1963-10-30

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It arises out of an article appearing in the Globe and Mail. I wish to show no disrespect to the Globe and Mail; however, in this article I am listed as one of the members who were absent on a certain vote. On that occasion I was paired, as I pointed out in the house on a number of occasions, with the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), who was one of the delegates to the United Nations. I believe this delegation was appointed by the Prime Minister of this country to conduct very important business at the United Nations. I was here at the building at all times during that vote and during those proceedings. This is my point of privilege. I think it affects myself and the other hon. member. I have always believed one of the most important aspects of a person's character is to keep his word. 1 believe when a man has given his word to someone, other things should not interfere with the keeping of it.



MR. VALADE  &quot;HANSARD&quot; REPORT OF SPEECH BY MINISTER OF HEALTH AND WELFARE

Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: I rise on a question of privilege affecting the members of this house. It arises from the HansaYd report of yesterday, at page 4165. I am reported as asking the minister the following question:
May I ask the minister a question? Just as a matter of clarification, since she went to find out all the objections in European countries to this kind of scheme, could she explain to the house if she found out the real objections of Mr. Lesage and, if so, could she elaborate on this point?
The minister is reported as replying as follows:
I am glad my hon. friend raises this because I regret that I neglected to mention Quebec-
Now, sir, I take objection to this report because I consider it is not in line with the answer that was given by the minister. As I recall, and this is confirmed by the members around me, the minister said that she forgot about Quebec. This morning I see that
in Hansard she is reported as saying "I neglected to mention Quebec." This is contrary to what was said, and as a member of the truth squad I think the minister should really comply with this.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the minister at the moment I think we will just leave it at that.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the attention of the house the fact that the report is not complete or quite accurate. With reference to the resolution passed by the committee requesting permission to sit while the house was sitting, the resolution moved was in these words:
This committee asks permission to sit when the house is sitting when necessary to meet the convenience of witnesses.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Are you objecting to the motion as presented?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as presented or as amended? Has the chairman of the committee anything to say?


Mr. Honey:: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that the hon. member who has just spoken is correct, in that this matter was amended. In that respect I think, with the concurrence of the house, the report should be amended in the detail mentioned by my hon. friend, that this committee be entitled to sit while the house is in session to suit the convenience of witnesses.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When necessary to suit the convenience of witnesses.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to have the report amended as suggested?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
4170	HOUSE OF
Questions

['1.\tWhy did Dr. Jacques Rousseau leave the national museum?\n2.\tWhy did Dr. Louis Russell leave the national museum?\n3.\tWhy did Dr. MacNeish leave the national museum?\n4.\tWhy did Thomas Lee leave the national museum?\n5.\tWhy did Dr. Rioux leave the national museum?\n6.\tWhy did Huguette Bujold leave the national museum?\n7.\tHow many professional persons have left the national museum, each year, in the past six years?\n[Mr. Rheaume.l']
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the house that the following questions are being answered	today: 1,196,	1,207,	1,276,1,299,	1,302,	1,303,	1,318,	1,325,	1,330,	1,341,1,370,	1,375,	1,392,	1,399,	1,407,	1,410,	1,421,1,422,	1,424,	1,441,	1,449,	1,450,	1,458,	1,468,
1,476 and 1,500.

If Your Honour would be good enough to call starred questions 1,443 and 1,466, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Hamilton: 1.	To what mileage, by provinces, has the federal government contributed financially in the construction of the trans-Canada highway?
2.	What has been the total amount, by fiscal years for each province, paid out by the federal government since the trans-Canada highway program began?
3.	What are the provincial highway numbers, by provinces, that outline the course of the highway across Canada?
4.	Are there any cases where the federal government was asked to contribute to the costs of building the trans-Canada highway through a city of over 100,000 people and, if so, what mileage and estimated cost in each case?


Mr. Badanai:: 1.
Newfoundland	540
Nova Scotia	318
Prince Edward Island	71
New Brunswick	390
Quebec	399
Ontario	1,453
Manitoba	309
Saskatchewan	406
Alberta	282
British Columbia	552
National parks	140
Total	4,860

2.	See tables following.
3.	The green and white trans-Canada highway signs, which the provinces and the federal government have agreed to use, mark the route from coast to coast. In addition the provincial numbers designating the route are as follows:
Newfoundland, highway No. 1 from St. John's to Port aux Basques.
Nova Scotia, highway No. 5 from North Sydney to Port Hastings, (Canso causeway); highway No. 4 from Port Hastings to New Brunswick border.
Prince Edward Island, highway No. 1 from Wood Island to Borden.
New Brunswick, highway No. 2 from Nova Scotia border to Sussex; highway No. 9 from Sussex to Fredericton; highway No. 2 from Fredericton to Quebec border.
Quebec, highway No. 2 from New Brunswick border to Levis; highway No. 9 from Levis to Montreal; highway No. 17 from Montreal to Ontario border.
Ontario, highway No. 17 from Quebec border to Ottawa; highway No. 15 from Ottawa to Perth; highway No. 7 from Perth to intersection with highway No. 12 west of Lindsay; highway No. 12 from intersection of highway No. 7 to Waubaushene; highway No. 103 from Waubaushene to MacTier; highway No. 69 from MacTier to Sudbury; highway No. 17 from Sudbury to Manitoba border.
Manitoba, highway No. 1 from Ontario border to Saskatchewan border, except for Winnipeg bypass which is on highway No. 100.
Saskatchewan, highway No. 1 from Manitoba border to Alberta border.
Alberta, highway No. 1 from Saskatchewan border to British Columbia border.
British Columbia, highway No. 1 from Alberta border to Victoria.
4.	Yes. The city of Ottawa and the city of Montreal. The mileage through Ottawa on the queensway is 9.9 miles and the estimated cost $25.8 million with the contribution from the federal government $7.25 million. The route of the highway through the city of Montreal is not definite at present, consequently mileage and estimated cost figures are not available for that city.

28902-5-267
Trans-Canada Highway
Payments to Provinces During Each Fiscal Year 1950-51 to 1956-57
Province	1950-1951	1951-1952	1952-1953	1953-1954	1954-1955	1955-1956	1956-1957$	$	$	$	$	$	$Newfoundland	
957,843.79	1,002,522.00	623,334.46	877,203.43	2,017,828.92	2,239,544.24	1,126,469.58Prince Edward Island	
134,135.43	400,015.44	428,816.09	111,505.26	23,142.88	528,295.77	414,104.91Nova Scotia	
-	-	-	-	75,699.97	234,203.63	951,212.88New Brunswick	
-	1,109,876.95	649,482.30	283,730.37	510,470.31	1,285,675.95	3,281,869.84Quebec	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-Ontario	
2,749,328.63	5,023,506.78	4,103,752.94	2,486,859.69	6,274,487.50	3,365,958.81	4,855,053.08Manitoba	
273,958.99	839,701.96	963,258.26	1,500,706.88	2,077,013.60	1,381,795.52	3,124,305.23Saskatchewan	
392,169.26	905,267.38	1,701,244.69	2,056,487.65	1,996,621.96	2,001,083.94	2,652,471.90Alberta	
193,055.70	895,981.49	2,774,951.45	2,732,116.80	1,806,477.94	1,626,626.04	1,945,462.47British Columbia	
2,504,392.39	2,614,769.30	2,707,705.25	3,330,388.16	3,352,239.02	3,437,370.22	6,455,013.07TOTALS	
7,204,884.19	12,791,641.30	13,952,545.44	13,378,998.24	18,133,982.10	16,100,554.11	24,805,962.96Trans-Canada Highway Payments to Provinces During Each Fiscal Year 1957-58 to October 4, 1964	Province	1957-1958	1958-1959	1959-1960	1960-1961	1961-1962	1962-1963	1963- 1964 (Oct. 4)$	$	$	*	$	$	$Newfoundland	
861,313.26	4,753,051.40	5,353,270.83	6,579,175.27	2,238,870.15	1,042,763.77	441,994.73Prince Edward Island	
1,232,516.42	535,114.47	1,172,315.42	551,094.68	299,900.40	66,348.12	121,571.72Nova Scotia	
3,531,597.02	2,473,725.12	3,128,648.30	3,257,089.47	1,767,817.76	1,124,825.60	124,749.86New Brunswick	
3,557,974.73	11,352,822.39	8,121,192.12	3,461,086.08	2,357,075.86	1,584,987.22	38,734.78Quebec	-	-	-	-	2,702,726.14	9,622,062.62	1,127,491.71Ontario	
12,381,361.51	15,912,978.01	18,436,103.64	17,868,568.82	13,003,666.95	4,910,725.84	808,904.88Manitoba	
2,729,336.02	1,814,518.14	1,724,709.66	542,339.52	857,335.44	500,552.18	8,997.9Saskatchewan	
3,346,041.71	168,302.64	32,770.06	33,521.56	70,971.63	48,464.62	-Alberta	
5,289,623.17	2,228,574.81	1,066,131.11	268,230.15	654,593.58	9,760.36	-British Columbia	
16,418,285.58	11,890,871.13	14,228,867.18	16,135,375.41	12,530,659.72	10,299,767.96	3,895,604.09TOTALS	
49,348,049.42	51,129,958.11	53,264,008.32	48,696,480.96	36,483,617.63	29,210,258.29	6,568,049.72
Questions

Questions


REPORT OF UNIFORMITY OF LAWS COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,207*-Mr. Scoll:
Has the government received the report of the uniformity of laws committee concerning amendments to the Criminal Code to protect those about to be tried on serious offences and, if so (a) briefly, what is the nature of the recommendations of the committee (b) what has been the response of the government to such recommendations?
Mr. Chevrier:: This question is assumed to refer to the recommendations of the Robert Roberts citizens committee which were referred by Hon. Donald M. Fleming, when minister of justice, to the criminal law section of the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada for the views of that section.
The criminal law section expressed the view that no amendments should be made in the law and no action has been taken by the government.


WORLD FAIR
Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-: Revelsioke):
1.	Has the government now completed Its plans for supporting and directing the world fair in Montreal?
2.	What is the purpose of the world fair as it has now been decided upon?
3.	If the decision respecting the world fair is final what is (a) its site (b) the date of opening (c) the length of time it will remain open?
4.	What is the latest estimate of the costs to (a) the federal government (b) the province of Quebec (c) other provinces (d) the city of Montreal (e) other municipalities?
5.	After the fair is held, what future use of the site and its facilities has been agreed to?
6.	What commitments have been entered into by the federal government that involve responsibility for the operation and conduct of the world fair?


Hubert Badanai: 1. No. December 20, 1963 is the date limit set by article 10 (1) of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act for the corporation to submit for the approval of the governor in council and the lieutenant governor in council of Quebec its over-all plan for the exhibition, setting forth various undertakings and projects, their estimated cost and an estimate of the total capital costs and operating costs of the corporation in respect of the exhibition.
2. Article 3 (1) of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act is to the effect that in connection with the celebration of the centennial of confederation in Canada in a manner in keeping with its national and historical significance there shall be held in Canada for a period of six months in 1967 a Canadian universal and international exhibition for which registration was accorded by the bureau of international exhibitions on November 13, 1962.

3.	(a) Montreal, Quebec, Canada, (b) Friday, April 28, 1967. (c) Six months, closing on Friday, October 27, 1967.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Answered by No. 1.
6.	See 11 Elizabeth II, chapter 12, an act to establish the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation (assented to 20 December 1962).


C.N.R. LAY-OFFS, MONCTON, N.B.
Mr. Rideout: 1.	Is it contemplated that 25 employees will be laid off at Moncton C.N.R. scrapyard due to transfer of work to London, Ontario and, if so, what are the reasons for the transfer of such work to London?
2.	Does the railway contemplate the closing of the Moncton scrapyard?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	There is a seasonal work adjustment at the Moncton scrap and reclamation and rail yards. This occurs across the system at this time, as the dismantling and rail laying programs near completion.
2.	No.


FARM GRAIN STORAGE
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What is the rate of depreciation allowed farmers on (a) frame farm storage bins (b) steel farm storage bins?
2.	What does the farmer receive for storage?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1. Farmers who claim
capital cost allowance under part XVII of the income tax regulations, straight line method, are allowed a maximum of 5 per cent on either type of bin. Those who claim under part XI of the regulations, diminishing balance method, are allowed a maximum of 10 per cent on both types.
2. The farmer receives no remuneration for the storage of grain on farms.


C.B.C. USE OF FILM BOARD FACILITIES
Mr. Thompson: Will the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation take advantage of the facilities of the national film board as recommended in the report of the Glassco commission and, if so, (a) when will such arrangement commence (b) will such an arrangement minimize the capital program of the C.B.C., and (c) will the national film board be enabled to contract out additional work to private producers as a consequence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: (a) The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has for some years made extensive use of the production facilities of the national film board. The board has been one of the major suppliers of film programs to the corporation. Liaison practices between the two organizations ensure that activities

are reviewed on both policy and working levels. The effectiveness of liaison is receiving careful attention.
(b)	It is unlikely that further utilization of the board's facilities would have an appreciable effect on the corporation's capital program because expenditures for film production equipment represent only a small fraction of the total capital cost involved.
(c)	The national film board's policy is to utilize its facilities at the economic operating level. Should the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation increase its requirements from the national film board significantly, it could result in the board increasing the amount of work tendered to private film companies.


CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, FORT CHURCHILL
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Are civilians employed at Fort Churchill and. if so. what percentage of (a) the Canadian civilians (b) the American civilians are granted (i) officer status (ii) sergeant status (iii) corporal and private soldier status?
2.	Are married quarters provided for married civilians at Fort Churchill and, if so, (a) what percentage of the married Canadian civilians (b) the married American civilians, are provided married quarters?
3.	What percentage, if any, of the married quarters at Fort Churchill are at present unoccupied?
Answer: 1. Yes. (a) Civilians employed by Canada; (i) 7.6 per cent; (ii) 13.5 per cent; (iii) 45.3 per cent; (b) Civilians employed by the United States; (i) 3.1 per cent; (ii) 5.9 per cent; (iii) 24.6 per cent.
2.	Yes. (a) 31 per cent (b) 3 per cent.
3.	7 per cent.


PINE PALLS HOSPITAL, MAN.  INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Slogan: 1.	What are the terms of the agreement reached between northern health services and the Pine Falls general hospital for the integration of Indian health services with the Pine Falls general hospital?
2.	Has a contract been let for the building of a new wing at the Pine Falls general hospital to accommodate the expanded service?
3.	What is the name and amounts of each bidder, and when did tenders close?
4.	What is the cost sharing agreement between the federal and provincial governments and the Pine Falls general hospital for the construction of the added facilities?
5.	When is it anticipated that integration of the Indian health services at the Pine Falls general hospital will take place?
6.	What plans have been made for the use or demolition of the Indian health hospital at Pine Falls?
7.	What arrangements regarding medical care have been made or are being planned after the integration of the health services at Pine Falls?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. In return for a special construction grant of $405,000 plus the use at a nominal rental of the existing Indian
28902-5-267J
Questions
hospital nurses' residence, the board of the Pine Falls general hospital has undertaken to build an addition providing for 20 beds and expanded service facilities that will enable them to provide hospital care to all treaty Indians of the Pine Falls area, thus enabling the department to close the inadequate Fort Alexander Indian hospital.
2.	Yes.
3.	Tenders and contracts are the concern of the Pine Falls general hospital and the department has no knowledge of the details.
4.	Federal government-special construction grant of $405,000. It is understood that the provincial government is providing a grant of $115,000.
5.	Early in 1964.
6.	The Fort Alexander Indian hospital will be turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
7.	No change from present arrangements.


AIR MAIL TO QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS
Mr. Howard: 1.	For each month since January 1, 1961, how many complaints has the government or any agency or branch thereof received to the effect that mail marked or posted for "air mail" to the Queen Charlotte islands in fact reached its destination by boat mail?
2.	What steps have been taken to correct this situation, and have those steps been successful?


Mr. Denis:: 1. Fourteen since January 1, 1961. A monthly breakdown is not available.
2. Each complaint has been fully investigated and remedial action taken. This corrective procedure has reduced the number of complaints. Since January 1, 1963, three complaints have been received.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES LOAN FUND
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Does the territorial government of the Northwest Territories have a loan fund program, similar to the "Eskimo loan fund" operated by the federal department of northern affairs and, if so, who is eligible for these loans, and under what conditions?
2.	If not (a) has this matter ever been considered by the N.W.T. council or the commissioner (b) will the commissioner consider bringing this need to the attention of the council at its next session?
Answer: The commissioner of the Northwest Territories informs as follows:
1.	No.
2.	(a) Yes, for specialized areas such as assistance to trappers and fishermen; (b) the commissioner will consider this suggestion.


LIQUOR SALES, INUVIK, N.W.T.
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	What was the total amount of revenue received by the territorial liquor store at Inuvik, N.W.T. during the year 1962 from the sale of (a) hard liquor (b) wines (c) beer and ales?

Questions
2.	What was the total amount, in dollars, of beer, wines and hard liquor sold to the Mackenzie hotel, Inuvik, N.W.T. for re-sale to the public?
3.	At present, what are the hours for each day of the week that the following outlets are open for the sale of intoxicants to the public (a) territorial liquor store, Inuvik, N.W.T. (b) Mackenzie hotel, Inuvik, N.W.T.?
Answer: This is a question which should normally be addressed to the government of the Northwest Territories. However, the commissioner of the Northwest Territories informs as follows:
Fiscal year 1962-63
1.	(a)	Hard liquor	$152,382.05(b)	Wines	4,652.80(c)	Beer and ales	170,196.70

2.	(a) Hard liquor
(b)	Wines
(c)	Beer and ales

Answer: It is obviously not possible to weigh and summarize the complex motives which people may have for seeking or accepting new appointments, even if the department or the individual concerned were fully aware of all of them. The answers below indicate what appears to have been the primary consideration for each individual, as far as this is revealed in departmental records:
1.	Released, effective February 28, 1959; for reasons see former minister's statement in Hansard, January 20, 1959, p. 76.
2.	Resigned, effective October 31, 1963; to accept a research appointment with the Royal Ontario museum.
3.	Resigned, effective August 1, 1963, to accept a more attractive appointment.
4.	Resigned, effective March 20, 1959; for personal reasons.
5.	Resigned, effective October 21, 1958, to accept a more attractive appointment.
6.	Resigned, effective March 31, 1959, for personal reasons.
7.	1957, 1; 1958, 2; 1959, 3; 1960, none; 1961, 3; 1962, 1; 1963, 4.
3. (a) Territorial liquor store, Inuvik: Monday, closed; Tuesday, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.; Wednesday, closed; Thursday, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.; Saturday, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.; Sunday, closed.
3. (b) Mackenzie hotel, Inuvik (maximum permitted hours) beer parlour: Monday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 a.m.; Tuesday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 a.m.; Wednesday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 a.m.; Thursday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 a.m.; Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 p.m.; Saturday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 11.30 p.m.; Sunday, closed.
Cocktail lounge: Monday, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 a.m.; Tuesday, 2 p.m. to
6	p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 a.m.; Wednesday, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 a.m.; Thursday, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 a.m.; Friday, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 12.30 a.m.; Saturday, 12.00 noon to 6 p.m. and
7	p.m. to 11.30 p.m.; Sunday, closed.


RESIGNATIONS FROM NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Why did Dr. Jacques Rousseau leave the national museum?
2.	Why did Dr. Louis Russell leave the national museum?
3.	Why did Dr. MacNeish leave the national museum?
4.	Why did Thomas Lee leave the national museum?
5.	Why did Dr. Rioux leave the national museum?
6.	Why did Huguette Bujold leave the national museum?
7.	How many professional persons have left the national museum, each year, in the past six years?
[Mr. Rheaume.l



TELEVISION STATION CJOH


Mr. Caouelie: 1.	What is the nature of the licence held by T.V. station CJOH, channel 13, with regard to the use of the French language?
2.	Is this station not required to broadcast in French during a certain number of hours and, if so, in what proportion?

Answer: 1. The licence contains no condition with regard to the use of the French language. 2. No.



NATIONAL MUSEUM EMPLOYEES NOT CANADIANS

Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many employees has the national museum had, as of January 1, 1957, 1959, 1961, and 1963, who are or were not Canadian citizens?
2.	If the answer to part 1 indicates there is a considerable number of such employees, what explanation is there for having employees without Canadian citizenship?
Answer: 1. All the information requested is not readily available, since no running record of the establishment of the national museum classified according to citizenship has been retained. However, the following information may be helpful:
(a)	An earlier parliamentary question (.Hansard, July 5,	1961) reveals that on
January 1, 1959, six employees of the museum did not hold British or Canadian citizenship;
(b)	the same answer indicates that the comparable figure for January 1, 1961, was seven;
(c)	as of January 1, 1963, six non-Canadians

were employed at the museum. At the present time, there are four. This is less than 5 per cent of total staff strength.
2. Non-Canadians, if available, are employed where no qualified Canadian citizen can be recruited for any given position.



FRASER RIVER BOARD AUTHORITY

Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the situation concerning reorganization of the New Westminster harbour commission and the establishment of a Fraser river board authority?
2.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Transport to introduce legislation providing for the establishment of a new authority at the present session?


George James McIlraith: 1. and 2. Bill No. S-38 now before the other house would make possible the establishment of a new Fraser river harbour commission under this new general legislation.



ROCK FILL FOR BREAKWATER, LITTLE HARBOUR, N.S.

Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What type, size and weight of rock fill is called for in the original plans and specifications for the construction of a breakwater at little harbour, Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
2.	Have any changes been made in the plans and specifications as far as the rock fill is concerned and, if so, who authorized these changes?
3.	What changes were made, and what type of rock was actually used in the construction?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Three classes of stone were specified for this project:
(a) ballast rock within cribwork to be a durable stone of approved quality having a smallest dimension of not less than eight inches and a largest dimension of not greater than 18 inches; (b) core stone for rock mound approach to be a hard durable stone of acceptable quality having a smallest dimension of not less than six inches, a largest dimension not exceeding 36 inches and having a weight of not less than 165 pounds per cubic foot; (c) armour stone for rock mound approach to be a hard durable stone of acceptable quality, each piece having a minimum weight of 4,000 pounds, a maximum weight of 8,000 pounds and having a weight of not less than 165 pounds per cubic foot.
2.	Yes. The changes were approved by the chief engineer, harbours and rivers engineering branch, Department of Public Works.
3.	Approval was granted for the use of quarry run sandstone for ballast within the cribwork and for the use of quarry run sandstone in the core of the rock mound approach up to the low water level. Where quarried sandstone was allowed to be used in the work, reductions in the unit prices to be paid for this stone were negotiated before the work was authorized.
Questions



FRASER RIVER TRIFURCATION PROGRAM

Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the situation respecting implementation of the Fraser river trifurcation program?
2.	Does the government intend to proceed with the program this year?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Model study investigations are nearing completion at the national research council. Contract plans and specifications are being prepared for the early phases of the work.
2. Yes, the program will be started this fiscal year.



DISPOSITION OF RAILWAY BRIDGE, FRASER RIVER, B.C.

Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to the removal or improvement of the old railway bridge adjacent to the Pattullo bridge over the Fraser river?


Hubert Badanai: The whole question of the present and future use of the New Westminster railway bridge, its relationship to navigation as well as to railway services is being studied but no decision has been reached yet concerning the removal, improvement or replacement of the structure.



LASKIN AWARD RESPECTING SIX DAY WEEK

Mr. Fisher: Has the Minister of Labour any views and/or has he given the C.P.R. and/or the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen these views on the Laskin award regarding a six day week and, if so, what are they?


Mr. MacEachen:: It is understood that Mr. Bora Laskin has made an award on the six day week question submitted to him as referee. His award was made to the parties to the arbitration proceedings and it would not be appropriate for the Minister of Labour to express any views on his award or to seek to interpret it in any way.



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


Mr. Coates: Has the Canadian government received a request from the government of the United States to consent to the installation of locks and filling gates in Canada as a part of the Passamaquoddy bav power project?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: As I indicated on October 7 in response to other questions on this matter, the government of the United States has asked to discuss the proposed Passamaquoddy tidal power development with the government of Canada. Officers of several departments of the Canadian government are continuing to study various aspects of the project, but no negotiations regarding the matter are under way between this government and the government of the United States.

Questions



*BONUS FOR WINTER HOUSE CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Vincent: 1.	Does the program to encourage house construction in the winter months provide for the payment of (a) $500 in the case of a single dwelling unit, and (b) $2,000 in the case of a four dwelling unit?
2.	Does the payment mentioned in (b) above apply to five and six dwelling units and, if not, for what reasons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would ask that this question stand, Mr. Speaker.
Question stands.



GRAIN SHIPMENTS FROM CHURCHILL

Mr. Muir (Lisgar): 1.	How many grain cargoes left the port of Churchill in the current month, to date?
2.	What was the number of bushels exported from that port during the month?
3.	What was the date of the last shipment?


Mr. Hays:: 1. Seven.
2.	Of the total record shipment of 22,864,409 bushels exported through this port for the 1963 season, 3,186,143.8 bushels were shipped during October.
3.	October 20, 5.40 p.m.



CHANGES IN WELFARE CATEGORY SYSTEM

Mr. Scott: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to the abolition of welfare categories, and their replacement by a provincial-federal welfare system that would provide aid on the basis of need?
2.	In what ways does the government consider the "current welfare" category system too rigid, as stated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare before the rehabilitation council for the disabled?
3.	What steps is the government taking to remove such rigidities?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The federal government's position on the whole field of public assistance, including the categorical aid programs for the aged, the blind and the disabled, is being carefully studied in the Department of National Health and Welfare, and an interdepartmental committee is developing specific proposals in this area. During the federal-provincial conference on September 9 and 10 there was discussion of public assistance programs in which some criticism of the categorical approach was voiced and support for a broader type of assistance program was expressed. The communique agreed to at the meeting suggested "that the whole field of social assistance should be jointly re-examined, in the hope of developing one general assistance program based on need". It is expected that this question will be further considered at the federal-provincial conference in November.
2. Under the three categorical programs, aid is provided on the basis of a means test .taking into account income and assets, with

specific age and residence requirements and maximum benefits and, in the case of two of the programs, with provision for precise tests of blindness or permanent and total disability. While these characteristics of the programs result in some rigidity, the programs have the value of being clearly defined and understood and continue to fill an important role in supporting the groups for which they are intended. In some high cost areas however the benefits provided through these programs have not been adequate for all recipients and this has led to the development of measures of supplementary aid. There has also been some feeling that more positive steps should be taken to help persons who fall outside these programs, among them those with disabilities which cannot be viewed as permanent and total but which may prevent employment. The provinces have also indicated an interest in having more flexibility in developing programs suited to their particular local needs.
3.	See answer 1, above. The categorical assistance programs have been developed over the years in collaboration with the provinces, and any modification in them would need to be worked out co-operatively. It is hoped that the basis for detailed federal-provincial discussions on this matter will be laid at the federal-provincial conference next month.



