Creditiste M.P. (b) Social Credit M.P. (c) New Democratic M.P. (b) Progressive Conservative M.P. (e) Liberal M.P.; and, if so, what are the figures in each case?
2.	Has any department or agency of the federal government information which would indicate, by parties or groups, on the average, how many constituents are represented by a (a) Ralliement Creditiste M.P. (b) Social Credit M.P. (e) New Democratic M.P. (d) Progressive Conservative M.P. (e) Liberal M.P. of the twenty sixth parliament; and, if so, what are the figures in each case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The chief electoral officer has supplied the following statistics:
1.	(a) Ralliement Creditiste, 147,936; (b) Social Creit, 139,689; (c) New Democratic, 238,584; (d) Progressive Conservative, 1,192,854; (e) Liberal, 2,111,566.
2.	(b) Ralliement Creditiste, $796,539; (b) Social Credit, 809,491; (c) New Democratic, 1,356,016; (d) Progressive Conservative, 5,577,687; (e) Liberal, 9,698,514.



CHEESE EXPORT SUBSIDY

Mr. Pelers: 1.	What has been the result of the reduction in cheese export subsidy from four cents to three cents?
2.	What effect has this on the export price to (a) Great Britain (b) other European markets (c) American market?
3.	What is the total production of Cheddar cheese for the years 1961, 1962, and each month of 1963 in (a) Canada (b) province of Quebec (c) province of Ontario?
Questions
4.	In each case, what percentage is made from
(a)	raw milk (b) by the by-flash process?
Answer: 1. The reduction in the cheese export subsidy, applicable only to Cheddar cheese shipped to Britain, has effected a saving to the treasury of $61,180 on exports to that country in the May to August period this year, of $6,118,000 pounds. Total 1963 exports to Britain are expected to equal those of last year, which amounted to 26 million pounds. Demand for Canadian Cheddar in that market continue strong.
2. (a) The export price of Cheddar on a cents pound basis f.o.b. shipping point has remained above last year's comparable price for the period May to August:
	1963	1962
May	33.6	31.7June	34.2	32.0July	33.8	30.4August	33.4	31.4
(b) and (c) not applicable. (See answer 1).
3.
Cheddar cheese production ('000 lbs.)
Canada	Ontario	Quebec1961 (Annual)	118,912	68,020	45,9251962 (Annual)	116,558	66,692	45,1901963 January	4,324	2,028	2,068February	3,377	1,766	1,399March	5,329	2,735	2,314April	8,758	4,312	4,143May	14,335	8,173	5,641June	18,074	10,843	6,555July	18,056	9,819	7,592August	17,242	9,730	6,962September	16,437	8,869	7,037
4. No information is available.



PLACE MEASUREMENT DREDGING, MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. Coates: 1.	What place measurement dredging projects are being considered in the maritime provinces for the fiscal year 1964-65?
2.	What are the estimated quantities to be dredged in each of these projects?


Hubert Badanai: 1 and 2. This information is not available at this time and will not be available until the department's 1964-65 estimates are tabled in the house.



STUDIES OF WATER LEVELS, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER

Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Does the government intend to institute a study of the causes of the lowering of the level of water in the St. Lawrence river?
2.	If studies of this problem have been made, of what nature were they, and by whom were they made?
3.	Does the St. Lawrence seaway authority have any jurisdiction in that matter and, if so, to what extent?

Questions


Mr. Turner:: 1. The level of water in the St. Lawrence has been under study for several years and the studies will continue. The present low-level cycle is due actually to the small amount of precipitation which has fallen in the drainage basins of the Ottawa river, the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river.
2.	The studies include various suggestions to control the flow of lake Ontario and concerning the effects of the holding up of water in the upper Ottawa, as well as studies on models and on the spot for the future construction of protective works in the St. Lawrence river, at Montreal and downstream from Montreal.
Studies on the control of the flow of lake Ontario come under the international St. Lawrence river board of control, on behalf of the international joint commission; those concerning the Ottawa river drainage basin are undertaken by the federal-provincial Ottawa river board of engineers and those made at Montreal and downstream, mainly by the Department of Transport.
Studies of the factors affecting the water level of lake Ontario and consequently the flow and level of the St. Lawrence river have also been made by the international lake Ontario board of engineers, on behalf of the joint international commission, from 1952 to 1958.
3.	No.



STUDY OF BANKRUPTCIES

Mr. Laiulippe: In view of the recent publication of statistics on the number of bankruptcies in Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec, does the government plan to undertake a survey of the situation and to take immediate appropriate action?


Lionel Chevrier: A complete revision of the Bankruptcy Act is being studied in the Department of Justice and there is before parliament an interim measure, Bill S-2, "An Act to Amend the Bankruptcy Act", for the purpose of improving certain aspects of the Bankruptcy Act administration.



ALGERIA


Mr. Laiulippe: Have any Canadian industries or any Canadian capital been affected by the nationalization program of the government of Algeria and, if so (a) how many industries (b) what capital is involved (c) did the federal government take any steps to protect Canadian interests?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We are informed that there does not seem to be in Algeria any Canadian capital or industry which could be nationalized.
Consequently, the government has received no claim for compensation.
Therefore parts (a), (b) and (c) of the question are not applicable.



SALARIES OF POLICE MAGISTRATES, YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Has the salary of the police magistrate in and for the Yukon Territory been increased and, if so
(a)	on what date was the increase authorized (b) was the increase retroactive, and to what date (c) what was the amount of the increase?
2.	Has the salary of the police magistrate in and for the Northwest Territories been increased and, if so (a) on what date was the increase authorized
(b)	was the increase retroactive, and to what date
(c)	what was the amount of the increase?


Lionel Chevrier: 1. No.
2. No.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT, STEWART-CASSIAR ROAD, B.C.

Mr. Howard: Are any discussions or negotiations presently under way between the government or any agency or branch thereof and the government of the province of British Columbia regarding an agreement to contribute to the construction of the so-called Stewart-Cassiar road and, if so, when is it expected that an agreement will be reached?
Answer: No. Federal contribution to the cost of constructing the Stewart-Cassiar road is being made in accordance with an agreement made in 1958, and amended in June 1963 to extend the completion date from 1963 to 1968.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH CZECHOSLOVAKIA ON NATIONALIZED PROPERTIES

Mr. Klein: Has the government any information concerning negotiations now being carried on between the government of the United States and the government of Czechoslovakia for the settlement of claims of United States citizens for properties nationalized by Czechoslovakia after world war II, and, if so, are similar negotiations being conducted or will they be conducted by the Canadian government on behalf of Canadian citizens having similar claims against Czechoslovakia?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Our information is that the United States-Czechoslovakia negotiations on nationalization claims of United States citizens, which have been carried on over a number of years, are still going on.
As regards claims of Canadian citizens in respect of property nationalized by the Czechoslovak government, repeated efforts

have been made in the past through the Canadian embassy in Prague to obtain a settlement of these claims, without success. The Canadian government has within the past few days made further efforts to bring about negotiations. The past attitude of the Czechoslovak government has not been encouraging, but all possibilities for making some progress in respect of these claims are being carefully and actively explored.



CANADA MEDAL

Mr. Lambert: 1.	Have any awards of the Canada medal been made since its institution in 1943, if not, has the authority for the Canada medal been revoked?
2.	If the Canada medal is still active, what plans are contemplated for its future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. No; no.
2. None at the present time.



*MILK SUBSIDY PAYMENTS, QUEBEC

Mr. Ricard: Since the establishment of the agricultural prices stabilization board and up to March 31, 1963, what has been the total amount paid as a grant of 25 cents a hundredweight of milk to the producers supplying each of the following factories: Societe Cooperative Agricole, St-Germain, Co. of Drummond; Theodore Jodoin, St-Theodore d'Acton, Co. of Bagot; Societe Cooperative Agricole, St-Hugues, Co. of Bagot; Deslauriers & Frere-Paul Jodoin, St-Liboire, Co. of Bagot; Felice Di Palma, St-Liboire, Co. of Bagot; Heliodore Parent, Ste-Helene, Co. of Bagot; Societe Cooperative Agricole, St-Simon, Co. of Bagot; Theodore Gevry, St-Pie, Co. of Bagot; Alfred Bernard, La Presentation, Co. of St-Hyacinthe; Prodults Laitiers Val Maska, St-Damase, Co. of St-Hyacinthe; Charles Benoit & Irenee Lariviere, La Presentation, Co. of St-Hyacinthe; Lussier & Frere, Enr., St-Hyacinthe, Co. of St-Hyacinthe; Produits Laitiers Mont St-Hilaire, St-Hyacinthe, Co. of St-Hyacinthe?


Harry William Hays: During the four fiscal year periods ending March 31, 1963, the period in which the 25 cent per hundredweight milk subsidy has been provided, the factories listed, acting as agents for the agricultural stabilization board, have transmitted to their respective producers a total amount of $1,516,221.79.



WHEAT BOARD SALES CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,576
Mr. Horner (Acadia):: For the crop year beginning August 1, 1963, until the present time (a) how many sales contracts for wheat has the wheat board entered into (b) what countries were the contracts signed with, and on what dates were they signed (c) what was the board's listed price on each of the days on which the sales contracts were signed?
Answer: It is contrary to government policy and not in the public interest to reveal details of the commercial sales contracts entered into by the Canadian wheat board.
Questions



PURCHASE OF SOUTH AMERICAN RAW SUGAR

Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): Is the government considering the possibility of purchasing Demerara-type raw sugar at low prices directly from Rio or Sao Paulo, Brazil, through our commercial attache with a view to reselling it to Canadian refineries with a consequent lowering of prices on the Canadian market?

Answer: The government is not considering the purchase of Demerara-type of raw sugar. The import of sugar into Canada is in the hands of the private trade and if Canadian importers can obtain sugar at lower prices in certain countries, they will no doubt avail themselves of the opportunity.

Canada's most favourable trade balance

Question No. 1,597-Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-
Carleton):
With what country does Canada have the most favourable balance of trade and, what is (a) the value of exports to that country (b) the value of imports from that country, for the last twelve month period for which figures are available?
Answer: Canada has a larger export balance on trade with Britain than on trade with any other country. The value of commodity trade with Britain in the 12 months ending September, 1963, latest figures available, was as follows: domestic exports, $992,950,862; reexports, $9,443,729; imports, $514,129,911*.
*August and September are preliminary.



* INFORMATION AND WARRANT AGAINST HAL BANKS

Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What charges were laid by information against Hal C. Banks prior to or on October 31, 1963?
2.	What was the date of the charge or charges in question and who laid the information or informations in question?
3.	Was a warrant issued for the said Banks arrest contemporaneously or immediately following the taking and swearing of the said information or informations?
4.	If a said warrant was issued, what date and hour was it delivered to the police for execution?


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	An information was laid against Harold Chamberlain Banks of Pointe Claire, in the district of Montreal, charging him with conspiring to commit an assault causing bodily harm to Captain Henry Francis Walsh.
2.	The date of the laying of the said information was October 23, 1963, and it was laid by Sergeant Joseph McLeod of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
3.	A warrant for the arrest of Banks was issued on October 23, 1963 immediately following the laying of the said information.

Orders jor Returns
4.	The said warrant was delivered to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police immediately upon being issued but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were directed not to execute it pending further instructions. They were directed on November 5, 1963, to execute the said warrant.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Slogan: 1.	What were the expenditures on each reserve in the Clandeboye Indian agency, and for what purposes, in the years 1961-62 and 1962-63?
2.	What are the proposed expenditures on each of the Indian reserves in the Clandeboye Indian agency for the year 1963-64, and for what purposes?
Return tabled.


REQUESTS FOR CO-OPERATION IN CHAUDIERE RIVER WORKS
Mr. Perron: 1.	During the last two fiscal years, has the government of the province of Quebec requested the federal government to carry out or to co-operate in carrying out certain works in the Chaudiere river and, if so, what was the nature of such works?
2.	Has the federal government received requests during the last two fiscal years from municipalities wishing to obtain its co-operation in carrying out certain works on the Chaudiere river and, if so
(a)	which municipalities (b) what will be the nature of such works and (c) what was the answer given by the federal government?
Return tabled.