GRAIN ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, VANCOUVER

Mr. Deachman: What is the construction program for the grain elevators administered by the national harbours board at Vancouver harbour (a) for the year 1963 (b) for the year 1964?


George James McIlraith: (a) In June 1963 works in the amount of $85,110 were completed, consisting of the replacement of car-haul machinery and the installation of a partial dust control system at elevator No. 2. In July 1963 the reconstruction of portions of grain jetty No. 1 was completed at a cost of $223,775. (b) Work is under way at grain jetty No. 3, elevator No. 1 and elevator No. 3 consisting of alterations to and deepening of grain berths, replacement of cyclones and cone sections of hoppers, at a cost of $490,000. Following consultation with the lessee plans are now being completed for an expected commencement early in 1964 of the renovation and deepening of the inner end of grain jetty No. 1. This work will make possible the servicing of larger ships.
In order to ensure that the elevators under the administration of the national harbours board can handle the maximum amount of

grain, the board expects to undertake a complete survey of its grain facilities at Vancouver to determine to what extent the capacity of the individual facilities is currently being used, whether the present rate of utilization can be increased and, if so, what improvements should be made and the cost of such improvements.



* ADDITION AL R.C.A.F. BASES

Mr. Langlois: Is it the intention of the government to establish additional R.C.A.F. operational and/or training bases and additional radar stations and if so, what are the proposed locations of these sites?


Mr. Cardin:: There are no projects at present to establish additional R.C.A.F. operational and/or training bases and additional radar bases.



POST OFFICE REVENUE, ENTERPRISE, ONT.

Mr. Webb: What was the total revenue of the post office at Enterprise, Ontario in each of the years 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963, to date?


Azellus Denis: Fiscal Year
1959-	60
1960-	61
1961-	62
1962-	63 1963 to date (April to September)



PSYCHIATRISTS IN CANADA

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many qualified psychiatrists are there (a) in Canada (b) in each province?
2.	How many of these work for government services, how many teach in university medical colleges, how many are in private practice primarily?
3.	How many psychiatrists are assigned to work in Canadian courts (a) on a full time basis, and (b) on a part time basis?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This information is not in the possession of any government department or agency.



CHRYSLER COMPANY TENDER FOR STAKE TRUCKS

Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has a contract been entered into with Chrysler Canada Limited for the supply of a number of three ton stake trucks for the armed forces and, if so, what is the date of the contract, its amount, and dates of delivery?
2.	Were public tenders called in respect to this requirement or were tenders by invitation?
3.	How many tenders were received, and for what amounts?
4.	What was the closing date of the tender, and when was the contract awarded?
5.	If the tender of Chrysler Canada Limited was not the lowest tender, what were the reasons for awarding it to this tenderer?
Motions for Papers
Answer: 1. (a) Yes; (b) October 21, 1963; (c) $3,130,600.20; (d) As and when required during period ending July 31, 1964.
2.	By invitation.
3.	(a) Four; (b) $3,130,017.20, $3,130,600.20, $3,275,252.00, $3,595,543.80.
4.	(a) September 9, 1963; (b) On October 18, 1963.
5.	The vehicles offered by Chrysler Canada Limited were the lowest priced meeting the requirements of the specification.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports received by the government or any agency or branch thereof dealing with the grain elevator at Prince Rupert, B.C., since January 1, 1959.
Mr. Beer:: I am informed there is only one document involved in this motion for the production of papers. It is in the form of a memorandum between officials of the department and, as such, is considered to be a privileged document. I would therefore request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Howard:: In ordinary circumstances I would be agreeable to that request, but portions, if not all, of this particular report are available to some people outside of this house, and in view of this situation it might be advisable if this motion were transferred for debate for tomorrow evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable that this be transferred for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DR. LORIS RUSSELL-APPOINTMENT TO NATIONAL MUSEUM

[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. Louis Russell some time ago to head the national museum.
He said: I should like to have this stand at the request of the minister. I should also like to point out that the name is Dr. Loris Russell, not Louis Russell.
Motion stands.
DOLLARD HISTORICAL SITE, HAWKESBURY, ONT. Motion No. 109
Mr. Fisher:: 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 federal government (or northern affairs) and hydro Quebec, affaires culturelles de
Revenue



$1,576.75 1,303.04 1,269.52 1,421.85 611.53 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
Quebec, Ontario department of travel and publicity, Ontario archaeological and historic sites board, and Louis P. Cecile, on the Dollard site near Hawkesbury.
Mr. Laing:: We shall be glad to accept this motion subject only to the usual reservation as to consent by the two provinces concerned and the further reservation applying to any privileged documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to, subject to the reservations stated by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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.
He said: Perhaps this motion could stand, at the request of the minister.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 125-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, there is no objection to this motion being agreed to. There is no official correspondence.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice what he means by the word "official"?


Lionel Chevrier: Official correspondence is the correspondence which, under the previous administration, was also considered as privileged and confidential.
There is no official correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to withdraw his motion?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, sir.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 126-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 Public Works or officers of the Department of Public Works, on one hand, and Mr. Roland Comtois, of Repentigny, constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, on the other hand.
Mr. Deschalelels:: Mr. Speaker, the
answer given by the Minister of Justice in respect to motion No. 125 also applies to motion No. 126.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works to give me supplementary information.
Does the answer just given by the minister imply that Mr. Roland Comtois did not write to the minister or to an official of the Department of Public Works?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I must say in reply to the hon. member that the term "official" applies in this case, and I am certainly not in a position to say whether or not this individual has exchanged correspondence with me. Since this is an official matter, I am unable to table this correspondence.


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: These motions, as the hon. member knows perhaps better than I do, are not debatable.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I think that the ministers of justice and of public works are playing upon words. They refuse to table the correspondence when I am entitled to ask for that return as representative of the riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and as a member of parliament.
I say again that the ministers concerned are playing upon words and I ask them to change their mind and to table this correspondence to which I am entitled.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes me to put the motion he has two choices. He can put the motion or have it transferred for debate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to transfer the motion for future debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



PENHOLD, ALTA., AIR BASE  PETITION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 127-Mr. Lambert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of a petition from the

Alberta air council, together with a list of signatories thereto which was received by the government in 1963 with reference to the conversion of R.C.A.F. station Penhold to a jet training base.
Mr. Hellyer:: A check of the files in the Prime Minister's office and the departments of agriculture, transport and national defence indicates that no petition was received from the Alberta air council with a list of signatories. There was a telegram addressed to me from the Alberta aviation council requesting an appointment, and a further letter expressing appreciation for the kindness extended in meeting a delegation. This correspondence has already been tabled.
Under those circumstances I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would agree to have the motion dropped, and if there is any other definition or additional information which comes to his attention he has the right to put the motion on the order paper again, or if he could tell us more about it privately we would be glad to produce the document if it exists.


Mr. Lambert:: If I can have the same assurance from the Minister of Transport I will do so, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: I would be happy to give that assurance to the hon. gentleman.


Norman Platt Lambert: Then I will withdraw the motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ESKIMO LOAN FUND REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 128-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 the rules and regulations relating to the Eskimo loan fund.
Arthur Laing: This is entirely acceptable, Mr. Speaker, and is tabled herewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
ENTERPRISE, ONT., POSTMASTER Motion No. 130-Mr. Webb:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters and communications that have been received by the Postmaster General or any of the officials of his department since August 27, 1963, relating to the Post Office at Enterprise, Ontario, together with a copy of the application for appointment of Mrs. Clare Stewart to the position.
Azellus Denis: I have no objection to the adoption of this motion and to the tabling of all official correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 132-Mr. Martineau:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, briefs, memoranda or other documents exchanged since the 22nd day of April, 1963, between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance or the Secretary of State or any officers responsible to them, and any public service staff association or any association of retired public servants, on the subject of pension adjustments for retired public servants.
Mr. Benson:: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 133-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 correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since January 1. 1960 regarding the matter of the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean.
Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, there is no such correspondence; and as the same applies to motions 134 and 135, may I suggest to the hon. member that he withdraw these three motions.


Frank Howard: Do I understand the minister to say there was no such correspondence? Then I will withdraw the motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Then this motion is withdrawn, and motions 134 and 135 are withdrawn.
Orders discharged and motions withdrawn.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH RUSSIA ON HALIBUT FISHERY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 136-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 correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since January 1, 1960 regarding the halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) fishery.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the government has no objection to this motion provided it can obtain the concurrence of the other country involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservation stated by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 137-Mr. Herridge:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence and telegrams exchanged between the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or their offices and any private citizen in Canada with respect to the Columbia river treaty since May 1, 1963.
Motion agreed to.

[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.
He said: Stand, at the request of the Minister of National Revenue.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 140-Mr. Hamilton:
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 federal government and the provincial governments relating to the new Department of Industry.
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has spoken to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and the hon. member has agreed to the insertion of a few words in the second last line. Between the words "to" and "the" insert the words "the organization and functions of". With that amendment and with the concurrence of the provinces the motion is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 141-Mr. Dionne:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged since April 8, 1963 between the Postmaster General or any of the officials of his department and Mr. Rosaire Anctil, P.O. Box 303, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere.
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this motion being agreed to and to the production of any official correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of a statement made outside the house I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government has in mind the cutting of income tax in order to stimulate growth.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom the right hon. gentleman was referring when he mentioned a statement made outside the house. May I ask him to give me a little more information?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot give particulars except to say that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, made a speech and the heading of the report is "M.P. Hints of Cut In Income Tax". The report contains this statement:
If various tax incentives and cheaper money policies are not effective, an across the board cut in taxation may be desirable.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that when the government has any announcements to make on this subject it will do so in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. That is the reason I asked this question. Did the parliamentary secretary have any authorization to speak in this way on behalf of the government?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: On the basis of the extract from the newspaper report which was read it seemed to me that the parliamentary secretary was discussing economic theory in a general way, and I think he has every right to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament by-passed
again.



SALE OP RUSSIAN GOLD TO PAY FOR CANADIAN WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance?
Could the minister tell us whether the gold shipments which arrived in London from

Moscow yesterday will be used for the payment of Russia's purchases of Canadian wheat?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not sure that I understood the full purport of the question, Mr. Speaker. I think it was, will the sale of some 20 tons of Russian gold in London help pay for the purchase of wheat from Canada? I would hope so.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In his speech at Barrie he deplored the fact that for the last 25 or 30 years Canada has had a patchwork quilt of agricultural policy, and he said that the main plank in his own agricultural policy is an investigation into the cost of farm machinery. Does the minister intend to ask the standing committee on agriculture and colonization to take up again its study, which was begun in 1961 and discontinued, into the cost of farm machinery? If not, what method does he propose to use to carry on an investigation into the cost of farm machinery?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would use all the information we could get. I would be glad if this would be discussed by the committee on agriculture.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Minister of Agriculture said he was taking all sorts of methods to look into the cost of farm machinery. I want to ask him one question. Is it his intention to ask the standing committee on agriculture and colonization to resume its investigations into the high cost of farm machinery this session?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with what went on in 1961, but I can see no reason that this committee should not look into these costs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, since it will require a reference from the house before the committee can undertake such a study, would the minister be prepared to move such a reference?


Harry William Hays: I will be glad to take that question under advisement and let the hon. member know.
Inquiries of the Ministry



LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE FURTHER FARM CREDIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's statements in the house and several other statements outside the house to the effect that there is not enough credit available to farmers, does he intend to introduce legislation at this session of parliament which will provide further credit for farmers?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy. I certainly hope we will be able to do something for the farmers in this regard.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport a question of urgent national importance. In view of the board of transport commissioners authorizing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to discontinue passenger service on the Kettle valley line on 60 days' notice, and in view of the widespread concern and indignation of the residents of southeastern British Columbia, has the government given consideration to the rescinding of this order? If not, is it prepared to hear appeals against this unfortunate decision of the board of transport commissioners?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that I will consider it.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Could the minister tell us what progress has been made in the inquiry conducted by his department into the increases in the price of sugar, and when does he intend to report to the house about it?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think that I have indicated, on many occasions, that the director of research is following from day to day the sugar situation and if he has any reason to

Inquiries of the Ministry believe that proceedings under the Combines Investigation Act are necessary, he will take action.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this supervisor or director of research does not submit any report at present, does this mean that the minister draws the conclusion that there is nothing irregular with the current increases in the price of sugar?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker, not necessarily, because the inquiry may take some time. Besides, I must remind my honourable friend that there is at present an order against at least two, maybe three, firms selling sugar and their officers, forbidding them to do any price fixing at all; that order was granted in the superior court, in Montreal, at the beginning of the year.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he signed a petition to the government requesting that the Penhold airport be retained as a jet training base?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I did not sign any petitions.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Queens asked me a question in connection with a warning by the United States food and drug administration that some smoked fish products from the great lakes contain the botulus organism, and I promised I would give a full reply today.
The Departments of National Health and Welfare and Fisheries have viewed with concern the recent evidence from the United States associating death from botulism with the consumption of specific types of smoked fish. During the past three years nine deaths and a number of non-fatal cases of illness have been shown to be due to the presence in the smoked fish of a toxic substance produced by a bacterium called Clostridium botulinum type E. No reports of similar illness have occurred in Canada during this period.
Canadian consumers should be informed that cooking destroys the toxic substance.

Therefore any food product eaten immediately after thorough cooking is safe with regard to this type of poisoning. Investigators of the two departments have had this problem under study for about two years. There is evidence to suggest that the practice of packing smoked fish in impermeable plastic wrappers increases the risk of botulism from this product. Accordingly the two departments are considering legislation to prohibit the sale of smoked fish packed in containers sealed to exclude air unless the packaged product has been rendered commercially sterile by a suitable heat process.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the description of the province of Quebec as a state by Premier Lesage?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question arising out of a report, which I find to be inaccurate, that there has been filed with the air transport board a request by Transair to give up the licence that the minister's department awarded it only last March to operate the milk run on the prairies. I wonder whether the minister could give us an explanation of the situation, particularly in view of the fact that Transair was assisted so much by a crown corporation in taking over this route.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I would be glad to give an answer to that question. The application is to give up part of the run. The reason for the application is that on one segment of the run the average number of passengers per flight was less than one person. An air line simply cannot operate on that basis. The notices for the hearing have been given today, and it is proposed in the notice that the subject of the hearing will be that the service be varied and that west of Regina the service on this route would be discontinued as of December 31.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Transport know the circumstances surrounding that application, and that the fares charged by this air carrier are twice those that are charged here in eastern

Canada? Before permission is given to give up this franchise will the minister investigate these conditions a little further?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is not the minister who does the investigating. I am quite familiar with the facts relating to the operation, nevertheless the allegation made by the hon. member is something that should be brought before the air transport board at its hearing, where it could be dealt with by the board.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Could the minister inform the house if his department has given instructions to reduce the amounts claimed for charitable donations, as is being done in the province of Quebec, without first making an investigation to ascertain whether or not the receipts are genuine?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the minister stated a few minutes ago that he had given no orders to cut charity donation receipts in the province of Quebec, can he assure the house he will also instruct his officials in Quebec not to cut any more of these charity donation receipts without first making inquiries of the people concerned?


John Richard Garland: The hon. gentleman is now slipping in quite a different question from the one asked by his colleague, and under the circumstances I ask that he put his question on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries if it is a fact that the advisory committee of the north Pacific fisheries commission will be meeting in Vancouver in mid November.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question. What is the purpose of this meeting, whom are they meeting, and for what purpose?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: They will be dealing with problems affecting the halibut fishery in the north Pacific.


Frank Howard: May I ask another supplementary question. Can the minister indicate to the house when arrangements are going to be made for this advisory committee to be consulted before negotiations are reactivated among Japan, the United States and Canada for the signing of a new treaty involving the three fishery stocks in the north Pacific?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: At the meeting that will be held in Vancouver this November.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I wonder if the minister of northern affairs could take the house into his confidence and inform us just at what stage negotiations are now between this government and the government of the United States, as well as British Columbia, in respect of the cost sharing arrangement for the paving of the Alaska highway.


Arthur Laing: When the arrangements are completed, as we hope they will be successfully, an announcement will be made.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say, then, that we are to take it from his answer that there are negotiations being conducted on the cost sharing of the paving of the Alaska highway between these governments and the Canadian government?


Arthur Laing: There would be no profit in discussing that today.


Erik Nielsen: I have a further supplementary question in respect of the one I asked of the minister of northern affairs concerning negotiations with the United States government. In view of the fact that the minister has taken into his confidence the president of the Dawson Creek chamber of commerce, and has told that chamber of these negotiations, will he now take the house into his confidence by telling the members of this house whether or not these negotiations for cost sharing are taking place?
4134	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: I only want to make this remark. I understand the hon. member for Yukon has widely circulated a number of telegrams taking full responsibility for the fact that the road was going to be kept open.
I was so informed. However, if he wants to share that with me, that is all right. I see no advantage in further explanations today, and the hon. member is aware of the nature of the negotiations taking place. I am quite certain he is so happy it is the intention of the government to keep the road open that he would not wish to do anything to disturb those arrangements.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister got his roads mixed up. He was referring to keeping a road open. The Alaska highway is, of course, open all year round; and I can assure the minister, knowing he will take my word, that I have not sent out one single wire concerning these roads.



REQUEST FOR COPY OF ADDRESS BY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Mr. Speaker, and while its urgency is not too obvious, the urgency is there and time is of the essence. In view of the general interest in the minister's forthcoming address to the eighteenth annual meeting of the Saskatchewan river development association-and there is intense interest-will the minister provide the members of the house with a copy of this address after delivery?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain there is general agreement in this house that the unchallenged authority on water, wherever found and in whatever form, is the hon. member for Kootenay West. I am quite certain that if I could use his ability to assist me in the preparation of this talk, then the distribution which he suggests might be worth while.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Fronienac):: Is
the Postmaster General aware, Mr. Speaker, that the location of a post office in Belleville, Ontario, is being changed for purely political reasons, as set out in the notice received by the owner of the present premises?


Azellus Denis: am not aware of that, and I deny the allegations made by the hon. member. At any rate,
I will take his question as notice and answer it in a day or two.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the fact that the proposed new appointee is the secretary of the local Liberal association and a close relative of the present Liberal member for Hastings South?


Some hon. Members:: Patronage.


Azellus Denis: I am not aware of that, and I will say the same thing tomorrow or the day after.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: I rise on a question of personal privilege. I should like to point out to this house and particularly to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac that there is no nepotism in my family. I am not interested in the genealogical affiliations of any applicant in Enterprise, either.



REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES BY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the answer which he gave to another question of mine today regarding the irregularity of air mail service from the west coast to the Queen Charlotte islands, would the minister be agreeable to consulting his colleagues with a view to having the estimates of his department referred to the appropriate standing committee so that we can thoroughly inquire into all these matters of administration?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I was expecting a reply from the Postmaster General and I wonder will he give one.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give the hon. member every detail he asks for during the consideration of the estimates of my department. It is not necessary to have a standing committee for two or three questions, since the estimates will come before the House of Commons.



INQUIRY AS TO PAY INCREASES FOR CERTAIN STAFF MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State in his

capacity as a member of the board of commissioners of internal economy. Can he tell us what has happened to the long overdue pay increases for some 10 or 12 tradesmen on the staff of the House of Commons, consideration of which we were told was being given on August 2 of this year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid, sir, I could not answer that question from memory, but I shall be glad to take it as notice.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if it is the policy of the Canadian National Railways to dispose of their elevators in the eastern division.


George James McIlraith: I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the policy to do so. I should add that there is a question arising as to one of the elevators with which I suspect the hon. member is somewhat familiar. I should like to take this question as notice and give him a more complete answer later.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the right hon. gentleman tell us whether he intends to appoint Mr. Georges Emile Lapalme, the present minister of cultural affairs of the province of Quebec, as Canadian ambassador in Paris to replace Mr. Pierre Dupuy who has become chairman of the world fair corporation? [Text]


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when there is a vacancy to be filled in the embassy at Paris it will be announced in due course.


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to fill that vacancy by appointing Mr. Lapalme?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There does not appear to be a vacancy at the moment, Mr. Speaker.
Income Tax Act


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO REARRANGEMENT OF FISCAL RELATIONSHIPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to revise, on a massive scale, the tax agreements between the provinces and the federal government, as asked last evening, during a press conference, by the minister of youth, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I hardly think, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would expect me to comment on a report I have not seen, or on a subject of that importance on orders of the day.


Paul Raymond Martineau: According to the minister, the problem is an urgent one. And that is why-


WORLD FAIR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, on St. Helen's island, the 1967 world fair flag was hoisted up; could the right hon. gentleman assure us that Canada will have a truly Canadian flag on the occasion of this exhibition?

Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give that assurance.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for second reading of Bill No. C-95, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker to say the least an omnibus bill such as this has a great many things in it, but this afternoon I would like to spend my time dealing with those aspects which are connected with the Department of Industry. I refer to those parts which propose certain tax advantages and exemptions for the areas designated in the recent legislation concerning the Department of Industry.

Income Tax Act
I would like to make it quite clear that I believe every member of the house is thoroughly in agreement with the good intentions of this legislation and the general principles behind it, but there are many hon. members, myself included, who take considerable exception to the methods used to attain these objectives and to the manner in which the legislation has been introduced.
Our objections and criticisms can be divided into two general categories. First, there is gross interference with provincial rights; and second, the methods used and the statistical formulae applied leave much to be desired and have resulted in some thoroughly ridiculous situations.
I shall deal first with the question of interference in provincial affairs. Ever since our country became an independent nation in 1867, from time to time its constitution has been open to considerable question with respect to rights vis-a-vis the federal government and the provinces. I agree it is sometimes difficult for even the most acute legal minds in this country to determine with any degree of accuracy which fields lie within the authority of the provinces and which lie within the authority of the federal government. When these matters are brought before the courts and, ultimately, before the Supreme Court of Canada, a decision is made. The first point I should like to make in this regard and I have discussed this matter with others, in this house and elsewhere, who have had considerable legal experience, is that it would seem to me that the government should take a careful second look at these clauses of Bill C-95, because it would seem that a good case could be made for the contention that they are ultra vires.
I do not wish to engage in a legal argument at this time. Indeed, it would be improper to do so, because any legal argument presented here would be a matter of opinion; it would be up to the courts to decide whether or not such arguments are valid. However, the reasoning behind my contention is that, by giving certain tax reliefs and exemptions to certain areas the relevant clauses of this bill are, directing the location of property, namely land and capital, within certain specific areas of the country in the provinces. The legislation may well be tested in the courts and I think the government should take a most careful look at these provisions before the measure leaves this house. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure. Perhaps appropriate changes and amendments could be made as a result of a further examination by the law officers of the crown.
Let us assume, however, that this legislation is intra vires and will stand the test

of the courts. It is clear it is interfering in fields which normally belong to the provinces. There has certainly been no consultation with provincial authorities with respect to this lgislation. There is ample evidence to support this assertion. For instance, the premier of British Columbia objected violently to his own home town of Kelowna being referred to as a depressed area, and the municipal officials of other places including Brantford, in the first instance, have objected to their areas being designated without consultation. So here we have a government, which has talked so much about "co-operative confederation," setting what does not appear to be a good example by putting forward, in the absence of consultation, legislation which clearly affects provincial responsibilities.
There is another point which might be raised in this connection. I know that the province of Ontario has prevented a price war, so to speak, between municipalities bidding for new industries. I suspect other provinces have enacted similar legislation. I know it has been the practice in the past for some municipalities to offer tax concessions to new industries such as free utilities, or utilities at a reduced rate, for a number of years; tax reductions, and the like. This practice has been prohibited by the province of Ontario and, no doubt, by other provinces. Legislation of the kind now being imposed by the federal government without consultation negates this principle and detracts from the usefulness of the measures taken by the government of Ontario and, as I have suggested, by other provinces. This is a field which has so far been left to the provinces, and the amendments we are considering represent an invasion of that field by the federal government.
The idea behind legislation of this type is a good one. If the minister and those responsible for this bill had consulted with the provinces, the difficulty to which I have referred might have been circumvented and the ground for the objections I am raising might not exist. But this was not done, and I would hope that in future it will be done before legislation such as this is applied.
Another question which arises is that of duplication. Most of the provinces have highly developed departments of industry and economic development. They have done a great deal to help themselves. I have more knowledge of the situation in the province of Ontario than I have of developments in other provinces, but in Ontario a great deal has been done to encourage industry to enter the province. Directorates, with staffs of civil servants and experts, have been set up for this purpose. What do we find in this Department of Industry? I have here a document