DEPORTATION ORDERS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1962, how many, if any, people have been ordered to be deported, shown by country of last permanent residence, and what was the reason for the order of deportation having been made?
2.	How many of these have not been so deported with the reasons given in each case?
Return tabled.


VISITORS DEPORTED AND REFUSED CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Howard: For each year since January 1, 1957, how many persons resident in Canada by virtue of visitors permits have been (a) ordered to be deported and
(b)	refused citizenship papers, with the reason given in each case?
Return tabled.


SPONSORED IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Pritlie: 1. In regard to sponsored immigrants, does the Department of Citizenship and Immigration draw any distinction between those immigrants who are expected to become self-supporting and those who, by reason of age and/or infirmity, will never be self supporting?

2.	(a) How many sponsored immigrants were admitted to Canada in each of the years 1955-1962 inclusive (b) of the total number of immigrants entering Canada in each of the years 1955-1962, what percentage were sponsored (c) what were the countries of origin for the sponsored immigrants during each of the years in question (d) by what process is the department made aware of any subsequent application for assistance on the part of a sponsored immigrant, to municipal or provincial authorities (e) since 1955, how many sponsored immigrants have subsequently received public assistance following their admission to Canada (f) does the federal government assume complete responsibility for the cost of public assistance paid on behalf of immigrants who were sponsored at the time of their admission into Canada or is any costsharing agreement in existence whereby the provinces are reimbursed for public assistance granted on behalf of sponsored immigrants?
3.	Is a sponsor required to sign an undertaking to provide care and maintenance for the person sponsored, and does this document incorporate a guarantee that such persons will not become a public charge at any time during their residence in Canada, if so, (a) does such a document have any legal validity and is it the practice of the department to seek legal recourse in enforcing the terms of the contract under which entry was granted (b) in those situations where a sponsor deliberately repudiated his responsibility to provide support for an immigrant who is incapable of ever becoming self supporting, what action was taken by the department if persuasion proved unsuccessful
(c)	do financial obligations incurred subsequent to the admission of an immigrant release the sponsor from his prior obligation to support?
Return tabled.


* WHEAT BOARD MEMBERSHIP AND POWERS
Mr. Langlois: 1.	What is the rate per bushel paid by the farmers for the transport of grain from western Canada to the great lakes warehouses?
2.	What is the price per bushel paid to the farmers of western Canada for oats, wheat, rye and flax in 1962 and 1963?
3.	Who are the members of the Canadian wheat board and, by name, what changes have been made in the membership of the board since (a) 1958 (b) July, 1963?
4.	What powers does the board of grain commissioners have with regard to the purchase or the transport of western feed grains or of export grain?
5.	For what number of years did Mr. F. F. Hamilton, chief commissioner of the board of grain commissioners, act as deputy commissioner of that board before acceding to his present position?
6.	What did he do prior to his becoming deputy commissioner ?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 107-Mr. Fisher:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government, including that through the office of the Prime Minister, regarding the appointment of Dr. Loris Russell some time ago to head the national museum.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to withdraw this motion.
Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL RESPECTING IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Peters:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all orders in council covering immigration for the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959, and to include any corrections that have been brought to the attention of the government as a consequence of the immigration amnesty order, together with recommendations instituted by members of parliament concerning individuals covered by such orders in council.
He said: I would ask permission to have this motion stand.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN R.C.M.P. AND ALERT SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 112-Mr. Fisher:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the R.C.M.P. commissioner's office or that of the "I" directorate office and the alert service (Marjorie Lamb, P.O. Box 173, Station "Q", Toronto, Ontario), since June 1, 1961.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is not and has never been in the public interest to produce correspondence to or from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for to do so would immediately destroy the confidence on which numerous organizations and the general public have always relied in communicating with the R.C.M.P. Therefore the public interest requires us to continue to maintain a policy that such matters are never publicly disclosed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have this motion transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



T.C.A. REPAIR FACILITIES, WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 129-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Manitoba since April 8, 1963, dealing with the proposed move of T.C.A. repair facilities from Winnipeg to Montreal.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion subject to the usual reservation as to obtaining the consent of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to subject to the reservation of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
28902-5-284
Motions jor Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 138-Mr. Fisher:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence sent by the Auditor General to the minister or the deputy minister (taxation) of the Department of National Revenue regarding any revenues which should be collected by the crown in connection with estates of deceased persons since January 1, 1963, and to be more specific, in view of previous decisions on like motions, for only that correspondence signed by the Auditor General, Mr. Henderson, and not correspondence or memoranda directed by employees of the Auditor General's office.
Mr.   Mc@: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the Minister of National Revenue that he has spoken to the hon. member for Port Arthur, and that since no correspondence has been received by the minister or the deputy minister, taxation, of the Department of National Revenue from the Auditor General the hon. member is now prepared to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 139-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Manitoba and other provinces regarding possible duplication created by setting up the Department of Industry when similar departments have already been operating in the province of Manitoba and other provinces.
Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has drawn my attention to notice of motion for production of papers No. 140 passed a few days ago which asked for all that is asked for in this motion and even more. Therefore I am sure my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North would not mind if this motion were now dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



STUDY OF NELSON RIVER POWER POTENTIAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 142-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all letters, communications, documents, and reports exchanged since 1961 between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba with respect to a study of the power potential of the Nelson river.
Mr. Laing:: Mr. Speaker, we are entirely agreeable to accepting this motion subject only to the usual reservation with respect to obtaining the assent of the province.

Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is accepted subject to the reservation expressed by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 143-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the transcript of any interview, inquiry or examination of or with each inmate of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary relating to the riot in that penitentiary on June 17, 1962.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have permission to withdraw this notice of motion.
Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



APPOINTMENT OF POSTMASTER, RAMA, SASK.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 144-Mr. Korchinski:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions and other documents, other than inter-departmental correspondence, exchanged between the office of the Postmaster General and any consultants, advisers or any other interested parties relating to the appointment of a postmaster at Rama, Saskatchewan, since April 8, 1963.
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the adoption of this motion and the tabling of all official correspondence.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What do you mean by "official"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No Christmas cards?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 145-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, briefs, memoranda, or other documents exchanged since the 22nd day of April, 1963, between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba with respect to the setting up of a Department of Industry.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I understand
that the information requested in this motion has already been tabled in response to order No. 140. In view of this I would be happy to withdraw my motion.
Mr. Drury:: It will be tabled, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



SECURITY PROCEDURES AND INVESTIGATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 146*-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence received since January 1, 1963 by the * Prime Minister and/or the Minister

of Justice from organizations or individuals dealing with the problem of security procedures and investigations and the replies to same.
Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether the hon. member would allow this to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will be agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



B.C. FISHING INDUSTRY-JOINT COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 147-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and any other person, organization or government since July 1, 1963 dealing with the federal-provincial committee on price and wage disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry.
Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, the government is agreeable to accepting this motion subject to the usual reservation in connection with federal-provincial correspondence and the inter-departmental exchange of correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is accepted subject, to the reservation of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 148-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof and any or all members of the advisory committee to the north Pacific fisheries commission since July 1. 1963.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: The government is agreeable to accepting this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is accepted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 149-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the telegram received during the early part of August, 1963, from the fisheries association of British Columbia, which telegram dealt with the suggestion that an arbitrator be appointed to settle certain unresolved questions related to the strike in the fishing industry in B.C. earlier in the year.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: This motion is acceptable to the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 150-Mr. Fisher:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between ministers or employees of the government and outside persons regarding the appointment of Dr. Loris Russell some time ago to head the national museum.
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to accept this motion subject only to the reservation respecting such privileged documents as may exist.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is accepted subject to the reservation expressed by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 151-Mr. Pigeon:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963, between the Minister of Justice or officers of the Department of Justice, on one hand, and Mr. Roland Comtois, of Repentigny, constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, on the other hand.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on a former occasion, since there is no official correspondence I have no objection to this motion passing.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be transferred for debate; as concerns-


An hon. Member:: It is already accepted. Mr. Pigeon: -as concerns the word official, I think that the word "patronage" should be substituted.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would allow me to refer you to page 2858 of Hansard of July 30, 1958, where under similar circumstances the then minister of agriculture said:
I am also informed it has never been the custom of the house to have documents of this nature-
Personal and confidential documents.
-produced. If there are any documents in addition to these I shall be glad to produce them.
That is the position I am taking on this motion, namely that I consent to it but that there are no official documents.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in my view, this
is quite a different case. The Minister of Justice is distorting the meaning of the motion and I ask that it be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. 28902-5-284i
Motions for Papers



APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER OF MACKENZIE TERRITORY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 153-Mr. Rheaume:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, documents or other papers exchanged between any of the following: (a) the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and/or any official or employee of the department of northern affairs (b) Mr. E. R. Horton of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories (c) Mrs. I. J. H. "Tibbie" Hardie, Ottawa, Ontario, "consultant" (d) Mr. John J. Connolly, Ottawa, Ontario (e) and/or any other member of the executive of the Northwest Territories Liberal association; relating to the appointment of Mr. E. R. Horton of Yellowknife, N.W.T., as resident commissioner of the proposed Mackenzie territory.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission to have this motion withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



RESULTS OF 1963 ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 154-Mr. Caouetie:
That an order of the house do issue for a return of the complete results of the general election in Canada on April 8, 1963, showing, for each constituency by provinces, the total votes cast for each candidate.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I move the motion in the name of the hon. member for Villeneuve?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, in a non-controversial way, I could raise a point of order with respect to this motion. This is a document which has to be tabled under a statute of the parliament of Canada. Therefore it seems to me that the house would be making itself rather ridiculous by ordering the production of something that the law of Canada has ordered. I am informed by the chief electoral officer that this document is being printed and will be ready between December 15 and January 1, and the law will be complied with with respect to its tabling. In the circumstances I suggest that we should not pass the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member on behalf of the hon. member for Villeneuve-* [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I accept the suggestion of the Secretary of State, but I do not agree with him when he says that this notice of motion is ridiculous. Perhaps it was a way for the hon. member for Villeneuve to expedite matters.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the hon.
member this motion stands.
Motion stands.



LEGAL DOCUMENTS ISSUED AGAINST HAL BANKS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 155-Mr. Woolliams:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of each and every information laid under the Criminal Code of Canada on or before October 31, 1963, against Hal C. Banks, together with any other legal documents issued or served on the said Banks in connection with the information or charges in question.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move this motion, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, while we are still on notices of motions for production of papers, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that, about three weeks ago, an order of the house was adopted asking the Postmaster General to table certain documents. Now, that has not been done as yet and, since the motion was agreed to three weeks ago, could the minister give some explanation for the delay?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the information is available, it will be tabled.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that cancellation of the frigate program will result in the laying off of up to 10,000 Canadians in the shipbuilding and related industries, will the government reconsider its decision to purchase three submarines outside of Canada and launch its own submarine building program in our country, as this type of warship can be built efficiently by our Canadian shipyards?


Lionel Chevrier: I am grateful to the hon. member for having given notice to the Prime Minister's office that he intended to ask this question. I presume that it is based on a purported statement by the president of Davie Shipbuilding Limited appearing in this morning's 
Gazette, and which would appear to be an estimate on the part of the individual quoted as to the number of personnel who might have been employed if the general purpose frigate program had been continued.
It is a fact, however, that Canadian shipyards will get substantial benefit from the $110 million shipbuilding program announced by the Minister of Transport and the $50 million program forecast by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. The Minister of National Defence has explained to the house the reason for the cancellation of the frigate program. He has explained also to the special committee on defence the reasons for the purchase of the three submarines from the United Kingdom. I have nothing to add to what he has said in this regard.
In so far as a possible submarine construction program in Canada is concerned, the Minister of National Defence also told the defence committee yesterday that we are now undertaking a thorough study of our future naval requirements, and that once those have been determined it will be the policy of the government to undertake production in Canadian yards.


Léon Balcer: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the programs that have been announced by the Minister of Transport and by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys were programs that were already drafted under the previous administration, in great part, and that the abandonment of the frigate program and the buying of submarines outside of Canada is going to be a tremendous blow to employment in the shipyards of Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: I thought this was a supplementary question that was being directed to me, but I note now that it is a statement. It is not a fact, let me assure the hon. member, that this program was prepared by the former administration. The former administration had something to do with the 40 per cent aspect of the program-


Mr. MacEwan:: "Something to do;" that is generous.


Lionel Chevrier: -but the program announced by my colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is an entirely new program.


An hon. Member:: No, it is not.


Lionel Chevrier: These programs, as my two colleagues have indicated, will provide a tremendous amount of employment for the shipyards of the country.

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



REPORTED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN U.S. AND CANADIAN PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware that a five pound bag of sugar in Canada now costs the housewife 95 cents, while advertisements in United States newspapers show the same product selling in the United States for 49 cents? I should like to ask the minister whether the government is making any study of the reason for this tremendous disparity in price if, as the Prime Minister claims, the price in Canada is largely set by the world price. If such a study is being undertaken, what is the answer?


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad the hon. member has posed that question. I can assure the hon. member that it has caused me and my two colleagues who are particularly interested in this problem, namely the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a great deal of concern. I can assure him also that we are giving the matter careful study. I hope it will be possible to say something within the next few days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Could the spirit of Hyannis Port be extended to asking the United States how they keep the price of sugar at half what it is in Canada?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Perhaps I might answer that question in a preliminary way.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Here is a sugary answer.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This will not be a sugary answer; I hope it will be a factual one. When the statement is made in the next few days, to which the Minister of Justice referred, I expect it will include a description of the different ways in which sugar has been purchased over the years in the different countries. I am sure that will explain the question the hon. member has asked.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Will it indicate whether the government of Canada is prepared to adopt some of the methods other countries have used?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It will indicate the advantages and disadvantages of the different purchasing methods.



HAL BANKS-INQUIRY AS TO DELAY IN EXECUTION OF WARRANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temiscamin-gue):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question relating to the answer given to part 4 of question 1,598 given by the parliamentary secretary. Will the minister say who directed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not to execute the warrant immediately against Hal C. Banks, and for what reason such a direction was given?


Lionel Chevrier: I think in the contribution I made to the debate yesterday I answered the question the hon. member just now put to me.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question. This question springs directly from the answer given today, so it would be impossible for it to have been answered previously. I wonder if the minister would try to give an answer to this very important question.


Lionel Chevrier: I took it that I had given an answer yesterday. In the answer I gave yesterday I indicated to the house that the first concern of the government was keeping the men on the ships in order to keep grain moving, and that was the reason the warrant was not executed immediately. I did not want to be placed in a position of interfering with what was being done by the trustees, who were at that time entering upon their duties. Since then instructions have been given to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to execute the warrant. It seems to me that is an answer that should be acceptable to the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Were such instructions given by the minister himself or by some other person?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, now, would the hon. member indicate to what instructions he has reference?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes. The answer given by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice said that instructions were given to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not to execute this warrant immediately. My question to the minister is, who gave such instructions?


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Justice did.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a gross interference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is turning into a debate. We have had enough questions, I believe, on this subject.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Michael Starr (Oniario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice, and ask him if he would comment on the Canadian Press story from Toronto to the effect that S.I.U. officers in Toronto claim he has betrayed them by arresting Banks, and are threatening another immediate walkout?


Lionel Chevrier: I have no comment to make, Mr. Speaker.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he disclose to the house the reasons why the charges were not laid against Hal Banks through the ordinary channels, in the circumstances, the attorney general of the province of Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is quite in order. Normally, the procedures are taken by the attorney general of a province, as I repeated many times in this house; but in this particular case, since the affair was about a report by a federal investigator, since it was about cases concerning a federal statute, since it also dealt with suggestions made by the federal investigator, we considered it was proper to obtain the assent of the provincial authorities, which we did in the circumstances.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Were not the charges laid under the Criminal Code?


Lionel Chevrier: One of the charges was laid under the Criminal Code and the others, which are still under consideration, will be made under federal statutes, including the Shipping Act.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him under what authority he was acting when he suspended execution of the warrant against Mr. Banks.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a responsibility and a duty on the part of the Minister of Justice, under certain circumstances, to act in the best interests of the public and in the common interests of the country. Having regard to the circumstances as I found them at the time I thought I was acting in the best interests of the country, in doing what I did.


John George Diefenbaker: If I might ask a supplementary question, would the minister answer the question as to where he had any authority, after delivery of the warrant to the police, to direct them not to execute that which the court had directed? It is all very well to say "I did it because of circumstances". Tyranny always operates that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Under what law did you
do that?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the first place I am not too sure I understand the implication of the right hon. gentleman's question. If he is dealing with a legal point I am not going to get into a legal argument with him on that matter. I have given the reply to the hon. member who asked the question, and I have nothing to add to it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell the house if he asked the province of Quebec for authorization to institute proceedings against Mr. Hal Banks, in order not to encroach on a field under provincial jurisdiction?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, since this is a jurisdiction matter, the question should be put to Messrs. Martineau and Robinette who have taken the necessary step.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could clear up for me a reference to this matter in his earlier remarks. Was a warrant issued or was a summons issued on the charge originally laid? This would explain the minister's actions more clearly than his reply so far.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is that a warrant was issued on October 23.

On the orders of the day:


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can the minister tell us what steps have been taken between the time when a warrant was issued for the arrest of Hal Banks and the time when he was arrested, in order to make sure that the warrant could be used when necessary?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary secretary replied a moment ago to that question and if the hon. member wishes to refer to Hansard, he will find the answer.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Sauve (iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council a question. Could the minister tell the house whether he has recently seen an item published in the Montreal he Devoir, under the title:
Ottawa: eight civil servants denounce the treatment meted out to university graduates from Quebec.
If so, what action has the government taken or intends to take in order-and I quote the text of this letter:
-that the federal state provide the means of ensuring to French Canada an honest share in the administration of public affairs, at the intermediate and, perhaps, higher levels too in compliance with its responsibility and that it be done without delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman has asked a long question, but I believe about 75 per cent of it was in order. The comment at the end, I did not believe, was in order. May I suggest this question be shortened considerably.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I made no comments. I quoted from a newspaper which published part of a letter.
I would like to know whether the government intends to do something to follow up that letter.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking the question as notice and I shall answer as soon as possible.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the next federal-provincial conference is to take place before the end of the month, will the Secretary of State guarantee to the house that all the information relating to motions 19, 22 and 33, which stood in my name and which were accepted by the government on June 26 last, will be produced well
Inquiries of the Ministry in advance of the conference? I ask this, sir, in order that all members interested in the true meaning of co-operative federalism can begin their basic studies immediately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, much as I should like to give such a guarantee, I am afraid I will have to tell the hon. gentleman that we do not have a dictatorship in Canada. I will do my best to persuade-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -my colleagues to provide the information that the hon. gentleman obviously needs for his enlightenment.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a supplementary question. Why has there been this delay when the information I require obviously refers to very few documents, and returns have already been made in this house relating to motions which required a much more voluminous correspondence than I am requesting?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As soon as orders of the day are reached, sir, I will start an inquest into this important question.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give us any reason to justify the fact that, after the opening quota, there are points that have delivered only 300 bushels, whereas many other areas have already delivered 4 bushels to the acre? Does the minister intend to leave the situation as it is, or is he washing his hands entirely of the Canadian wheat board?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I gave an answer to this question just the other day, when I said I was sure it would be the desire of all hon. members, including the hon. member who has just spoken, that there should be the maximum movement of grain out of this country this year. In order to accomplish this it will be necessary from time to time for quotas to be irregular. I can understand why there are some points that are temporarily being squeezed by this policy. Before the end of the crop year I am sure everyone will be happy at the amount of grain moved.


Stanley James Korchinski: Has the minister the
answer for the second part of my question? Has he washed his hands entirely of the operations of the wheat board, or does he intend to interfere and ask that some of these initial quotas be raised to allow a 2 bushel delivery?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say to the hon. gentleman I have no intention of instructing the wheat board to do anything that would interfere with the maximum movement of wheat from Canada this crop year.


William Arnold Peters: As a
supplementary question, may I inquire- though I agree with what the minister is probably trying to do-whether any consideration is being given to leaving over to next year the income from the increased deliveries beyond the specified payment for next year's income; because it is entirely up to the department to get more grain moving to the lakehead.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had some preliminary talks with the Minister of National Revenue about this, but I think it will be understood by all hon. members that if some farmers withhold their deliveries there will probably be other farmers willing to deliver their wheat in their place, so I do not think there will be any holding back of deliveries as a result of the factor mentioned by the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think what the hon. member was trying to ask, and the minister did not catch the question, was this; If farmers co-operate with the wheat board and deliver wheat which they would normally hold over until 1964, will there be some adjustment of income tax payments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was the desire of all hon. members to have quotas opened up as quickly as possible so that farmers could deliver their grain, and I cannot understand why there should be an argument on the other side of the question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and ask him if he would tell the house how many Canadian ships now in United States ports are being boycotted in their attempt to load or unload, either by picketing or other means?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian embassy in Washington has reported the following situation: the Upper Lakes company vessel the S.S. John Ericsson has been boycotted in Chicago since October 4. The S.S. Thorold, belonging to another Canadian company, is also lying idle in the south Chicago


harbour. The S.S. Colonel Robert R. McCormick has been boycotted since last Saturday morning, and has been unable to load. The Mondoc has been boycotted and the Vandoc has likewise been boycotted.
The embassy has been very energetic in making representations with regard to the situation, and in addition our consul general in Chicago has been in touch with the regional office of the national labour relations board in Chicago.
On Monday, acting on a charge filed by a Chicago stevedoring contractor, the national labour relations board opened an investigation into unfair labour practices by the seafarers international union of North America, the parent union of the S.I.U. of Canada. The
5.1.	U. of North America has been charged in the complaint with engaging in a secondary boycott, an illegal proceeding under United States labour legislation, and we are advised that the decision of the board with regard to this matter will be forwarded to Washington very soon.
While I am advised that the outcome of this case may not necessarily affect the situation as a whole, it is suggested that it may have an important bearing. My hon. friend may be assured that continuous representation and contact exist between the Canadian embassy, the state department and the department of labour in the United States.


Michael Starr: And it is cordial?



SHIPPING INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he can reply to my question of November 1, when I asked him about the vacation fund which was in the hands of the
5.1.	U., and whether it had been turned over as yet to the employees.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the
5.1.	U. vacation fund is being liquidated as quickly as possible. At present the trustees have the authority to approve payments with respect to the vacation fund. My further understanding is that those seamen who have not presently received their vacation pay will receive it prior to the end of the shipping season, or as soon as possible. However, this matter is under investigation both by the trustees and by the Department of Labour and I hope to have a further opportunity to make a complete report later.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. Has this fund been turned over to the employers, who would dispense it to the employees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Department of Labour issued a directive that the funds be returned to the employers by the S.I.U. Certain steps in that direction have been taken, but at present the point under investigation is the extent to which the directive has been complied with, and whether in the circumstances, because of certain bookkeeping arrangements, the directive could be fully complied with. That is now being investigated by officials of the department.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. Could I ask the minister whether any orders or regulations have been issued under section 18 of the public trusteeship legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister, when such orders are passed, whether they will be tabled in the house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to undertake to table any such regulation, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was going to take it up at the opening of the house today, but since it stems from the question period I thought I should wait until this time to present it. It has to do with a question of mine which was answered by the Secretary of State on Monday, November 4, relating to the grain exchanges. My question was:
1.	What responsibility, if any, has the federal government for the licensing or control of operations of the (a) Winnipeg grain exchange (b) Montreal grain exchange, and (c) Toronto grain exchange?
2.	What are the functions of the above mentioned grain exchanges and, is there any federal control over prices set by these exchanges?
3.	If federally licensed, on what date did each exchange commence operation, and what agency granted the licence?
The answer given was:
1, 2 and 3. The federal government has no responsibility in relation to the operations of grain exchanges.
This is a wonderful Pontius Pilate attitude on the part of the government, but it does not solve the problem. I was wondering if the Secretary of State could tell me how we could get information on this matter for the people of the country. Are we going to use the R.C.M.P., or is the Minister of Agriculture going to institute a royal commission to 28902-5-285
Inquiries of the Ministry investigate their proceedings; because we all know they are robbing the people blind in this country. It is the government's attitude at the moment which I decry in not giving answers to questions on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to say once more it is my duty to find whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, and it seems to me quite evident there is no prima facie case of privilege, no matter what there may be in other directions.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, how can I get
the answer? The minister says it is not his responsibility, and I have been looking for it for the past couple of weeks.