put out by the department for the purpose of recruiting staff. It looks like Parkinson's law gone mad. There is clearly going to be immense duplication of effort in putting into practice the amendment proposed to the act and it seems to me the government would be better advised to use this department as a co-ordinating instrument and, perhaps, as a means of assisting financially the province in this field, instead of duplicating work which the provinces are already doing.
Another question occurs to me. Why did the government bring in legislation such as this without consulting the provinces and, through them, the municipalities? I think the answer will be found in some remarks which were made in this house a short while ago by my hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) when he very ably pointed out that the occupants of the treasury benches seem to have certain functions of government mixed up. As I recall his observations, my hon. friend referred to one of Mr. Burke's essays on government, an essay which pointed out the necessity of divorcing the legislative function of government from the administrative. Those engaged in discharging the legislative function of government are elected representatives accustomed to consultation and to dealing at first hand with members of the public. Those in the administrative branch, on the other hand, have the task of carrying out the legislative proposals and they are accustomed to doing so in a somewhat peremptory way. It may not be coincidence that a large percentage of the present cabinet-I think it is about one third-* is composed of those who do, in fact, have an administrative background-some people might refer to it as a bureaucratic background. It depends, of course, on what one means by these various words but it remains true that a large number of the most important cabinet posts are now held by people who have an administrative or quasi-administrative background. As a result, one finds this kind of thinking: we know what is good for you; we are not interested in consulting people at a lower level; we are imposing this on you from on high. The Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) whose department is the most closely related to these clauses under consideration is, admittedly, a little different from those who are normally thought of as being bureaucrats. Nevertheless, he has an administrative background and I have heard some people refer to him as a "gold-plated bureaucrat". He has this background and this manner of thinking. That is why we can expect not only legislation of the type now before us, but more of it in the future.
Another main heading under which I group these objections to the relevant clauses of
Income Tax Act
Bill C-95 concern the method used to designate those areas which are to receive tax relief. A great deal has been said about this in the house already by members on both sides, and a great many statistics have been produced. Most hon. members who have had any association with statistics-and I am sure the hon. gentleman is among them'-know that statistics can be selected to suit the particular results which are required.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Minister of Agriculture says they are for losers.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: He may well be right. Anyway, we have all heard the story about the statistician six feet tall who was drowned in a river which had an average depth of three feet. I think some of the statistics used in the designation of these areas might come within the compass of that little anecdote. I do not wish to discuss the formula used by the Department of Industry in designating these areas at great length, but I think it is fair to say that some sort of arithmetical average was used in arriving at these figures and that special circumstances such as arise in the now famous case of the city of Brantford were, clearly, not taken into account. The hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) stated in the course of the speech she made in this house recently that in her opinion the government has adopted a reasonably good method of designating these areas by using statistics of growth and unemployment over a period of time. Referring to similar circumstances in countries outside Canada, she said the real issue in those other countries did not concern the criteria used but the question of how large the areas should be. I have pointed out that the statistical formula which the government has adopted leaves much to be desired because it does not allow for aberrations or unusual circumstances. I think it would have been preferable if a more complex formula had been adopted capable of taking such circumstances into account. But the main issue, as indicated by the hon. member for Northumberland, is to the size of the areas chosen. It was decided, apparently, that the areas covered by national employment offices would be considered as areas which could be designated as areas to receive special assistance. On the face of it, that appears to be a logical way in which to proceed, especially as statistics of unemployment and economic growth over a period of time are the basis for designating these areas. However, I believe there are serious objections to the practical application of this method of procedure.
Let us consider, for example, a large metropolitan area such as Toronto. I drive to

Income Tax Act
Toronto almost every week end and I think it is 24 or 25 miles from one end of the metropolitan area to the other. I do not suppose the government would contemplate for one moment suggesting that if the rate of growth in the east end of Toronto was less rapid than in the west end, special concessions should be given to industry to locate in that part of the metropolitan area which was not progressing as fast as the other. Yet, apparently, this is what has happened in the case of Brantford. The cities of Galt, Guelph, Brantford, Woodstock and Kitchener form part of the same industrial complex in the area concerned, an area of just about the same size as Toronto or Montreal. Merely because it so happened that there were separate national employment offices in these various cities, it was decided it would be possible to designate one city while passing over another. I can tell the hon. gentleman that labour flows freely between these various industrial cities. A great many people who work in one large factory in my own city come from Brantford. Many people in my own district work in Kitchener. The distances involved are not nearly as great as they are between one end of Toronto and the other.
In fact, this whole area is an industrial complex itself and its cities and towns are rapidly growing closer and closer together. I say that this would not apply to places like Windsor, Elliot Lake or Cornwall and other areas which have been designated. These towns are well removed from other industrial centres, and I do not think anyone can find any objection, except the one I pointed out in the first part of my remarks, to these places being designated. But when you take one part of what is essentially one industrial complex and single it out for preference as opposed to the other parts, I find it very offensive and unreasonable.
I realize the government has put itself in a rather difficult position; I think all hon. members realize this. The city of Brantford was designated an area to receive assistance, and it is indeed difficult for the government to repeal this decision. Any reasonable hon. member would accept that. But there is something else the government can do to help matters, and that is this. Since I have pointed out that this whole area of Galt, Guelph, Kitchener, Woodstock, Waterloo, and so on, is all part of the same industrial complex, to make things a little fairer the government could very well designate the whole area as one to receive these tax advantages. In addition to incidentally helping the growth of the

area it would certainly do a great deal to disperse industry, instead of its locating constantly in the city of Toronto, which as many people have pointed out is perhaps a socially undesirable thing. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) looks a little shocked at that, but I think we have all heard hon. members from his side of the house in the past say that it is probably a good thing to disperse industry so that cities do not get bigger and bigger while other places do not grow at all. I do not think the minister will disagree with that. I have no objection to the city of Toronto. I am very fond of it; I received part of my education there, and I like the city and its people. But I think he could hardly object to the proposition that it is socially desirable to prevent a city from getting too large, a condition which breeds all sorts of undesirable things.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Would the hon. member permit a question from one who happens to come from Toronto. I am sure he did not mean to imply that it was socially undesirable for people to live in Toronto, did he?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That all depends, Mr. Speaker, on what one might think was socially undesirable. Perhaps I have been misunderstood, but what I meant was that I think it is socially undesirable in any province to have one city become increasingly large with a heavy concentration of population in one area, which leads to a number of social evils which you do not get in smaller places.
There are those who have been unkind enough to point out that they think certain municipalities have been discriminated against, and this is attributed mostly to governments. I have heard it suggested in a very unkind way that the special designation of Brantford was a rather refined method of political patronage, in view of the political representation of Brantford. I do not think I can agree with that because I am sure that is not the case. From what we have heard lately in this house I do not think the government could ever be accused of refined political patronage in view of the crude methods we have recently heard of. I think that disposes of that argument.
I should like to deal with some remarks made by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) when he replied to a question from me, concerning unemployment in the city of Brantford, during the course of debate on a previous occasion. I pointed out that because of the relocation of the Massey-Ferguson plant at Brantford, which is perhaps the principal industry in Brantford, there had been a large amount of temporary unemployment.

This point was also made by other members. The minister replied, as reported on page 3652 of Hansard for October 16:
The figures I have given to the house related to the current summer months while this high level, or allegedly high level, of construction activity has been going on in Brantford. When these buildings are completed those in the construction trades engaged in building the plants will be laid off. They will be replaced by the people operating these plants, but there will still be the same number displaced in the unemployment roles as those now engaged in the construction industry and who will be laid off when building is completed.
I thought there was something a little peculiar about that so I took the trouble to look into the matter, and I found that the Massey-Ferguson plant at Brantford is being built by a very large Toronto firm. It is an international firm which has a Canadian connection in Toronto called Cunningham-Limp, a hyphenated name. About 90 per cent of those employed in building the plant come from Toronto, so I do not think there will likely be many from Brantford laid off when the job is completed, or an increase of the unemployment roll for the city of Brantford.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is no use making a purely critical speech in the house unless one tries to offer something constructive in exchange. In summary therefore I suggest this: I hope the government, when it deals with matters such as this in the future, matters which clearly interfere with provincial fields, will consult the provinces and/or the municipalities concerned before it adopts this legislation. Before any more of these areas are designated to receive tax advantages I hope they will be consulted. As I said in the first place, we approve of this legislation; I think everyone does. But it is the methods used to bring it into effect which are under criticism.
Second, I hope the government will have a good look at Bill No. C-95, as to the possibility of its being ultra vires. Then I would also suggest a very careful look be given at the method of designating these areas. The hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) made a very able speech in this connection and pointed out ways in which the legislation could be improved. I hope her remarks will be given consideration.
Finally, because of the big row which has been so widely publicized all over Canada in connection with the designation of Brantford, I hope the minister in question will very carefully look at the whole industrial area surrounding that city. While it may be technically a series of areas, through the use of the national employment office as a base for designating an area I would ask the minister to look at the actual facts of the matter and
Income Tax Act
to designate the whole complex, of which Brantford is but a part. As I have already mentioned, it would include Kitchener, Guelph, Woodstock, Waterloo and the like. I think this would obviate some of the difficulties which have arisen. I shall probably have some more remarks to make when we get to a clause by clause study of the bill in committee. I realize I have wandered a little far afield, but since this bill is so closely related to the Department of Industry and covers so many matters I felt I was entitled to do so.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-95, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
I only wish to point out to the house the discrimination which may result within some categories of people from that all too well known Income Tax Act. The small wage earners, who cannot afford to hire an accountant to prepare their income tax returns, are those who are confronted with that all too well known problem, that all too well known return which comes at the beginning of the year.
I have here a letter from one of my constituents who is quite surprised that the Minister of National Revenue should send him a letter to tell him that his claim for charitable donations has been reduced to $200. That man is amazed at such a thing, and he tells me that he will not go and see at the Quebec office what it is all about because he thinks it is useless and he asks me what to do. The employees of the income tax office tell him that they have the right to do so and that everything is according to regulations.
In my opinion, an investigation should be made and those people told why supposedly genuine receipts for charitable donations are reduced from $400 to $200. In this case, Mr. Claude Cote, residing at 586 Napoleon street, Quebec city, will get a reimbursement of only $13.15 instead of $45. Several other people are in the same situation.
Mr. Speaker, in my riding, small businessmen, small shopkeepers struggle with their income tax return at the beginning of each year and they cannot even afford to hire an accountant, and even if they do, it is at the price of great sacrifices. And why is that? Simply because that income tax form is too complicated and not easily understood by most people. In fact, nine people out of ten cannot understand the terminology of those famous forms.
I saw yesterday in the Montreal La Presse that the arts faculty students at the University of Montreal and the night students at Sir

Income Tax Act
George Williams University have signified their intention of meeting the parliamentary secretary of the federal minister to ask that their education costs be deductible. At the present time, regular students only are entitled to that privilege. Students of the arts faculty of the university of Montreal and those taking evening courses in any university are not considered then to be regular students by the government. In my opinion, they should be entitled to such a reduction. I would even go as far as to say that family heads should be allowed to deduct from their income tax all it costs them today to educate their children.
It is my considered opinion that the Income Tax Act should be revised and simplified in order that it may be understood by all Canadian citizens who have to deal with this famous problem of the income tax return.
It is the lower bracket salaried workers who are unfairly treated in this, because they have to fill their returns as best they can, since they do not understand all the wording and cannot afford the advice of those experts who always find a way to reduce the tax to a minimum. What is then to be feared in all that? I believe that the victim is always the low salaried worker, the small concern or the small merchant.
If the return forms were simplified there would be much less trouble for the general public, which has nothing but hate and contempt for the Minister of National Revenue. It is precisely because of the complexity and ambiguity of the Income Tax Act that the minister's experts should, in my opinion, try to simplify the language used in income tax returns.
If we had clear, simple and precise return forms that anyone could understand and if the expressions used were more familiar, all Canadians would be proud, at the beginning of the year, to pay what they owe to the government. As it is, the prospect of having to fill out a return in the near future is a nightmare.
Therefore, I feel that it would be possible to avoid such a headache for our constituents by simplifying the Income Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the people, our duty here is to approve good legislation and fight bad legislation, but especially to improve legislation which needs to be improved and the Income Tax Act is certainly one which could stand improvement.
I feel that all members will support the amendment I wish to bring to this bill in order, once again, to be fair to the small wage earners of Canada and especially those of my riding, where the great majority of people belong to the working class and, all
[Mr. Plourde.l
things considered, find it hard to earn a living and have to work both in the daytime and in the evening to make ends meet. And why? To keep our largest industry, the federal government, going.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) that Bill C-95 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the said bill should be redrafted by the counsels, advisers, experts, translators and drafters of the Department of Finance with a view to clarifying, elucidating, explicating, vulgarizing, clearing up, explaining and bringing within the understanding of all concerned the provisions of the said bill, so as to improve the terminology, the lexicology, the phraseology and the punctuation thereof in order to avoid the complications, entanglements, uncertainties and ambiguities which tend to render the Department of National Revenue odious, despicable, despised and held in contempt by the public.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the house will be happy to adopt that amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if this is an amendment or a dictionary. I am wondering also if that amendment is in order. I submit to Your Honour that it is urgent to decide whether it is or not.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. If the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), whose knowledge of the procedure is well known, is only wondering if the proposed amendment is in order, I claim that it is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might say that offhand the proposed amendment would appear to be anticipating the committee stage, where it is possible to suggest that certain changes be made by way of amendment to a bill before the committee; but if any hon. member has any comments to make before I make a formal ruling I would be pleased to hear him on the point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to encourage amendments at any stage I had hesitated to suggest that what is sought to be done by officials outside the house would be a more appropriate task for the members of the house who are elected for the purpose of legislating, and that the hon. gentleman would have an opportunity when we reached the committee stage to put forward "le meilleur framjais qu'il desire dans le bill", but that there did not appear to me to be any reason why we should depart from the normal rules and, on the second reading of the bill when we are only considering the principle, seek to anticipate all the details which by our rules are taken up in committee.

For that reason, sir, it did seem to me that the amendment was not in order but, of course, I bow to the Chair in any decision.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think that precisely on second reading, we discuss the principle of the bill. Well, it is actually a matter of principle for us to make sure that the legislation is drafted in such a way that our Canadian citizens can understand it instead of having to come up against its ambiguous points.
That is why we submit it is actually a matter of principle that the wording of this legislation be simplified so it can be understood. Therefore, I submit that this amendment is completely in order even if it is moved at this stage.
It is unfortunate this amendment might delay the passing of Bill C-95, but I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Secretary of State, that it will take less time to have it simplified now than to wait until we are in committee where there would have to be amendments on every section, one after the other and that, in order to find a more simple wording so that every Canadian citizen can understand the act.
The trouble now is that our legislation cannot be made out, particularly the Income Tax Act. So, we might as well revise it now, at this stage, rather than wait until it is discussed in committee because that would mean longer delays in the passing of the bill.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) is that its wording seems still more complicated than the wording of the bill in question.