An hon. Member:: Vote against them for a change.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Seeing that I cannot get an answer from the government to the question I asked a while ago, would the Minister of Justice tell me whether I could obtain an answer from the Governor General or, if not, from the Queen, since she has total authority?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I hope the government does not think I am nagging on this question, but I have been on it for a month and still have not had an answer. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he could give me the answer, and whether he could investigate the grain exchanges of Canada, which have become the sacred cow of India; no one wants to touch the matter. Did he inquire into that?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Lapointe.


Raymond Langlois: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Megantic, but he has had considerable leeway this afternoon and this is no time to argue. If he wishes to place a question, let him place his question. The minister declined to answer the last question from the hon. member, so that is the end of it.


Raymond Langlois: On a point of privilege; he might not have answered the last one, but the people of Canada have been waiting for a long time for such an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of privilege in the statement of the hon. member.
4460	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



REQUEST FOR STORAGE SPACE IN MONTREAL FOR ONTARIO CORN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Elgin asked me a question as to whether I had received a telegram from the president of the association for the development and protection of eastern agriculture. I did not have the information at that time and said I would look into the matter.
The telegram was received on November 1 and was answered the same day, acknowledging the wire and indicating that I was referring these matters to the national harbours board for attention, and that I would request the board to get in touch with the president of the association directly. I am informed the board has been in communication with the president of the association and is attempting to meet the problem raised by the hon. member.



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On October 4, as recorded at page 3204 of Hansard for that date, I asked the minister whether his department was considering putting a price support on the 1963 crop of flue cured tobacco, and he replied that they were giving consideration to this request. Would he follow the customary procedure of announcing today in the House of Commons the deficiency payment for tobacco, as was announced outside this chamber to the farmers of Simcoe by the hon. member for Norfolk?


Harry William Hays: Yes, the stabilization board has acted upon the request. I did not know it had to be announced in the house, but if it has I shall be glad to do it tomorrow.



LOSS OF BUTTER IN FIRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the loss of 8 million pounds of storage butter as the result of a fire yesterday in St. Denis sur Richelieu is covered by insurance under the stabilization board, or is this a complete loss?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question may I say it was not 8 million pounds but 6 million pounds of butter


and butter oil stored at St. Denis. We do not yet know the exact amount of the loss. Salvage operations have commenced, and we will not know for a few days. It is not insured.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it correct that the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Bank of Nova Scotia have asked for governmental approval for a merger?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, and in his absence perhaps the Minister of Justice would take it as notice as Acting Prime Minister. Has the Department of National Revenue made a study of the tax evasions set out more clearly in the MacKay report concerning the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Surely, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is the acting minister.


George James McIlraith: I wonder could I take this question as notice.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Would he study the MacKay report and the income tax loopholes referred to in the report to see whether or not Bill No. C-95 covers the matter, before it is passed in this house?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think this comes under my jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Ouellei (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Transport.

There will be 700 more workers unemployed next week in the Gaspe peninsula if the saw mills are unable to obtain ships in order to forward eight million feet of lumber to Great Britain.
Has the minister taken the necessary steps to cope with the situation by finding shipowners willing to send their ships to the dangerous wharves of the Gaspe peninsula?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) drew the matter to my attention last night, and I also saw the rather thorough story on the subject matter in Le Devoir this morning.
I have arranged with the shipping operations branch of the department to render what assistance it can. At this stage I am not sure what assistance can be given, because it would appear from the information I had this morning that one ship was available to move this lumber but it would require the assistance of a tug. Unfortunately the department does not have a tug available, and it was a matter of where a tug could be found to assist the one ship, and possibly other ships to move the lumber.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister has seen the new mural in the main lobby of the international airport and, if so, would he give serious consideration to my suggestion that we hang the painter instead of the painting?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not seen the mural but he has heard a bit about it. I think it would be wise if the Minister of Transport did not set himself up as a judge of works of art.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland), may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister?
Could the minister tell us if it is true that 28902-5-285i
Measure Validating Order in Council pressure was brought to bear on the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Mr. Stewart Bates, by the French speaking ministers in the government to obtain that a French Canadian be appointed to either one of the vice presidencies on the executive committee of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, since that question comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue, I consider it as notice and will refer it to him.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Public Works?
In order to enlighten the citizens of St. Lambert and Montreal, could the minister tell the house whether it is true that a tunnel is to be built between Notre Dame street and the south shore of the St. Lawrence?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelefs (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, under the St. Lawrence seaway.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Can the minister tell the house what will be the share of the federal government for the building of this tunnel?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This is a major priority project, but the contributions of the federal and provincial governments and of the city of Montreal have not yet been decided.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-88, respecting an order of His Excellency the Governor in Council entitled the surcharge on imports order, and to restore certain rates of customs duties and tariff benefits expressed to be withdrawn thereby-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1.
Lionel Chevrier: Because a considerable
amount of time has elapsed since this bill received second reading, hon. members will perhaps expect me to make a short statement at this stage.
The bill has several related purposes. The first is to confirm the surcharge on imports order which was passed by the governor in
4462	HOUSE OF
Measure Validating Order in Council council on June 24, 1962. That order was made on the basis of section 4 of the Customs Tariff and section 22 of the Financial Administration Act. The order provided, in effect, that the general tariff, instead of more favourable tariffs, should apply to certain commodities when imported into Canada but it then went on to remit the duties on such commodities to the extent necessary to bring it about that no duty was, by the first part of the order, increased by more than 15, 10 or 5 per cent, depending upon the commodity.
The second purpose of the bill is to restore, effective April 1, 1963, the more favourable tariff rates above referred to.
The third purpose is to limit the effect of future like orders to a six months period unless during that period any such order is approved by parliament.
I do not wish to keep alive a debate which was somewhat acrimonious and, I think, rather irrelevant, as to the nature of opinions that were given or not given concerning the validity of the surcharge on imports order. In describing the debate as somewhat acrimonious and irrelevant I accept my share of responsibility in the matter. We would do well, I think, to return now to what the Minister of Finance said in announcing that a measure of the nature of Bill C-88 would be introduced. He said that the legality of the order had been challenged and the matter was before the courts; that this posed a difficult problem, because in many cases those who paid the surcharges had passed the amounts on to their customers, and those customers perhaps to their own customers, and so on. He said it would not be possible to unscramble a situation of this kind and that one effect of the proposed legislation would be to prevent any massive attempt at obtaining refund of moneys in fact paid by now unidentifiable Canadians. In addition to this consideration, that the people who recovered the money might not be those actually entitled to it, there is the other very important consideration that the country has budgeted on the basis of this money, and we need it.
That this bill is, in the circumstances, at least a wise precautionary matter, I am sure the majority of the house will agree. That the fear of the government is not illusory is borne out by the fact that there are already pending in the exchequer court actions for the recovery of many million dollars, with more to be expected should these succeed.


John George Diefenbaker: How many actions have been brought?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can give that figure. There are approximately ten at the moment. These actions were taken, these suits were brought, by serious and competent counsel [Mr. Chevrier.l

who do not lightly lead their clients into litigation of this nature.
As to opinions, I only want to say this: When the order was first passed there was an oral opinion, and having regard to the urgency with which the matter was regarded by the then government, it is perhaps not surprising that that was so. But oral opinions are illusive things and, in point of conclusiveness, it is difficult to nail them down afterwards. I have no doubt that the government believed that, after the discussion between the Departments of Finance and Justice in the course of which the oral opinion was expressed, they were warranted in assuming the risk, or they may even have been convinced there was no risk. I have made it clear that I do not share that view but I readily concede that the government acted upon it. As to a written opinion, I can only repeat that there is absolutely nothing upon the files of the Department of Justice. I understand that the deputy minister did give the former minister of justice some material to use in debate quite some time after the order was passed. This is common practice. The nature and contents of that communication, however, in so far as I am concerned, rest between the deputy minister and the former minister of justice in the same way that I hope confidential communications between myself and the deputy minister will still rest between us, after I have left this office. I have not seen it and have not inquired into it because I would regard it as confidential and not subject to disclosure to a new administration. Whatever the communication was, it is obvious that it was confidential material prepared for the minister in a debate on a politically controversial matter and was never considered as material that should be retained upon a file.
In summation we say that, at the least, there are doubts about the validity of the order and these doubts compel that so important a matter should now be put at rest by this bill.
If I may, I should like to ask my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to move:
That in clause 1 of C-88 the word "validly" in line 9 be deleted.


Mr. Favreau:: I so move.


Mr. Nowlan:: Certainly the amendment which has just been moved to clause 1 will not be opposed by this side, because I have precisely the same proposal in draft form on my desk. In fact, I intended to move a similar amendment myself later this afternoon.
I suppose that since the experience of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus we have

not seen a greater conversion than has been evident on the part of the hon. gentleman today. We know that Saul kicked against the pricks and that he saw a great light. I am not sure whether the Minister of Justice has seen a great light or whether it was the pricks, in his case, which led to his conversion, but I agree with him that this has been a subject of acrimonious discussion and that there would be no purpose served in reviving it at this time. I must say, however, that the acrimony was not engendered from this side of the house, or rather from the side on which we then sat but, rather, that it was produced by the various members who criticized our action on that occasion.
I shall not go into the subject at great length this afternoon. As the minister has said, this action was taken at the time of an exchange crisis. The government acted with decision and authority. Undoubtedly, it acted under some degree of pressure. Whether or not there were opinions at that time, written or oral-the minister says, now, there was an oral opinion and, obviously, no government would have taken action of that kind until it had received an opinion which approved thereof-is not at this point a matter of primary concern. But since this is, I assume, the last occasion on which this matter will be discussed in the house, I will refer to a statement made by my former colleague who preceded me as minister of finance, the Hon. Donald Fleming. In referring to this matter- and the reference will be found on page 291 of Hansard of October 9, 1962-he had this to say in connection with the validity of this order:
My first point is that we have proceeded on the advice of the law officers of the crown in the proper manner-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was he not minister of justice, then?


George Clyde Nowlan: He was minister of justice; that is correct. Let me continue the quotation.
-and the advice we have is that the measures which were introduced by orders in council in June, which took effect one minute after midnight on June 25, are proper and legal; that the government had full power to proceed to pass those orders in council, and that those powers so exercised were conferred upon the governor in council by parliament. There can be no question about the validity of those orders in council.
That was a statement by the then minister of justice who had been minister of finance at the time the orders were passed. During all the various questions of privilege that were raised and the discussion of the motion to produce the documents put forward by the hon. member for Essex East, now Secretary of State for External Affairs, I never heard anyone suggest that this action which was taken in the interests of Canada was not good
Measure Validating Order in Council and proper. The only questions I have heard raised are (a) whether it was done on the advice of the law officers of the crown and, (b) whether it was done under the authority of an act of parliament.
Some reference has been made, of course, to the action taken by a preceding government in 1947 and the fact that that government afterwards brought in legislation to validate the action it had taken. I suggest there is no analogy whatsoever between the action of the government in 1947 and the action which was taken by the government of which I had the honour to be a member, in connection with the so called surcharge order.
What happened in 1947 was a very crude and wrong thing from the standpoint of strict legality. One night in October a voice came on the air. Undoubtedly the voice was that of the then minister of finance, the Hon. Douglas Abbott, although there was no proof and no identification whatsoever. This voice then proceeded to say: As of midnight tonight we are increasing the excise taxes by X per cent. Bang, that was it. Without any authority of parliament the act was changed over the radio. This voice said: Taxes from here on are going to be Y per cent instead of X per cent as authorized by the statute.
That was in October. The following March a bill was brought into parliament to validate that action. I have the dates here, although I do not know that they are too important. The validating legislation was brought into the house on March 28, I believe, to validate something which had been done six months before. The bill said, of course, that these taxes were to be retroactive to the date when this voice came over the radio.
It has been argued that this is similar to a budget speech in that when the minister of finance brings in his budget he says that certain taxes are going to be imposed and they become effective as of that night. I suggest that there is no analogy whatsoever between the two situations. A budget speech is brought in on a message from His Excellency the Governor General. This is followed by the resolutions. Then there is a motion to go into supply. Finally there is a motion to go into ways and means. Very properly there are many complicated and technical mechanisms whereby parliament safeguards the right to increase taxation.
I am not suggesting that what was done in 1947 was not necessary at that time. I am not criticizing the action that was taken, but I do say it had no reference or relevance whatsoever to the action taken by the government of the present Leader of the Opposition and by the then minister of finance. We acted on the advice of the law officers of the crown,

Measure Validating Order in Council that we were proceeding in accordance with two statutes which had been passed by parliament, one, the Customs Tariff Act, and the other the Financial Administration Act.
There can be no analogy whatsoever between the action taken under those statutes and the action taken back in 1947, possibly because of an emergency. As I said, I am not questioning the advisability of that action at all. However, there is no question whatsoever of any analogy. The fact is that it was certainly necessary for parliament to validate that action because it resulted in a substantial increase in taxation over and above the rates prevailing, and there was no provision whatsoever for doing so in the taxation statutes. Obviously that action had to be validated by statute. It was done posthumously, six months later, and made retroactive to the night when the radio speech had been made.
Some misapprehension and discussion may have been caused in the present instance by the question of whether there was or was not an opinion. A motion was made by the hon. member for Essex East that the opinion, if there was an opinion, be produced. The minister and the government of that day took the position, and I am sure it is one which would be concurred in by the present Minister of Justice, that it would be improper to produce an opinion from an officer of the crown to his minister because, once you start producing such documents, the whole doctrine of confidentiality breaks down and it would be impossible for ministers to obtain the frank and confidential advice of their officers, and vice-versa.
There are precedents which have been exercised by ministers heretofore in such circumstances. I can think of at least two. When the Hon. Mr. Guthrie was minister of justice in the government of Lord Bennett, as he later was, he was asked to produce an opinion in the House of Commons. He refused to do so but he did obtain a letter from the deputy minister of justice, which he read in parliament. It was not the official opinion which he had obtained some time before but a letter which was given the minister for the purposes of parliament. There may be some argument as to what the technical difference may be between the two. In the one case the minister says that the opinion is confidential and he refuses to produce it. In the other case the minister says that parliament demands it and it is in the public interest for parliament to be informed. That is one precedent.
There is another one nearer to home so far as my hon. friends are concerned. When the right hon. Mr. Ilsley, now chief justice of Nova Scotia, was minister of justice-I might say in passing that he is a former member for
[Mr. Nowlan.l
Digby-Annapolis-Kings-he also produced a letter from a deputy minister advising of action which he had taken, not giving the opinion itself but giving a summary and stating the opinion of the law officer that the action was valid.
You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Essex East moved for the production of this opinion. A debate arose thereon on orders of the day, and the debate was not terminated. Before it could be, some other things happened. But the minister of justice at that time was prepared to produce for parliament a letter from the deputy minister for the information of parliament setting forth his opinion on the action which had been taken by the government of the day with respect to surcharges. I have here the opinion of the deputy minister addressed to the then minister of justice with respect to the surcharge on imports order. If the debate at that time had been continued this opinion would have been produced, and since a question has been raised whether or not an opinion was obtained from Department of Justice I want to put it on the record now for the information of parliament. It is dated November 16, 1962, is addressed to the then minister of justice and says:
You have asked me to furnish you, for the information of parliament, with a statement of my views on the validity of the surcharge on imports order, P.C. 1962-902 of June 24, 1962.
Section 4 of the Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1952, chapter 60, empowers the governor in council by order to withdraw rates of customs duties more favourable than the general tariff, and to withdraw the benefit of any tariff more favourable than the general tariff. These powers are unrestricted, and oPFonf rvf thfnr pvproise is to produce an increase in tariff rates.
Section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1952, chapter 116, empowers the governor in council, on the recommendation of the treasury board whenever he considers it in the public interest, to remit any tax, fee or penalty. The section defines a tax as including any tax, impost, duty or toll payable to Her Majesty, imposed or authorized to be imposed by any act of parliament and provides, inter alia, that a remission thereof pursuant to that section may be total or partial, and may be granted in any particular case or class of case and before the liability therefor arises.
1 am of the opinion that section 1 of the surcharge on imports order withdraws rates and benefits as authorized by the Customs Tariff, and that section 2 partially remits the resultant tax increases as authorized by the Financial Administration Act. In my view, therefore, the surcharge on imports order is a valid exercise of the powers conferred on the governor in council by these two statutes.
This is signed by Elmer A. Driedger, deputy attorney general, and I want to table this document at this time. So far as the record is concerned, I suggest that clears up any doubt. We are not referring now to any opinion which may have been given previously. That is not mentioned in the letter. This is a letter which was produced some

Measure Validating Order in Council
time later, it is true, for the benefit of the House of Commons, and due to circumstances over which we had no great control it was not produced. I wanted to do so at this time.
I do not think there is very much more one can say at this time. I can appreciate the Minister of Justice feeling, on the advice of his officers, that this legislation will facilitate the operation of the government and the department in dealing with litigation. He says that is one reason why he brought in the bill. We are not going to debate that at this time.
I do want to state very emphatically again that in our opinion what we did was based on the statutes of the country, was authorized by parliament and was not only legal but also entirely proper in every way, shape and form and was the proper action to have taken at that time. We have no apologies and no regrets whatever to utter in that connection.
I would have moved certain amendments. I had two, as a matter of fact, which I was going to move because I thought there was an imputation in one section which was unnecessary and unwarranted. I was going to ask this committee to strike these from the record. In view of the statement made by the minister, in view of his action in taking out at least one word which was repugnant to us, the word "validly", I shall not move these amendments. If that word "validly" were allowed to stand there would be the imputation that what we did was invalid, and that certainly could not be accepted by us for a moment.
In view of this action, I do not intend to go further with the amendment. I am glad the minister has taken the position he has. I hope that this will finally clear up this matter, which has been the subject matter of some acrimony and some lengthy discussion. I hope it is clear in the record now that I have said, as my predecessor did before me, that we were acting at all times on the opinion of the law officers of the crown. I hope that the matter will be laid to rest after the passage of this section.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it my understanding that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings is filing this document with the Clerk at the table?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can that be done while we are in committee?


George Clyde Nowlan: It is on the record; I read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there might be unanimous consent in order that it might be done, because I have some doubt about the regularity of the procedure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, I have no desire to reactivate the acrimony that surrounded this issue in the last parliament and in the earlier part of this parliament. I hope that I succeed at least as well as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings did in not raising issues that will reactivate that acrimony. I am not so sure my hon. friend's reference to Mr. Abbott, and his reference now to the question of whether or not there was an opinion last year from the deputy minister of justice, fulfilled the hope expressed by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
Even so, Mr. Chairman, before we pass this legislation I think the house has no alternative but to face up to the fact there are a few things that should be said. I was, of course, interested in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that in his view there is all the difference in the world between what Mr. Abbott did in 1947 and what the last Conservative government did in 1962. When he proceeded to emphasize the difference, he made quite a point of the fact that in 1947 a voice came on the air, which purported to be the voice of Mr. Abbott. The hon. member said that we had to assume it was his voice. The only comment I wish to make is that science is wonderful. Fifteen years later a voice came on the air again to tell us of certain actions, and the only difference was that in the meantime television had been invented and we not only heard the voice but we saw the face. It was the face of the then prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition. We recognized his face and we recognized his voice. There was no doubt about it.
However, in both instances we were being advised by the then latest means of communication that the government of the day was imposing certain tax increases. I still think that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and his colleagues have a real task on their hands in trying to deal with the proposition that the taxes in 1947 were at least approved by parliament later, whereas the taxes imposed on June 24, 1962, were never approved by parliament, except in so far as they are now before us for retroactive approval.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I ask the hon. member if they were not approved by parliament when the statutes were passed some years before?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the point I am coming to right now. I suggest that the hon. member has indulged in argument by assertion, when he said that the Customs Tariff and Financial Administration Act provided

Measure Validating Order in Council a valid base for the surcharge order in council. If he can argue by assertion, so can I. My reading of these two statutes, particularly my reading of the Financial Administration Act, leads me to believe that the government had a right under the Customs Tariff to make certain changes increasing the rates of tariff, but it had no right under the Financial Administration Act to make the kind of reduction it did, which had the net effect of simply increasing taxes.
It is for this reason the matter is before the courts. The hon. member for Digby-Anna-polis-Kings argues one way and I argue another. He may be a lawyer, while I am not; but I suggest to him the case has been taken before the Exchequer Court of Canada because there is a serious doubt in the minds of very eminent counsel as to the validity of the order in council. We all know how that order in council was composed. In the first place, reliance was placed on the Customs Tariff, where there is authority by order in council to increase the rates of duty by transferring goods from one class of tariff to another. Although that right is in the Customs Tariff, there is no suggestion that the government, by order in council, can arrive at any intermediate rate of tariff. You can move goods from one class to another; in fact, you can make that movement among three different categories. However, there is no suggestion that you can, by order in council, fix some other rate.
In so far as section 22 of the Financial Administration Act is concerned, surely it is quite clear that it is a provision for the remission of taxes or duties or penalties which have been unfairly collected. There is no suggestion that this is a statute that can be used as a basis for cutting down a tax imposed in some other way. Surely, the part of section 22 which requires the publishing in the public accounts of every such remission of more than $1,000 makes it clear that what was envisaged in that section was individual remissions of the kind that have been published from year to year in the public accounts.
Now, my good friend from Digby-Anna-polis-Kings and I could go on arguing this matter as long as we have the right to speak. I do not suppose I could convince him any more than he could convince me. However, there is doubt about the validity of the order in council, and that doubt is confirmed by the fact that the case has been taken to the exchequer court. I think it is unfortunate it has not been possible for the court to make a decision. We have had arguments about it here and in the last parliament. We differed, depending on where we were sitting in the

house. I think it is unfortunate the court has not had a chance to make a decision. One of the by-products of the passage of this legislation will, I suppose, be that the case will disappear from the exchequer court list.
Another very interesting question has arisen here. It arose on August 1 when we had the matter before us. The Minister of Justice told the committee then that the opinion of the deputy minister of justice was that there was some doubt about this order and therefore this legislation should be introduced. We have had it again today. The Minister of Justice tried to play this in a very low key, and I appreciate what he is doing. Still, he told us that there was an oral opinion from the deputy minister of justice to the previous government that this order in council was valid. He told us that he has an opinion from the deputy minister of justice that there is some doubt about it, and that this piece of legislation should be introduced.
This raises some rather serious questions as to the relationship between the government of the day and the Department of Justice. Frequently in this place we are told that such and such is the opinion of justice. It begins to look as though the government of the day gets from justice the opinion it wants. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has read into the record a letter from the deputy minister of justice to the then minister of justice, and he gives it now as the authority, presumably, that the government of the day had for believing that this order in council was valid. This letter the hon. member has read to us today was dated November 16, 1962. The order in council was passed on June 24. I listened carefully to that letter, and it does not, unless I missed something, say that Mr. Driedger thought this on June 24. Mr. Driedger was giving to the then minister of justice arguments that he could use in the debate in the House of Commons. He was giving those arguments to the then minister under date of November 16, 1962.
The present Minister of Justice very suavely and very nicely today said these things should not be produced. He was not going to ask for the letters given to the previous minister, and he would not want us to ask for the tabling of his opinion to him. This seemed to soothe the tempers in the house. But the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has read into the record from a document the present Minister of Justice would not give us. This seems to me to raise a very serious question about the relationship between the government of the day and the Department of Justice, particularly the deputy minister of justice. If these opinions of justice are going to mean any-

Measure Validating Order in Council
thing, if they are going to be valuable to us, surely we have got to get away from a situation where we get one opinion one month and another opinion a few months later.
We are getting these from precisely the same individual, the same person.