Gilles Grégoire: So, you do not like complicated things? It was with a view to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The arguments which have been submitted on the point of order do not change the opinion which I had, prima facie, upon the point of order concerning the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde). The opinion I had at the time, and which I should like to confirm now, having heard argument, is that there are certain amendments which are proposed, but which would be proposed normally in the course of the debate before the committee. I should like to cite as authority in support of this proposition Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 390, which reads as follows:
Income Tax Act
An amendment to the second reading of a bill which covers alleged defects that can be remedied when the measure is considered in committee was ruled out by Speaker Glen on June 17, 1942, on the ground that it exceeded the limits prescribed by the rules and practice of both the United Kingdom and the Canadain House of Commons.
Then, I should like to cite May's sixteenth edition, page 531, as follows:
The amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee.
These two authorities confirm and substantiate the principle which I have brought to the attention of the house and which, in my opinion, show that the amendment is not in order and cannot be received at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, and I draw to your attention standing order 12, which reads:
-in explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order-
I should like to know the number of the standing order in question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member reads on the standing order, he will see that one has to state the standing order or authority. For the hon. member's information, I referred to two authorities.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on second reading I must first express my appreciation of, and my sympathy with, the amendment which has just been moved. I think every one of us who has had anything to do with the Income Tax Act would dearly love to see the language simplified to a much greater extent than has hitherto been possible. I am afraid that from time to time when that has been attempted, the result has been more confusion and less clarification. At least, it is a highly desirable objective, and I should like some day to see it achieved, although frankly I doubt if that can ever be done with a taxation statute as complicated as the one with which we are dealing at the moment.
Before I start on my brief resume of the criticisms we on this side of the house may have in respect of the income tax bill, and I propose to be brief, I should like to make something very plain to the house leader with whom I have had a preliminary discussion on this matter. There are various members on this side of the house who would like to take part in this debate and who have suggested to me that they would like to speak on second reading. I know that for various reasons it is desirable to proceed with second

Income Tax Act
reading as quickly as possible. I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that we have the understanding which has prevailed heretofore, that after second reading is achieved and when the first clause is before the committee, hon. members will be given a reasonable degree of latitude to discuss the bill rather than be confined strictly to the first clause. This is, after all, a technical bill and one might enforce the technical rule that one must confine his remarks to the first clause. If that were not the case, then I can assure the house leader that various other members will be speaking on second reading. Although I can give no assurance as to what may transpire, if we have that assurance, I think as far as the official opposition is concerned we would not wish to pursue second reading much farther than it is at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can say that I believe there has been no disposition at any stage on this side of the house to be narrowly technical about these matters. I think it has been the custom of the house, on the first clause of these important and complicated bills, to review some of the general considerations that perhaps have nothing to do directly with the principle of the bill and which hon. members want to put forward before they come to a consideration of the details of the bill. It is my understanding that neither the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) nor I would be at all disposed to raise technical points of order.


George Clyde Nowlan: Thank you; with that understanding, perhaps we can discuss for a few moments certain aspects of this measure, because before I sit down I intend to make a motion with regard to the second reading of this bill. The bill is a highly technical one and it can be considered in various ways. I propose to speak briefly because obviously if one were going to go into this matter at length, he could spend the full 40 minutes without even scratching the surface of what could be explored.
Looking at the bill in a casual way, which one must do on second reading, knowing that you are simply dealing in general with the principle, I would assume that there were perhaps four parts to it. The first, of course, would be certain technical amendments which are embodied in the bill and which I assume most members would be prepared to agree are of a technical nature, and which I am sure have been recommended by the officers of the department based on experience which has been derived in the administration of the act. I do not believe any time should be spent on a discussion of these technical amendments at this time. When we

are in the committee, of course, the technical amendments will naturally be debated and opinions expressed thereon.
Then, there is the second classification which, for lack of a better term, I can refer to as the section dealing with tax avoidance. I am not here speaking of tax evasion, but of tax avoidance. I am thinking particularly of the provision which relates to what I would call, for lack of a better term, dividend stripping, which the Minister of Finance has introduced into the bill. It gives the minister very wide powers. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed at the resolution stage and some of us expressed very forcibly our opinions with respect to it. I will say that the minister has attempted to meet some of the criticisms which were raised by widening the power of appeal which was set forth in the original resolution.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I say that I do not think the power of appeal goes far enough. In fact, I do not believe it is possible to draft a section to give a power of appeal where the minister exercises a discretion. Some of us are conversant with that statement which is common amongst lawyers and which came down to us over a century ago, "The devil himself knoweth not the mind of man". I am sure that no one questions the integrity of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland), for whom we all have great respect and, I am sure, a great personal liking. When it comes to exercising discretion, if the Minister of National Revenue exercises his discretion honestly, and I am sure he would, then there is no appeal. The Minister of Finance has tried to rectify that by widening the power of appeal. I suggest, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment before us does not accomplish that purpose.
One certainly does not have to take my word for this. All he has to do is read the debate which took place at the Canadian Bar Association meeting at Banff a few short weeks ago. The opinions expressed by the tax lawyers and those who are conversant with these problems are to the effect that this is not a proper thing to do under this act. I know how complicated this problem is. I have had some experience, Mr. Speaker, in trying to deal with it myself. I suggest, with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that we do have a royal commission now dealing with the whole problem of taxation. This problem has been in existence for many years, as the minister has said. Undoubtedly, there have been abuses and perhaps the abuses have been exaggerated. However, there have been abuses; but I would suggest it would have been better for the minister to have allowed this matter to

stand until the royal commission on taxation made its report. I believe there will have to be far reaching changes made in this act. I was somewhat familiar with some of these not too many months ago. Frankly, I do not believe this is the way in which to deal with this matter. In fact, I say it is a retrograde step.
At one time, as we know, the Income Tax Act was replete with ministerial discretions. You had sections being administered by a minister or perhaps by a deputy minister, and on one occasion decisions were rendered one way and then when there was a change in personnel these sections were administered in another way. In order to eliminate this problem this parliament, not under the government of which I was a member, some years ago abolished the ministerial discretions and established an income tax appeal board. Parliament said that hereafter the Minister of National Revenue is not to exercise any discretion. Personally, after having had some little experience in office, Mr. Speaker, I think that was a proper decision, a proper attitude to take. I think this is a retrograde provision, and I would strongly urge that parliament should not enact it at this time. That is the second area.
The third area deals with tax incentives. The hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) spoke the other day at some length, and with ability and understanding of the philosophical background of tax incentives. I think that if she were starting to write the book of Genesis over again, possibly she would be right in the pronouncements she made as to how the world should be recreated. Or perhaps what the hon. member said would apply if we were in France, where you have a centrally controlled economic situation under their economic boards, or if we were even in Great Britain where the board of trade can say to a new industry, "You will locate in X city or you will not get a certificate," or "If you locate in Y city you will get nothing."
But we have not got that authoritarian control in this country. So far as this party is concerned we do not want to see that degree of control exercised by any government, and I would be very much surprised if hon. gentlemen opposite would like to see control exercised to that extent. But that was the thesis of the hon. member for Northumberland in talking about the benefits of incentives.
I say philosophically if you have the authority and this control maybe-although it is debatable from the economic standpoint -those incentives would achieve the purposes to which the hon. lady referred; but frankly I do not think in the state of our free
Income Tax Act
economy, so-called, we can expect to get the same beneficial results flowing from the incentives to which she referred.
There is another and real criticism of the incentives, and it is that they are discriminatory. Here we are on the verge of what I see as the real crux of the problem in these income tax amendments with which parliament is confronted-the discrimination between the good boys and the bad boys, the discrimination in favour of those which do achieve what the term used in the act says is a degree of Canadian ownership or a degree of Canadian control.
As I said at the outset, I do not intend to debate any of these matters at the moment. This is not the time for that. I am speaking generally now, preparatory to the motion which I propose to make before I sit down; but this is one of the problems involved in this bill, this matter of, if you have a degree of Canadian control or Canadian ownership then you are going to get a tax incentive, a write-off, or various other things. If you have not got that degree you do not get these incentives; you get some, but not others.
The Minister of Finance on that long ago night, which I am sure he would like to forget, when he first brought in his budget told us this was a budget which was going to deal primarily with employment. Does it make any great difference to a man working on a lathe whether that lathe is being operated by a Canadian company which has a degree of Canadian ownership, or whether it does not? Will his dinner pail be all the more full because he is working for one company rather than another? One could go on analysing these things, but this is not the time for such analysis. I am simply pointing out that in the incentives you have this factor of Canadian ownership, and that has particular application when you come to the area of the withholding tax.
I think that is a matter not too well recognized by our friends in the press gallery. They report very accurately when we are absent from this house and report very fully on matters and discussions vis-a-vis parties and their seating arrangements, but I noticed the other afternoon, when the Minister of Finance spoke at some length on second reading, his speech did not attract the attention it deserved. But in my opinion, and in the opinion of hon. members with whom I am associated on this side of the house, these proposals with respect to the withholding tax have a potential, most serious threat to our economy and are matters which should be considered very fully indeed before the house gives second reading to this bill.

Income Tax Act
It is true that the Minister of Finance on moving second reading the other evening gave a long list of countries to which he said there were special considerations given. And the Minister of Finance was absolutely right. You will find the list of them, or some of them at any rate, given at page 3638 of Hansard for October 16; but what the Minister of Finance did not point out-and I am sure he did it unwittingly-was the fact that these statute measures to which he referred were involved in corporation acts and were matters of incorporation and not of taxation.
I have had several letters from some of the companies to which the minister referred, some of the companies incorporated in these various countries, and all of them have asked me to ask the minister if he can name one act in which there was a discrimination vis-avis taxation rather than in the creation of the incorporation statute itself. I would ask the minister when he replies to point out any statute dealing directly with taxation in which there is a discrimination between companies which are owned by one class of citizens and companies which are owned by another class of citizens.
We are here entering into a matter of discrimination between taxpayers. As I understand the law in my not too long association with it, and after all I did practise law off and on for quite a few years-I do not recall any discriminatory tax provisions where taxpayers of one category were treated beneficially and taxpayers of another category were treated prejudicially. I do not think I can recall one at the moment, and I would like to have the minister comment on this point.
Another matter about withholding taxes to which special attention should be drawn is that the statute as we have it before us is clearly anti-American. The United States is the only country which can be affected by this income tax act as we have it at the moment, because under every other taxation agreement-and the minister can correct me if I am wrong; I do not profess to have an authoritative and detailed knowledge of every other taxation agreement-every other tax treaty we have, whether it is with Denmark, Belgium, the United Kingdom, France or any of the other countries in the world with which we have treaties, there has to be notice of abrogation. There has to be a period laid down, usually before June of one year to be effective in December the following year. The only treaty which can be abrogated by either party unilaterally is the American treaty, and that treaty says that when either party makes a tax or changes a tax, then so far as that tax is concerned the treaty is abrogated.

Therefore I am saying this is deliberately-
I will not say deliberately, but automatically 

an anti-American process, and the United States is the only country affected like this.
I would like the minister to tell us whether he has given notice of abrogation to other countries, and to tell us which countries he has given notice of abrogation to, or whether he will simply be abrogating automatically by passing this bill.
The minister may say, and I have heard this suggested in discussions in the corridors, that it is true parliament may pass the act today, the Senate may approve it today, and the Governor General give it his approval, but it does not come into effect until 1965, or at least we will not impose the tax until 1965, and we pray, hope, believe, and trust that the Americans will not take notice of it until we impose the increased tax.
That may be so, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is rather an unusual thing. I am sure no one here would realize once we pass this bill, if it is so construed, that then in any case it can be deemed to be an abrogation of the American treaty. But if it is, what happens? You get automatically a 30 per cent withholding tax. That is the tax which applies in the United States on dividends paid-30 per cent, unless there is a treaty. Although we have heard a great deal of discussion-and with this I do not quarrel- about the fact that there are American controls here and we should do something about them, and I quite agree-although I do not think it has ever yet been proven that economic penetration means political domination; that is a matter for argument-we must not forget that there happens to be a few millions of dollars invested by Canadians in the United States. And if one looks at the figures and balances the populations, which I would like to do if we were in committee, we would get an amazing result following an analysis of that picture. But in any event, what is going to happen with Canadian corporations operating in the United States?
If the 30 per cent tax comes into effect, will they have to retain very able corporation lawyers to change their corporate structure, as they easily can do, and become parents, with their Canadian companies becoming subsidiaries? This is something which can happen, and the Canadian treasury then loses the benefit of the tax and we lose control of the corporations.
This and a dozen other company questions could be raised. I am simply suggesting these as illustrations of what could be done, and why I think this question is more involved and deserves more careful consideration than what has been given to it here previously, and why we should spend more time on it,

even in the committee of the whole. This is a matter of paramount importance. This bill should be given the most careful study, and members of the House of Commons should have the benefit of the advice of experts and get the reaction of corporations and people who are going to be affected by it.
We hear a great deal about expanding our markets and our economy. Well, Mr. Speaker, where is the greatest opportunity for expansion but in the United States of America? That is the great market right next door to us, with 185 or 190 millions of population, and I suggest that for Canadian subsidiaries operating down there, and companies which I could name but which I am not going to do at the moment, their future development will be adversely affected if this bill goes into effect.
I feel very strongly that we should give careful consideration to all these matters- more, say, than has been done heretofore. One could continue at length if we were in committee, as we shall be, if the house sees fit to move into committee. But I would hope that instead of sending this bill to the committee of the whole, as would normally follow, we would send it to the committee on banking and commerce where it could be studied further and become the subject of a report from that body.
Therefore, without taking further time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter relating thereto be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This, of course, is a motion in which confidence is involved and I should like to say a few words about it in replying to the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan).
To begin with, I should like to join with him in his remarks about the suggested amendment made by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde). I must say I sympathize with him and I agree that it would be much better if our taxing statutes were rewritten in language which the ordinary person could understand without the need for calling in tax lawyers.