Mr. Churchill:: You are going too far.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not, sir. Is not the
Elmer A. Driedger who said that the same Elmer A. Driedger who is deputy minister of justice today, and did he not give an opinion in the letter to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) that this order in council was valid; and has not the Minister of Justice told us the same deputy minister said there is doubt about it, and therefore that legislation should be brought in?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Doubt in some people's minds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, doubt in his mind- doubt in the mind of the same person who wrote the letter which the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings gave us a little while ago. I suggest that confidentiality between a minister and his deputy minister should be maintained, but that confidentiality has been destroyed by what has taken place today, and it raises the importance of governments asking from the deputy minister, not opinions that will support what the government happens to want to do, but opinions that are objective and valid all the way down the line.
Mr. Chairman, this underlines what I have said a great many times during various debates on this last session. How much better it would have been if the government of that day had stuck with what it often said it believed in, namely the rights and supremacy of parliament. How much better it would have been if it had brought this matter to parliament.
Parliament was not meeting in June of last year when the crisis was faced and this action taken, by what I think was an invalid order. But I believe even the last parliament, made up of minorities as it was, would have been willing to give approval to the tax changes if parliament had been given a chance to do so and had been given the arguments for them. This is another case that demonstrates the supreme importance of having respect, and holding to that respect, for the rules of the house, for the traditions of parliament, and particularly for the basic principle that the government is at all times responsible to parliament as a whole.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, it seems to us we have no alternative but to support this legislation and to vote for it. If there is doubt about the order in council, then the passing
of this legislation will remove that doubt, at least in so far as the actual collecting of the taxes is concerned. The other thing to do is to leave it to the courts, and if that results in a declaration that the order in council was invalid, then those who have filed their cases in the courts would get their money back. But since they are not the ones who paid it ultimately, since those who did pay it, the consumers, are not identifiable, that would be compounding the injustice that has already developed. Because of that situation we feel we have no alternative but to support the legislation to clean up the doubts and to make sure this situation does not happen again.
In that connection I want to indicate that although the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has torn up his amendments, I still have one I intend to move when we get to clause 3. May I just say now, while we are on clause 1, that I am glad the government has put clause 3 in the bill, and that it wants to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, or at least to provide some safeguard; but I do not think the government has gone far enough.
I listened carefully to the Minister of Justice. He said one of the purposes of the bill would be that any "future like orders"- although I did not take down all of his words I took down those three-could last only for six months subject to later approval by parliament. That is not going far enough. I do not think there should be any "future like orders". I do not think in the future it should be possible to bring in an order, based in part on the Customs Tariff and in part on the Financial Administration Act, and juggle with the tax rate in the way this was done. Therefore when we come to clause 3 I will move an amendment which seeks to tighten up this legislation a bit more, so as to make sure what happened last year will not happen again.
I stress the point that here we have an example of the importance of paying attention to the letter of the law, paying attention to the principles and practices of our parliamentary democracy, and in particular paying attention to the important principle that governments should not do what they do not have authority to do, and that governments should respect at all times the supremacy and the rights of parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I contemplated asking the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a question, but then I thought it might be better to wait until I said something with regard to some of his remarks and then, if he subsequently wishes to answer, that is his privilege. The hon. member has offered his criticism of this measure. Early in his
4468	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Measure Validating Order in Council remarks he said there was a difference of opinion and that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was making an assertion. He, on his part, was similarly making an assertion, and they were poles apart and perhaps could not be reconciled.
Then he went on to deal with the situation as he sees it, and in the course of his remarks as I heard them, and I paid close attention to them, he cast a reflection on one of our senior civil servants. I have always been of the opinion that this should not be done in the House of Commons, or elsewhere for that matter, because civil servants have not the right of reply. It is all very well in the House of Commons to attack each other, but the great saving feature of the House of Commons is that we have the right of reply.
We do not have the right to reply to accusations made from some other quarters; but I think it is wholly wrong for a member of the house to cast a cloud on a civil servant, whom he named, without someone coming to the defence of that civil servant. I do so very gladly because Mr. Driedger, who has been mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a trusted servant of the crown and the opinions he gave when we were in office were opinions based on his belief and integrity-and I did not get the impression from the statement made by the Minister of Justice that Mr. Driedger gave an entirely different opinion to him.
I understood him to say there was doubt in the minds of some people, and for the removal of that doubt it might be wise to have a statute passed, such as is here before us; but I do take exception, and strong exception, to attacks on civil servants, and particularly on one who is a senior civil servant, a trusted civil servant, and who has no right of reply in this house.
I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who delights in lecturing us from time to time as to our duties and responsibilities, will recognize his duty and responsibility in this connection. I have the greatest pleasure in lecturing a member of that party that sits on the sidelines so often and tells us what to do, and how the party that is now in office is acting just as the former government acted, and that both are wholly wrong. A party which has little hope of ever forming a government spends a lot of time telling the rest of us what to do.
My hon. friend is a fellow-citizen of that great city where I claim citizenship, and I think he has made a mistake in the course of his remarks today in his anxiety to protect the country against faults, as he sees them, that have perhaps occurred in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is to be commended for making sure that there are no unfair attacks on civil servants, senior or otherwise. I thoroughly agree with him. If I made any attack, I made it on governments that seek to get from the deputy minister of justice opinions that suit their purposes. It seems to me that is what we have got in this situation.
Let me read very briefly from a statement which the Minister of Justice made in the house on August 1 this year, when speaking about this matter, as recorded at page 2932 of Hansard:
I should have added that there is doubt as to the validity of the order because in the opinion of justice it should have been approved by parliament.
That, according to the present Minister of Justice on August 1, was the opinion of the Department of Justice over which the deputy minister presides, namely that this legislation should be approved by parliament. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings today read into the record a letter dated last November 16 from the same person, the same deputy minister of justice, expressing the view that it could be supported that the legislation was based upon two statutes and therefore did not need to be approved by parliament. On one occasion the legislation did not need to be approved by parliament. On another occasion the legislation should have been approved by parliament. If that is not a case of two different governments getting from the same individual the opposite advice, I do not know what is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I just say this, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in attempting to absolve himself from an attack on a servant of the crown and the civil service, has now cast a reflection on members of parliament in saying that successive governments tried to get from a civil servant the information they desired to use for their own particular purposes. This is an accusation of dishonesty which reflects upon members of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only thing that needs to be said is that the best the former government could do was to produce a letter dated November 16, whereas the order in council itself was passed on June 24.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Approval by parliament.
Stanley Howard Knowles: 
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is the position of the Minister of Justice with respect to this amendment. I myself have not had time to study it. Personally, I think some amendment such as was proposed in the bill brought in by the minister would be desirable. I was prepared, and I think we were prepared, to support the section
Measure Validating Order in Council which he brought forward. What attitude he will take toward this amendment is, of course, a matter for him to determine, but as I say we were prepared to support his amendment. I think it is desirable and necessary. Without going further into the matter I might suggest that the fact that under this proposed legislation of the minister he was going to limit to six months what we did, I think the best argument possible to show that what we did was valid and proper is that the amendment would now limit it to a period of 180 days, rather than indefinitely, as it was under the original act.


Lionel Chevrier: I have looked at this amendment carefully but I am afraid I shall have to take the position which I have already indicated, I believe, to my hon. friend on an earlier occasion, namely that on behalf of the government I could not accept the amendment. It seems to me that what the hon. member is trying to do, and I say this to him respectfully, is to amend this bill by an amendment which should be, or should have been, made to the Financial Administration Act. I may have misunderstood what he has proposed, but I think the purport of his amendment would be far more applicable if it were an amendment to the Financial Administration Act. I suggest this is not the place where such an amendment should be made. I do not want to go into greater detail, and if the committee feels that is necessary it can be done; but my opinion as I look at the amendment is that I would have to advise the government to resist it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the point the minister has made in opposition to this proposed amendment is surely not a very substantial one, and I say that with the same respect that he used in referring to me a moment ago. I would point out to the minister that Bill No. C-88 is entitled:
An act respecting an order of His Excellency the Governor in Council entitled the surcharge on imports order, and to restore certain rates of customs duties and tariff benefits expressed to be withdrawn thereby.
There is nothing in the title to Bill No. C-88 which says that there is going to be tucked into this bill an amendment to the Customs Tariff, despite the fact that citation 361 of Beauchesne says:
In framing the title care must be taken to make it wide enough to cover all the provisions of the bill-
The minister knows that the government is now indulging in a very common practice, when it has a bill before the house, to include in that bill an amendment relating to another statute but which covers the bill with which we are now dealing. I suggest that what we are dealing with is the question
4470	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Measure Validating Order in Council of orders in council which vary rates of customs duty, and that we should provide that such orders cannot be varied by reliance on the Financial Administration Act or any other statute. I say that one of the reasons for not putting this in the Financial Administration Act is that, just as the former government found a section in the Financial Administration Act to rely on for that doublebarrelled order in council, so some other government might find some other section in some other statute altogether. Therefore I suggest that the procedural point made by the Minister of Justice is hardly valid. I would be interested in whether he has any argument of substance against this proposal that we should plug the loophole and make sure that no future like orders are possible at all.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I made it clear in my first statement that I did not want to get into an argument with my hon. friends opposite or with my hon. friends in the corner, and I am certainly not going to start discussing the legality of the amendment. If I were to do that, then I would say exactly what I think should not be done under the circumstances. It seems to me that what we have here is a bill wherein there is doubt, about which I have been advised there is doubt, and about which I am convinced myself there is doubt. For that reason the bill is before the committee. I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. member has said and for the manner in which he would like to have the difficulty removed. But none the less I regret to tell him that I have to advise my colleagues that I must, under the circumstances, resist the amendment.
Amendment, (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas 12; nays 90.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the bill carry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have not had a great deal to say about Bill C-88 during the committee stage because we believe it is necessary for the purpose of validating certain actions which were taken by the government on June 24, 1962. The reason for our attitude, is, of course, that there is no possibility, now, of refunding any of the taxes collected to the people who ultimately paid them when they bought the goods which the surcharges involved.
However, a number of things have been said by members on both sides of this house, in this chamber and in other places in Canada, with which we simply do not agree.

We heard the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings say there was no difficulty in June respecting their interpretation of whether the surcharges were legal or not. We have heard, too, the Leader of the Opposition say, perhaps inside this house, but certainly outside, that he knew of no crisis in international exchange affairs until after June 18, 1962. I want to say that either this statement is not true or the right hon. gentleman was derelict in his duty. If he did not know there was a crisis in international exchange prior to June 18, then he certainly did not know what was going on in the economy of Canada. I wish to say that we think the action which was taken on June 24 in imposing these surcharges was taken too late. We also believe that this action was delayed until that date for reasons which were not in the best interest of the people of Canada. They may have been in the best interest of the Conservative party which was involved in an election, but certainly it was not for the good of the people of Canada that the government should have allowed our reserves to fall to such a dangerously low level before action was taken to halt the drain.
We have an obligation to validate these measures now, so that there may not be a possibility of some of the persons first charged with the payment of the tax receiving a windfall by way of refund, but we do not accept the argument that there was no crisis apparent until after the date of the election.


Lucien Lamoureux: I did not want to interrupt the hon. member in his remarks but perhaps I should say as a matter of record that the question "Shall the bill carry?" is not debatable under standing order 32. However, the remarks have now been made and I would ask the committee again if the bill shall carry.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the third reading of the bill.