George Clyde Nowlan: Or tax consultants.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was going to leave it at "tax lawyers". Perhaps that was a matter of personal preference. I think, though, that if the language is to be simplified, the whole act will have to be simplified and a lot of the sections in it will have to be eliminated in 28902-5-268
Income Tax Act
the interest of a simpler approach. 1 hope very much that the royal commission on taxation will be taking this matter into account in its deliberations.
I do not think I should go any further without drawing attention to the remarks which the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings made about the budget-a budget which he stated I would be very glad to forget. On the contrary, the proposals made in the budget are parts of the policy of this government which we want to see implemented just as quickly as we can.


An hon. Member:: The remaining parts?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, the parts that are incorporated in this bill. I do not wish to be unpleasant but I do not think the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings is in a position to hold himself out as an expert in the presentation of budgets.


George Clyde Nowlan: Much better than you are. At least, I did not bring in a rotten one.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No runs, no hits, no errors. Well, I do not want to get into controversy with the genial former minister of finance but I think, sometimes, that to do nothing is worse than anything.


George Clyde Nowlan: The policy of your party was to keep us from doing anything.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In moving that this bill be referred to a committee the hon. gentleman is in effect moving another motion of nonconfidence in the government.


George Clyde Nowlan: Not necessarily.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We shall accept it as such. At the same time, the hon. gentleman is seeking to ignore the fact that the budget itself was debated fully and at length. He is ignoring the fact that we had two votes on the budget -or three if the supply motion on July 2 is included in that category, as I think it should be. He is ignoring the detailed resolution on the income tax which was debated at length, and he is ignoring the fact that it is high time this bill was passed so that the businessmen of this country may know what the rules are going to be.
There have been 15 votes of confidence this session. I do not pose as an expert in these matters but, surely, that must be something of a record. I wonder how many more confidence motions we need to sustain the government's position.


Norman Platt Lambert: You are calling the supply motions.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am talking about this particular motion.
In my statement on October 6 on the second reading of this bill I said that most of

Income Tax Act
the amendments to the Income Tax Act fall into one or another of three categories. The hon. gentleman mentioned four, but one of those concerned certain very technical amendments, so I think we are both right. I do not think many hon. members would seriously question the desirability of plugging loopholes in the act. The proposed amendments which are designed for this purpose come into the first of the three categories I have mentioned. Points of detail have been raised and I will attempt to deal with these when we come to the particular clauses in the bill. But the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings mentioned one item in particular, an amendment designed to stop what is known in the trade as dividend stripping. I am delighted to hear that the hon. gentleman is a member of the trade and that he has some knowledge of this particular operation.


George Clyde Nowlan: We also employ consultants to give us taxation advice.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: You would do better if you employed accountants. Anyway, it is easy to say: Do nothing about blocking this particular loophole, because there is disagreement as to the best way of approaching this problem. It is easy to say in this particular case that it is unwise to place discretion in the hands of the Minister of National Revenue. It is very easy, as I said a minute ago, to do nothing. But this is an area where very large sums of money are escaping taxation. We do not know when the report of the royal commission on taxation will be ready. We do not know what the commission may suggest as a means of dealing with this problem. We do not know what the reaction of the Canadian Bar Association or others may be to the proposals which the royal commission may make. Therefore, it seems to me that in the meantime we have a duty to stop what has been going on in a wholesale fashion. Not only do I make no apology for this particular amendment; I say it should have been introduced long ago.
The second category of amendments deals with incentives designed to increase employment, especially in areas of slower growth. I was pleased that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings should have referred to the speech made the other day by my hon. friend from Northumberland (Miss Jewett). I thought hers was one of the best speeches I have listened to in this house. It was thoughtful. It showed that a great deal of research had been done. And it was not dogmatic in any way. My hon. friend pointed out on that occasion that there are a variety of ways of providing incentives of the kind now under

consideration. She indicated that many different ways had been tried in other countries and that no one pretends that any particular formula is perfect. She suggested, if I recall her words correctly, that it is better to try to do something and then, if abuses are found, or if it is found that the formula can be improved, to correct the situation than it is to wait indefinitely in the hope that somehow or other somebody will come along with a perfect formula.
I was surprised that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings should suggest or imply that he was not in favour of the kind of incentives which can influence the location of new businesses and factories in areas of slower growth. Because one of the things we hope to accomplish by these amendments is to encourage industry to locate in the part of Canada which the hon. member represents and which everyone in the house knows has lagged behind the rest of Canada in economic growth and development.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member was speaking of days when he was a tax consultant in Toronto. Nova Scotia is not now lagging behind; it is leading the rest of the country.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If the hon. member is serious, I wish he would go to Sydney and Cape Breton and make that statement.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have made it. I doubt very much whether the Minister of Finance would dare go to Sydney, in view of what he said about expelling people from the maritimes so they could get jobs elsewhere.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, let us come back to earth. I do not believe that remark was very helpful. I have been to Nova Scotia many times to answer that kind of charge, usually made, if I remember correctly, by the hon. gentleman's seatmate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might be allowed at this point to mention to the minister that at this stage of the debate he cannot attempt to reply in general to the comments and speeches made so far. My understanding is that at this point he is referring to the specific amendment proposed by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), and that is all. If he were making a general reply to contributions to the debate he would close the debate, and I would have had to warn the house that he was closing the debate. I assume other speakers would want to get to their feet, so I suggest that his comments be limited to the advisability or otherwise of adopting the proposition made to the house by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful for your advice.
I should like to refer if I may, because it has a bearing on this motion, to the third category of amendments which deal with the withholding taxes, because it seems to me that they have a direct relationship to the proposal to refer this matter to the banking and commerce committee. I am fully aware that these proposals have been criticized by some people in business and financial circles, but I might say that an increasing number of thoughtful Canadian businessmen have been telling me lately that they think that what the government is doing or trying to do in this respect is correct.


Douglas Mason Fisher: These are the thoughtful ones.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: They are the thoughtful ones. I think it is understandable that the owners of some foreign firms with subsidiaries in Canada do not like to be asked to take in junior partners, because the interests of those partners would have to be taken into account when company policy was being debated and decisions arrived at.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think we are getting ourselves into considerable difficulty at this point, if the minister continues to reply to arguments visa-vis the general nature of the amendments proposed by this bill. I submit to Your Honour that the minister should only reply to the advisability of the amendment to refer the contents of this bill to a committee. The minister will then have full opportunity-


Mr. Macdonald:: Closure.


Norman Platt Lambert: I do not think the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) is in any position to comment. The minister has full opportunity to reply to all hon. members, but it is a rule of the house that when he does so he closes the debate. If the minister continues his reply to the hon. member for Digby-An-napolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) on the nature of the amendment, then other hon. members should be able to rise again, and the house will be getting into the position that members will be able to speak twice when Your Honour is in the chair. This is not contemplated by the rules.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A great lecture.


Mr. Monieilh:: You can stand one.


Norman Platt Lambert: I suggest that we are getting into a difficult position. I am interested in what the minister has to say, but not at this stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Walter Lockhart Gordon: The reason I was referring to some of these matters in a little more detail than perhaps I should, Mr. Speaker, was because the motion to transfer this bill to the committee on banking and commerce would obviously mean delay in getting ahead with the legislation. The bill contains a number of matters which are vital, integral parts of the broad economic program of this government, and in our opinion on this side of the house the sooner it is dealt with the better. I fully appreciate there are those who would like to see the bill transferred to committee in the hope that there it might be disembowelled, disembodied, dismembered, and destroyed or at least delayed. We however, think that this would be contrary to the best interests of the country.
I hope I am in order, Mr. Speaker, when I say that there are many hon. members of this house who believe that changes are needed and must be made if Canadians are to take full advantage of the opportunities which are ours. Many of us feel we should get on with this bill as quickly as possible, that there is nothing to be gained by transferring it to a committee, in the hope that it may be delayed for some considerable time. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all hon. members of the house of all parties to oppose this motion, and having done so I would ask them to let us get on with the bill and get it through.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the language used by the minister a moment ago may I ask him a question. Does he think that if the bill is referred to a committee for analysis and study this will result in the disembodiment and destruction of the bill?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You said it, not he.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to enter into the debate between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) as to whether a bad budget is better than no budget at all. Personally I think they are both bad. With regard to the motion that the contents, the subject matter of the bill, be referred to the committee on banking and commerce, first of all I am forced to wonder whether this is actually something appropriate for consideration by the banking and commerce committee. It seems to me to be going

Income Tax Act
far beyond the usual scope of that committee, of which I have been a member on and off for a decade.
I realize we already have in existence a body studying the taxation structure of Canada, the royal commission on taxation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am forced to the conclusion that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings must feel that he and his colleagues are incapable of producing relevant amendments to deal with their objections to the bill when it does come before the committee of the whole, which may well be the case. But I doubt whether their inability in this regard will be cured by having it appear before the standing committee. I also feel there is a great deal of validity in what the minister has said, namely that the uncertainty throughout the country with regard to this bill should be cleared up as soon as possible. After all, I recall a previous government which was extremely reluctant to allow any discussion at all, in committee or anywhere else, of one of their rather dubious exercises in extra taxation, namely the surcharges.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief reference to the amendment now before the house. We in the Social Credit party have stated time and time again-in fact it has been our conviction for many years-that a complete revision of our whole tax structure is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve our objectives. We are not convinced that piecemeal legislation or a piecemeal approach to the problem is satisfactory by any means. As I have stated, our position is that a complete revision is essential. As has been pointed out, there is already a body studying this matter in its totality and we are in hopes that when the report is brought down and the recommendations are made many of these matters will be cleared up and many of the inadequacies will be remedied.
With regard to referring the subject matter of the bill to the committee on banking and commerce, we feel that this would not be in the best interests of the country because of the uncertainty that is continuing to plague our national economy. Surely we must face reality in some of these matters. We cannot keep our economy unbalanced for months and months on end. There must come a time when people will at least know where we stand and what the proposals are. I think that the bill should be proceeded with, without referring the subject matter to the committee on banking and commerce.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), who

wants to refer the measure to the banking and commerce committee, will not be surprised, I hope, to see that I do not agree with him.
A while ago, he did not stand up to express his opinion; he hesitated to do so and he chose not to commit himself. So, if we had appealed against the Speaker's ruling, he would not have supported us. When he saw that we were bowing to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, he stood up and commended us for our amendment, saying that it made sense, that the forms were indeed too complicated and could be simplified.
Mr. Speaker, we bowed to your ruling to discuss the measure clause by clause, and this is what we intend to do.
I want to thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who recognized that the forms are complicated, from the standpoint of terminology, and that they should be simplified.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for	
the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.	
The house divided	on the amendment (Mr. Nowlan) which was	negatived on the following division:	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Aiken	Lambert
Alkenbrack	Loney
Baldwin	MacEwan
Bell	Maclnnis
Bigg	MacLean (Queens)
Cantelon	Macquarrie
Cardiff	MacRae
Casselman, Mrs.	McBain
Chatterton	McCutcheon
Churchill	Madill
Clancy	Mandziuk
Coates	Martineau
Cooper	Millar
Danforth	Monteith
Diefenbaker	Moore
Dinsdale	Muir (Cape Breton
Enns	North and Victoria)
Fane	Muir (Lisgar)
Fleming	Nasserden
(Okanagan-Revelstoke) Nesbitt	
Forbes	Nielsen
Grafftey	Noble
Gundlock	Nowlan
Hales	Nugent
Hamilton	Pascoe
Harkness	Paul
Horner (Acadia)	Pigeon
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Pugh
Homer (The Battlefords)Rheaume	
Howe (Wellington-	Simpson
Huron)	Skoreyko
Irvine	Smallwood
Jorgenson	Smith
Kennedy	Southam
Kindt	Starr
Korchinski	Stefanson
Lamb	Stenson

Income Tax Act
Valade	Willoughby
Watson (Assiniboia)	Winkler
Webb Weichel	W oolliams-78.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Addison	Howard
Armstrong	Howe (Hamilton South)
Badanai	Jewett, Miss
Basford	Klein
Batten	Knowles
Beaule	Laing
Bechard	LaMarsh, Miss
Beer	Lamontagne
Belanger	Lamoureux
Benidickson	Langlois
Benson	Laniel
Berger	Laprise
Blouin	Latulippe
Boutin	Laverdiere
Cameron (High Park)	Leduc
Cameron (Nanaimo-	Lessard (Lake St. John)
Cowichan-The Islands)	Loiselle
Cantin	Macaluso
Cardin	Macdonald
Caron	MacEachen
Carter	MacNaught
Cashin	Mcllraith
Chapdelaine	McMillan
Chevrier	McNulty
Choquette	McWilliam
Chretien	Matheson
Cote (Chicoutimi)	Matte
Cote (Longueuil)	Mitchell
Cowan	Mullally
Crossman	Munro
Cyr	Nicholson
Davis	O'Keefe
Deachman	Olson
Denis	Otto
Deschatelets	Ouellet
Dionne	Patterson
Douglas	Pearson
Drouin	Pennell
Dupuis	Peters
Emard	Pickersgill
Ethier	Pilon
Eudes	Plourde
Favreau	Prittie
Fisher	Richard
Forest	Rideout
Forgie	Rinfret
Foy	Robichaud
Frenette	Rock
Garland	Rouleau
Gauthier	Roxburgh
Gelber	Ryan
Gordon	Sauve
Granger	Teillet
Greene	Temple
Gregoire	Thompson
Guay	Tremblay
Habel	Tucker
Hahn	Wahn
Haidasz	Walker
Harley	Watson (Chateauguay-
Hays	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Hellyer	Webster
Herridge	Whelan
Honey	Winch-126.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I was paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I was paired with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Shall the motion carry?