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


George Clyde Nowlan: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 1, consideration in committee of Bill C-95 to amend the Income Tax Act-Mr. Gordon- Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

On clause 16-Exemption of income from manufacturing or processing business in designated areas.
Mr. Alkenbrack:: Last Friday afternoon we spoke on this clause and we brought forward an amendment as follows:
That section 71A (1) (b) be amended by adding: "except that the provisions of this section shall apply only where the municipality in which such taxpayer carries on business has requested the benefit hereof, and that municipalities receiving such benefits must not be closer to each other than 100 miles".
This amendment was the result of a concerted effort by a number of members on this side to remove the injustice which is rampant as a result of the indiscriminate naming of these designated areas. We believe the federal government should not usurp the authority vested in the provincial and municipal authorities. In other words, the provinces and the municipalities are the ones who best know the needs of local areas. The provincial government, on the advice of the municipalities, best knows whether and where a stimulant should be administered to these corporate bodies. We wish to get legislation which would spread out the benefits flowing to these areas and which would not work to the detriment of other areas in the region, so we proposed there should be a distance of 100 miles between any areas which might be designated. However, after careful perusal and consideration of the words in the proposed amendment appearing after the word "hereof", we find our suggestion is not as workable as we formerly believed it was. Therefore, with the permission of my seconder, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, and with the unanimous consent of the committee, I ask permission to withdraw this amendment. I may say we intend to replace it with another which I am sure will be acceptable to all hon. members.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee willing to consent to the withdrawal of this proposed amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. Hales:: Since the committee has given unanimous consent to the withdrawal of this amendment, I should like to present another on similar lines. But before reading the amendment I should like to bring to the attention of the committee as forcefully as I can the great danger, the pitfalls, the discrimination involved, and the impracticability of applying this piece of legislation in all parts of Canada.
This legislation is another example of 60 days of hasty decision. We find ourselves being asked to pass clause 16 of this legislation and I think we should pause and be very
Income Tax Act
careful before we pass it. I would ask the other parties to my left in the house to join with us in supporting the amendment which I propose to put before the house.
The list of designated areas was established by order in council. I wish that the minister without portfolio, who comes from Brantford, had asked one question of his cabinet colleagues at that time. If he had done so we would not now find ourselves faced with this problem which affects not only my area but the area of the hon. member for Renfrew North and other areas in Canada. If he had only asked the question, "how will this affect communities in the surrounding area", before the order in council was passed we would not find ourselves confronted with the problem that exists in the industrial area which includes Galt, Kitchener, Hespeler, Preston and Guelph.
This is a piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, that will not work in a practical way. It was brought before the house by those academic thinkers on the treasury benches who had no conception of its practical application. I have taken the time of the house before to bring various points to the attention of the house to show that the legislation is not workable. I will simply list them now. First of all, it is discriminatory. The Minister of Industry says: Yes, it is discriminatory; that is what we want it to be. The hon. member for Northumberland says: Yes, it is discriminatory; that is what we want. That may be all right in certain areas but you cannot have discrimination where there are adjacent cities.
Another point I brought to the attention of the house was the criterion by which these places were designated. The criterion used is not a practical one. It is an academic criterion. The six summer months have been taken and this does not give a fair assessment.
I have given the reasons why in former speeches. If you are going to use unemployment figures you should take the whole 12 months of the year. This makes it practical and possible for all communities in Canada to qualify, and does not discriminate against those with high summer employment or low winter employment.
The third point I mentioned before was that the legislation encroaches upon provincial and municipal autonomy, something that we must guard against very zealously. The fourth point which I mentioned before was that it is contradictory. We have the Minister of Finance asking us in Bill No. C-95 to pass legislation that will impose a penalty on American subsidiaries in Canada. On the other hand, we have his counterpart, the Minister of Industry, offering $400,000 on a silver platter to an American firm to locate in Canada. This is

Income Tax Act
the situation. They are at cross-purposes. The legislation is contradictory.
The fifth point I mentioned was that the legislation was not being accepted by industrialists generally. This legislation has been dreamed up on the basis of academic thinking and I for one should like to see practical legislation.
What has the press throughout the country had to say about this matter? Surely we can place some importance on what the press has had to say. The latest comment brought to my attention is found on the first page of the Canada section of Time magazine of November 8. Under the main heading "The Realm" there is the subheading, "Depressed? Who, Us?" There is a picture of the main street of this thriving city of Brantford. The article reads in part as follows:
At one end of town, a $750,000 motel Is going up opposite a spanking new shopping plaza; at the other, a $1.5 million General Hospital residence and nursing school. Fortnight ago, in fact, Brantford became Canada's first city to go over the top in its united appeal campaign.
The whole article is worth reading for those on the government side. Here is a full page from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. There are pictures of the Brantford employment office with no one in it, park benches with no one sitting on them and the busy main street, in fact, a town hustling and bustling with trade. I have here an article from the Globe and Mail of November 2 last which shows average earnings for Guelph of $4,232 and average earnings for Brantford of $4,215, a difference of only $17 per capita between the two cities. Yet Brantford is designated as a depressed area and the surrounding cities, particularly Guelph, are not.
Here is another heading in the Guelph Mercury:	"Don't Need Extra Help". The
reference is to a statement by the mayor of Kelowna. Here is an editorial that appeared in the Guelph Mercury of October 24 last headed, "Who Wants to be Depressed?" There is an interesting paragraph which reads as follows:
Industry minister Drury has got a tiger by the tail in this issue, and he may end up wishing that he had let the normal laws of supply and demand attract new industries to areas where they are best suited.
Again I say that the practical application of the law of supply and demand would have been much better than the application of academic thinking such as we find in this legislation. And so I could go on. Other protests and articles have been written. Here is one from the Guelph Mercury of October

16 last headed, "Wants 'March' on Ottawa", which reads in part as follows:
Alderman Donald Snider of Waterloo Tuesday suggested a march on Ottawa to protest federal plans for legislation giving special tax concessions to 11 areas and 115 municipalities in Ontario to the detriment of other areas. A "freedom train"-
Here is a headline from the Globe and Mail of October 9 last: "New Hamburg to Join Protest to Ottawa". These are but some of the newspaper articles that have appeared from time to time about this very unsatisfactory academic, theoretical piece of legislation that we are being asked to pass in the house this afternoon.
Before I conclude by moving an amendment to clause 16 I respectfully solicit the support of the parties to my left. I know that some of their members have the same problem in their areas. I would ask members on the government side to let their conscience be their guide with regard to this legislation. Very few of them have risen in their places to defend it. Why? Because they know it is wrong. That is why they have not stood up to defend it. Now here is a chance for them to support the amendment which I propose to put before the house.
The Prime Minister, in replying to a letter from the Guelph chamber of commerce, had this to say:
The difficulty is to apply this principle fairly.
Even the Prime Minister knows there will be difficulty in applying this fairly.
I am sure you will understand that any definition is bound to produce some difficult, borderline cases. It certainly was not and is not the government's wish to discriminate against a new industrial development in Guelph.
Inasmuch as the Prime Minister has said in his letter that it is not the wish of the government to discriminate, I ask for the support of this amendment by members on the government side. The amendment is along the lines that as members of parliament we should respect the rights of the municipalities and the provinces. We should respect the autonomy of these areas. This is what the amendment is based on-respect for the autonomy of these municipalities.
I mentioned earlier that not long ago the provincial government passed legislation prohibiting municipalities from outbidding one another in order to attract industries to their municipalities. Here we have the senior government stepping over the provincial government, ignoring them completely and saying to Brantford in this instance: You are a designated area. I do not know whether the Minister without Portfolio from Brantford was present, but he is a member of the cabinet and I wish he had asked his colleagues this one question: If we designate Brantford,

what will the surrounding communities think about this legislation. If he had done so we would not find ourselves in this position today. So, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack):
That paragraph 71A, subsection 1 (b) is amended by adding:
"except that the provisions of this section shall apply only where the municipality in which such taxpayer carries on business has requested the benefit hereof".


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to thank the hon. member, if he included me-and I am not sure he did, although perhaps I am entitled to think he might have- in his reference to the academic thinkers on this side of the house. I have spent a fairly strenuous life, and all the while have been charged with being one of the practical people of this world. In the past, a lot of people have said it would have been better if I had spent more time in school. I thank the hon. member for the promotion.
Now, a lot has been said about this particular clause. I do not think anything is to be gained by a rehash of the arguments pro and con on the subject of trying to assist slow economic growth areas and trying to provide additional employment. As I have said, there are those who think these matters should be left to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. There are others, and they include most of the people in Europe, who think it is the duty and responsibility of the government to do something about areas of slow growth by trying to provide opportunities for the people living in those areas.
Then there is the argument, and I think this is perhaps the argument that the hon. member has concentrated upon, concerning the criteria that should be used in establishing these areas. It is significant, however, that in the amendment he has included a provision that a designated area would not be eligible for this assistance unless it were forced to come to the government, hat in hand, asking that this be done. I do not know, but I suppose you could make some kind of argument along this line. However, I suggest to the hon. member and to other members of this committee, that if we accept the principle that the federal government has a responsibility for trying to provide additional employment in areas of slow growth and relatively high unemployment, then the government should act accordingly.
Now, the criteria for the selection of areas have been based on the employment and unemployment record for summer months rather than the annual average in order to avoid undue emphasis on winter unemployment in areas where the main problem is of
Income Tax Act
a seasonal character. Under the established criteria, a national employment service area qualifies as a designated area provided:
(a)	It has been classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus area for one half or more of the summer months, May to October, during the past eight years; and it has experienced an employment increase of less than one half the national average over the same period; or
(b)	It has been classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus area for one third or more of the summer months, May to October, during the past eight years; and it has experienced an employment decrease over the same period; or
(c)	It has been classified by the Department of Labour as a labour surplus area for one half or more of the summer months, May to October, during the past three years; and it has experienced an employment decrease in each one of the past three years.
(d)	However, an area shall not be designated if the average monthly national employment service registration for the three months of May, June and July, expressed as a percentage of the total number of paid workers in the area,
(i)	Is less in the current year than in the preceding year and less in the preceding year than in the year preceding that year, and
(ii)	Is less in the current year than in the year preceding the preceding year by at least 45 per cent; and the area would not, if the three months of May, June and July in the current year were considered to be a single month, have been classified by the Department of Labour as a substantial labour surplus area for that month.
Provision is made for flexibility-and I do not believe enough has been said about this -in extending boundaries of designated areas and for adding new national employment service areas to the list of designated areas as soon as they fulfil the criteria of eligibility. All national employment service areas will be reviewed annually by the Department of Labour, and those new areas which qualify, along with those areas which no longer qualify, will be announced by that department.
The Minister of Industry, Mr. Chairman, has stated that the government intends to apply the various programs of assistance to industry in the designated areas as soon as possible. The area development agency will co-ordinate these activities for the government of Canada. Through the co-operative efforts of government and industry, economic activity will be stimulated in areas that have experienced slow growth and heavy unemployment for a long time. The Minister of

Income Tax Act
industry has stated that it this formula is found not to work in practice or to be susceptible of improvement, then he will be the first to recommend this improvement.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to hon. members of the committee that the thing we should try to do now is get on with this particular measure for improving the rate of growth in certain areas of Canada and for providing more jobs in those areas, without further delay. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I must say to the hon. member, on behalf of the members on this side of the house, we will be unable to accept his amendment.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make my remarks on this point very brief because the amendment that has been made would suggest to us further that, if only we had a government financial policy in Canada that was directed to our economic responsibility everywhere as it should be, we would not be talking about depressed areas and granting them special tax concessions. This clause with which we are dealing specifically is to provide a 36-month exemption from tax for new manufacturing or processing businesses being established in designated areas. The problem that is dealt with in this amendment is how the area shall be selected or designated as a depressed or needy area.
I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister of Finance has seen fit to reject this amendment, because I think it is aimed at a very fundamental problem of which we who are in the legislative business ought to be continually mindful. The clause provides that the Minister of Industry can designate an area. We have here more discretionary powers being put into the hands of government. It seems to me that government should want to have the advice and full co-operation of the communities with which they are concerned. The only way in which this can be accomplished is to take those communities into the confidence of the government.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to ask him a question? The areas as defined are not confined to municipal boundaries, and I am just curious, since I gather he is supporting this amendment, to know how he thinks it would work in practice when it is intended to help areas that are not restricted to any particular municipal boundary limits?


Robert Norman Thompson: I am quite aware of that. It was for this reason I was careful to use the word "communities", because in "communities" you might have several municipal or local governments. Certainly, you have the provincial government to which these local governments are responsible. How much more

effective it would be if these governments were consulted, if they were allowed to express their opinions on this.
I am in favour of this amendment for two reasons, and one is that the consultation aspect of government must be continually protected and preserved. It is only in this way we can get the full co-operation not only of local governments but also of people in industries and commercial enterprises in these communities. This applies even to the provincial governments because, after all, our municipalities are responsible to them.
From the second standpoint what I am particularly concerned about is that this bill is placing more discretionary powers in the hands of a central government, and this is the very thing we should be most concerned about as governments get larger and larger.
I would like to ask another question concerning something not touched by the amendment, but which is in a section preceding the amendment. Paragraph (a) states:
-occurring wholly within the 36 months period that commenced on the day certified as the day on which the business commenced manufacturing or processing in reasonable commercial quantities;
Just what would a "reasonable commercial quantity" be? It seems to me that paragraph (a) is very general and ambiguous, while the other is just the opposite, in that it is placing authority back into the hands of the minister.
I regret that the minister has taken the attitude he has just expressed because this is a very vital point, even though it is a minor one.


Mr. Winkler:: I shall intervene only for a few minutes to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Wellington South. The basic idea of this legislation is, of course, to assist generally in the areas outlined by the government, but a very worthy point has been mentioned by the hon. member for Red Deer regarding the discretionary power of the Minister of Finance in determining who shall be eligible. To me this sounds like a peculiar way of approaching the question of how the areas are going to be designated.
Early this year, last year and the year before, one would have thought, listening to the minister's colleagues, that the whole of Canada was depressed; but now, as I said last week, we narrow it down to Liberal ridings. It seems, particularly with regard to the area that has been designated in Ontario, and which has caused a controversy, there must have been some particular pressure within the cabinet to designate that area. In fact it looks like a little bit of empire building around that particular city.
It only became evident to me after I had an opportunity of reading Hansard of last

week, when we were discussing this particular item, why this particular area should have this preference, when Brantford and every other city in the province of Ontario is enjoying prosperity as a result of the action we took when in office. There is no question about that.
Today we dealt with the surcharges and disposed of that particular measure. Some hon. members might think this is irrelevant, but I want to bring it to the attention of the committee to show that this particular method of dealing with the matter, such as the minister has proposed in the bill, is wrong, and that the hon. member for Wellington South might have the right idea here. At least it would be done on the basis of something that can be considered by an area which is anxious to take advantage of this legislation.
The surcharges, be they good, bad or indifferent, legal or illegal, were introduced and contributed immeasurably to the prosperity we are enjoying today. In fact I recall reading a letter in this chamber from a manufacturer making that very point, that they contributed to our prosperity, and therefore the government does not have to bring forward measures such as this to pinpoint certain areas and be discriminatory, as was stated by the minister's parliamentary secretary.
If all the municipalities in the Dominion of Canada are to have an advantage, surely it should be stated that way, and surely when an industry expands, and makes a contribution where unemployment has been a big factor, it should be for the benefit of the entire country and not limited to some place which the Minister of Finance says needs this assistance. That is not the philosophical thinking of the people on this side of the house. We think everybody should have the advantage and that that is the only fair way of dealing with the situation.
To conclude my brief remarks I say that if the minister really and truly wants to do something for the benefit of all the people of Canada and all the industries in Canada, he will remove the ridiculous sales tax imposition which is going to obstruct the expansion of industry. He might also do something about transportation so that areas, such as the area in which I live, can take advantage of it to attract industry.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If someone else wants the floor, then if he stands up he might have it. Who is doing the talking?
If the minister would do something of this nature that would affect all industries equally he would be contributing to the expansion of industry in all municipalities. We in my particular area would like to take advantage
Income Tax Act
of this, but we are experiencing the boom that the Conservative government instituted early in 1962. If the amendment presented by the hon. member for Wellington South were accepted, then I am sure representatives of the municipalities in my constituency would come down here and point out that they can use it to their advantage, and therefore to the advantage of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the matter
of provincial autonomy was put forward, so to speak, when this amendment was introduced. After considering the amendment, I feel that it actually goes against the principles of provincial autonomy as we understand it. Municipalities spring from the provinces. If the federal government is to be allowed to deal directly with the municipalities, to override provincial governments, the central government will be inclined more and more to follow that course. It is precisely to that principle that we object.
On the other hand, if the hon. member who introduced this amendment would replace the word "municipality" by the word "province", then the amendment would be not only acceptable, but desirable. It would follow that the federal government would no longer have to deal with the municipalities but only with certain provincial governments. That would relieve the federal government of extra work, difficulties and problems. They would negotiate only with ten provincial governments, or at least with those interested, the province of Quebec being one of them. But the federal government is asked in this amendment to negotiate with every municipality.
Now, take my own riding, for instance, which is one of the designated areas-and my thanks to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) for having had the good idea of including the constituency of Lapointe among the designated areas. I say to those hon. ministers that they should have thought of that a long time ago, because in the constituency of Lapointe, the unemployed, the small industry and farmers have been in dire straits for quite some time.


Mr. Rouleau:: That is because they have a bad member of parliament.


Mr. Boulanger:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very easy to refute the charge just made by the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) and the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), for if our ridings are going through a period of distress, depression and unemployment, it is not the fault of the

Income Tax Act
members of the opposition, who have not even got their say in that, but the fault of the members of the party in office who have always refused to open their eyes and use their brains in order to accept the suggestions we have made to them in the past. It is because they turned a deaf ear to all our suggestions that they find themselves today without any solution to the problems facing us. Let the hon. member for Dollard and the hon. member for Mercier use their intelligence and stop being dense like all government members, and let them accept the solutions we are suggesting. They will realize then that the hon. member for Lapointe has the proper answers likely to solve the unemployment problem.


Guy Rouleau: You never settled anything.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Dollard refuses to consider this solution with an open mind, like all other present government members and those of previous governments. That is why the appropriate solutions could never be found.
Mr. Chairman, there are other remarks I wanted to make to the Minister of Finance regarding this bill, namely this one which is worth considering, because I believe that the experts of the Department of Finance have succeeded in doing something that nobody could ever bring off in the whole world. I am referring to a sentence that I find in the French version of Bill No. C-95.
In fact, it begins at the bottom of page 14, and it continues on page 15 to end at the top of page 16; just one sentence with one semicolon only.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that it takes genius and these people must be outstanding to be able to compose one sentence extending nearly a page and a half.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not guilty.


Gilles Grégoire: I shall point out to the minister that really he could have experts with a different inclination, that is to make that piece of legislation clearer, less ambiguous and more concise.
It is true that there is a semicolon after the first 32 lines, but the period comes only after the next 30 lines, which means a sentence of 62 lines.
I noticed that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Favreau) was sitting next to the Minister of Finance a while ago, and seemed to be giving him advice. I have no doubt about the intellectual capacity of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because I have always respected his talent for literature.

I notice also the presence of the Minister without Portfolio and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne), who was a university professor.
I notice also the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier), who is also a university graduate.
They are all good French Canadians who must strain their ingenuity, now and then in order to give the French language its inherent pungency and zest. And when I notice sentences like the one just mentioned which make up a page and a half, I am convinced that these three ministers will approve what I say.
I should have mentioned also the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis), but I will inquire about his linguistic qualifications and then I will be able to quote him once in a while.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: At any rate, I submit that my remarks are in order, because when mentioning that clause, I am pointing out its defective terminology and punctuation or, rather, the inexact idea intimated therein, because it is impossible to express any idea clearly in a sentence a page and a half long.
I would also like to bring another point to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Everybody mentioned the designated areas which need help.
I had the opportunity of meeting some commission members, businessmen and municipal councillors in my riding, and to discuss matters with aldermen, mayors and reeves. Having done so, I realize that it is alright to exempt new industries from taxation, but in order to help administer the act appropriately the officials of the department of finance, or labour, and more particularly those in the employment office should be at the disposal of city councils, industrial commissions and municipalities, when they want advice, statistics and data, and all information required to help attract new industries to the various designated areas.
I think the employees of the various employment offices throughout the country, should be asked to supply our municipalities and industrial commissions with all statistical data that would help determine which industries might more particularly benefit by settling in one designated area rather than another. Then, being administered in practical way the law would become more efficient and benefit the designated areas to a greater extent.
That is why I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that he ask all his officials in employment and unemployment insurance offices to help, and co-operate with, as much

Business of the House
as possible, municipal councils and industrial commissions in order to give them the required information and statistics for the establishment of new industries in those various places called designated areas.
With respect to section 16, I should like to point out to the minister-and the Minister of Finance must be aware of that, since he was for several years an outstanding accountant working for an equally outstanding firm- that any company entering into business does not, in the first 12 months, or in many case in the first 24 months, and even in the first 36 months, make any profits and, therefore, would not benefit from a tax abatement.
I daresay to the minister that a new industry will show a deficit.
Then, those new industries coming into operation in the designated areas will suffer a loss, an operation deficit, and consequently they will not have to pay taxes. If that situation comes about for any normal industry, the same thing will affect an industry starting its operations, its marketing and its production in the designated areas.
So, the tax exemption granted to new industries for a three year period will not be beneficial to them if it is limited to three years. In certain cases, it will be six months, or a year, or even two years.
For those reasons, I am asking the Minister of Finance if he could not change a provision of the bill so that it would read as follows: for the first three years during which an industry would be paying taxes if it were taxable, that is if it showed operation surpluses subject to tax payments.
Then, there would be a true three year tax exemption benefit, while under the present legislation, an industry does not benefit from it for three years but for much shorter period if it happens that a new industry does not make any profits for the first two, three or even the first four years.


The Deputy Chairman:: I see it is six o'clock. In any case-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I see that the hon. members are in a hurry to vote. I am prepared to agree to their request, because on the same section, another member of our group will move an amendment. Then, I shall have the opportunity to give more advice to the Minister of Finance and I hope it will be followed.
The members who a few minutes ago blamed us for having depressed areas in our ridings suffer from a lack of intelligence, and I would suggest that they listen to the speeches dealing with unemployment in our constituencies.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee
ready for the question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Lapointe did a very successful job in talking out the very worth while amendment put in by the hon. member for Wellington South. I see it is now six o'clock. Shall I proceed with my remarks, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house would give unanimous consent to revert to motions purely for the purpose of substituting somebody on a committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Edgar Walker: I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret):
That the name of Mr. Olson be substituted for that of Mr. Girouard on the standing committee on privileges and elections.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on that motion.


An hon. Member:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that on the privileges and elections committee we, of the Ralliement Creditistes, have only one representative, while the group of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has two. The same thing prevails in every one of the special or standing committees of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that the motion moved by the hon. member is not open to debate.
I am sorry; I have just been told that the motion is open to debate, but only on changes brought about in particular circumstances.


Gilles Grégoire: That is precisely what I have in mind; I am dealing with such changes.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely on the point we have just referred to and

Business of the House
which directly concerns the change that I should like to propose an amendment to the motion.
I have made my preliminary statement and I feel the arguments I am using are permissible in the course of the debate on the motion.
As I was saying, the membership of the standing and special committees of the house is not fairly divided among each party, especially as far as the Ralliement Creditistes is concerned. For instance, on the defence committee-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In my opinion, the hon. member is wandering quite a bit from the subject of the motion now before us, and if I may read it in English-

That the name of Mr. Olson be substituted for that of Mr. Girouard on the standing committee on privileges and elections.
That is the only thing which can be discussed by the hon. member because that is the only motion before the house at the moment.


Gilles Grégoire: That is precisely what I wish to discuss, and to come to the point, in view of the poor distribution-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that his remarks are not relevant to the motion before the house.
Perhaps, he could wait for another opportunity to make them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Clyde Nowlan: May I inquire from the Secretary of State what the business of the house will be for tomorrow, and also for Friday as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow we will continue with the committee stage, and I hope also the third reading of the bill under consideration a few minutes ago, the income tax bill. Under the agreement I mentioned last night, when it is completed we will take, up until five o'clock, the motion in the name of my hon. friend the Solicitor General, which everyone is anxious to reach. If that is completed I should like to call second reading of the Northwest Territories Act once more.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will the same order be followed on Friday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 7, 1963