Norman Platt Lambert: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the agreements between the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) and the spokesmen of the opposition parties, at the committee stage, and considering the nature of this bill, we can express our views on the whole of Bill C-95, without discussing it clause by clause.
Personally, I am of the opinion that this is an extremely important measure at the present time.
We heard the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) making all sorts of reserves concerning the bill under study, claiming that we should be very cautious, that the directors of foreign businesses having capital in Canadian industry should not be offended.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) was quite right when he stated, the other day, that the time for speeches is over, that action is what is now required. To my mind, Bill C-95 clearly establishes that the present government intends to act in a positive way, and to find some concrete remedies.
We all know that today, this country's-economy is impaired by the fact that 60 per cent of the Canadian manufacturing industry are controlled by non-resident corporations. We must hand back to Canadians the ownership and control of their own economy.
Bill C-95 aims to put back that control of industries into the hands of Canadian citizens, by altering the rates of the withholding tax on dividends of non-resident corporations; the rate would be reduced from 15 to 10 per cent for corporations which will allow Canadians to buy their shares and to sit on their boards of directors.
In order to reach our economic aim, it is essential that Canadians have a voice on the boards of directors within Canadian industry. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for taking concrete steps to promote this repatriation of Canadian interests into the hands of Canadians.

Income Tax Act
As for those executives who do not want to have Canadians on their boards, well, they will have to pay a higher rate on dividends payable by a non-resident person, as the rate will be increased from 15 to 20 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that this bill is extremely important and represents a turning point in the history of Canada as far as taxation is concerned.
It was necessary to act quickly, and I congratulate the government for taking a bold stand in order to encourage industrialists who have invested in Canada to let Canadians have a say on their boards, so that they can have the share which must be theirs in foreign trade.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that the main economic problem now facing Canada is our unfavourable trade balance with the United States. I feel we must tackle the problem energetically, as we are doing at present.
We agree that our aim will not be easily achieved, but we feel that those industrialists will understand the situation if we clearly explain our intentions to them. As a result, in a more or less distant future, 25 per cent of the shareholders and directors of the companies which develop our natural resources will be Canadians.
I submit that this bill will be most useful in that connection and that we will have to adopt similar legislation to increase our trade with the United States so as to remove, as it were, our present trade deficit.
We will then no longer have to stand the unending pressures of American industrialists on our Canadian economy.
Mr. Chairman, the second point I wish to discuss is the review of our whole taxation structures. I gather that the royal commission on taxation is still proceeding with its work, but we all earnestly hope that it will soon submit its report to the house, so that we may be able to overhaul our taxation system. Actually, it is so complicated that it is unfair to salaried workers or owners of small businesses who have no experts at their disposal to take advantage of all the benefits which they could claim under certain provisions of the statute.
I feel that the Minister of Finance is making a concrete gesture in introducing Bill No. C-95.
In fact, he is endeavouring to eliminate certain loopholes that manufacturers or financiers could find in the legislation.
Let us consider, for example, the question of lease-purchase option agreements, where, of course the treasury could be deprived of huge amounts. Surely, we did not have to wait for royal commissions' reports or exten-

sive studies to eliminate such loopholes. In fact, I think that it was up to the minister to act promptly, and he has done so by introducing Bill No. C-95.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the aims of the provisions contained in Bill No. C-95 are excellent. Let us take, for example, the concealment of dividends which is commonly known as "dividend stripping".
Those people have tried everything and even though it may be at times distasteful to give too much discretion to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland), I think that we should consider first and above all the nation's interest and endeavour to prevent people from cheating the Department of National Revenue, so that all classes of society will pay the government what the government is entitled to. We have to do it, even though certain methods might be distasteful at times; but if they prove inefficient, the government has to step in once more and to introduce new legislation, so as to do justice to every taxpayer.
Personally, I represent a riding where the unemployment situation is extremely serious, and it is with infinite pleasure that I welcomed the announcement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) with regard to designated areas, in which the county of St. Maurice-Lafleche has been included.
A point of great account, which it is extremely important to recall in the house, is that out of 66 designated areas recognized by the Department of Labour, 30 are located in the province of Quebec, which means that Quebec is the province which suffers most from unemployment in this country. It also proves that the Liberal government realized that the economic problem in the province of Quebec had to be solved. We have here some positive action, which the members from the province of Quebec should bring to the attention of the house.
It could, perhaps, be said that the legislation is discriminatory. The point has already been raised, and much fuss has been made of the case of Brantford. But none the less, it is an extremely important legislation and a most practical one, which tends to solve the unemployment problem and also the problem of Quebec's economy, where all industrial strength is practically centralized in the Montreal area, the other parts of the province having to bear the consequences of such a situation.
Thanks to this new legislation, several areas in the province of Quebec may, from now on, offer some advantage to industry, whereas they were unable to do so in the past.

Let us take, for instance, the benefits offered to the industrialists by the Minister of Industry and by the Minister of Finance, that is a tax abatement for a three year period and the possibility of a deduction for machinery and buildings over a five year period.
I think those measures ought to prompt industries to set up in the areas where unfortunately the economic situation is not favourable.
In the riding which I represent, we experienced a tremendous economic development in the years 1925-30 because at that time, we had electric power which was the key to our economy; but since the nationalization of electric power, that power can be found everywhere in the province of Quebec, and our region lost the advantages it had before.
Because of this new legislation, we hope that the industries will come and set up in our region where economic growth is very slow. I think that this legislation is not discriminatory, that it is in order and serves the interests of the nation. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett), this legislation was implemented in other countries and it gave satisfactory results.
I therefore think it is by duty to point out that this legislation is intended to decentralize industry and promote the most severely affected regions.
As regards the methods used for the designation of those places, they may come under criticism. But if we take a map and study the economic divisions where development is too slow, we find that, actually, the places which suffer the most economically in Canada will benefit from those advantages. Therefore, people should not complain about the procedure followed.
Some complaints have been heard that the municipalities and the provinces have not been consulted. In fact, it might be advisable to examine the matter more carefully in this respect. Obviously, the machinery is perhaps not yet sufficiently to the point; therefore, it is important to name a standing committee on federal-provincial relations, which would prevent interference in a field where there may be competition between the provinces and the federal government.
However, even if such a problem has been raised, this is no reason to stop the whole legislation. On the contrary, we should act. If there are abuses they should be remedied but we should not refrain from taking action because a constitutional problem may arise.
Everyone should take his own responsibilities and, in this, the government is acting quite properly.
Income Tax Act


Mr. Nasserden:: On a point of order, I wonder if the hon. member would pay more attention to the item under consideration. I think he has wandered very far from the bill we are considering at the moment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have made a speech concerning Bill C-95, and many other members have raised similar points, so that I feel it is in order for me to elaborate somewhat upon certain points.
In concluding, I would like to say a few words on a question which affects me, and which is of great concern in the province of Quebec. We are unfortunately beset, at the present time, with a rather prickly fiscal problem, and it is that of receipts for charitable donations.
This very afternoon I received a petition bearing 600 signatures asking me to suggest to the Minister of Finance that he should consider that problem, which has been with us, in the province of Quebec, for many years-


The Deputy Chairman:: I should like to deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rosthern. Members of the committee will recognize that we are dealing with the first clause of this bill. I think it is generally agreed that debate at this point is a little wider than would normally be allowed. However, I would recommend that the hon. member who now has the floor should stay as closely as he can to the terms of the bill, though I recognize there is some agreement as far as general debate is concerned.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Even if I am not quite in order, I had been recognized before the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) submitted his amendment. I was good enough to yield the floor to him, and that is why I feel I should now be allowed to expound, during a few minutes, an opinion which might go somewhat beyond the clause under consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I have only one suggestion for the Minister of Finance.
I should like to come back to the excellent suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) concerning the possibility of eliminating receipts for charitable donations and reducing from 17 to 14 or 15 per cent the tax levied at the present time on the first bracket of taxable income. Another suggestion would be to raise the tax basis in such a way that the national revenue would not lose anything and taxpayers would not have to keep on fighting with the officers

Income Tax Act
oi the Department of National Revenue, thereby doing away with a practice which could be called a premium on charity.
If we are generous, we will get our reward at the end of our life on earth.
I am of the opinion that the Minister of Finance should examine those suggestions with care, for I am sure there are ways to improve the situation. Maybe there have been excesses, but the situation must be corrected. I submit that the Minister of Finance will succeed in finding a solution because, as I said, words are no longer enough, it is time to act.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-95.
This bill includes many things, but we would have liked it to bring forward some relief to the Canadian people. Unfortunately, taxpayers will not be helped by it. It can be noted that tax exemptions are very few. In fact, there are only a few changes, a few amendments to the various clauses which, on the whole, merely move things from one place to another.
Mr. Chairman, our society is disintegrating and we are too blind to realize it. We can judge of the soundness of society only by the wealth we have gathered. As long as we do not see sticks and clubs, we will remain very quiet, like the Bourbons of Spain a few centuries ago.
I am convinced that Bill C-95 could be improved.
Aware of our duties and obligations toward society, we claim a $3,000 income tax exemption for bachelors. In my opinion, that should be included in the bill. Married taxpayers should enjoy a $5,000 exemption, plus a $1,000 exemption for each child. Unfortunately, this is not in the bill.
Also, we claim a tax deduction on all workmen's tools used by their owners to earn their living. We should also have liked students to benefit from a tax exemption on their tuition fees. A family head should be allowed to deduct from his income tax the tuition fees for his children aged 16 and over. Unfortunately, there is no mention of those exemptions in the bill.
The government does not know where to get the money. That is why it is seeking means to replenish the treasury. I know that the government needs money and that it must find it somewhere. An easy solution would be to reduce the interest rates and to use the facilities of the Bank of Canada to finance public works. That would be two ways for the government to secure the necessary funds without cost. We could use that institution to achieve that end if we wanted to, but unfortunately it is impossible under

the present financial system. It is felt that the Bank of Canada should not be put at the disposal of the Canadian people, but where is the money going to come from?
But I would ask the Minister of Finance to look for money where he can find it.
If you refuse to do so, if you have to steal money from the workers in order to give it to the needy, at least be wise enough to take it from those who benefit most from society. At least, leave what is necessary to those who need it to live decently.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to quote a few statistics in support of my remarks.
On page 1039 of the Canada Year Book for
1962,	we find that individuals pay the same amount in taxes as companies and their shareholders. Why must they always be granted exemptions that enable them to pile up profits and capital at the expense of other people who are always in debt and have no security?
It was announced that the period between August 1962 and August 1963 would be a year of austerity for all Canada, and special personal income taxes were levied. During the period between August 1962 and August
1963,	the market value of the shares of 740 companies or trusts increased from $44,740,769,022 to $57,351,895,062, that is by almost $13 billion. For whom were the austerity measures meant? And companies are always complaining that their profits are too low, that they fear the future and that they need tax relief in order to survive. What about the private individual?
Do you know that, in 1962, the Canadian taxpayer paid $700 out of his income solely for the administration of the federal government, that is almost 44 per cent of the average salary?
Do you know that interest charges take between 16 and 17 cents out of each tax dollar, and they keep increasing. It is not surprising that Khrushchev claims that communism will one day overcome capitalism.
Do you know that federal and provincial taxes have increased by 3,000 per cent during the last 50 years?
It is unthinkable that a country as highly industrialized as ours, with a large and hardworking labour force with a sufficient number of technicians, experts and engineers, should find itself at the mercy of such an extent that it is virtually enslaved by financial and economical means.
We have no one to blame but ourselves, and our irresponsible governments. Our industries must increase their output, widen their fields of production in order to be in a position to employ all the available manpower and raise our standard of living.

Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]


Herman Maxwell Batten: 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.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.


APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think there was an understanding that I could have leave to revert to motions to make a motion to establish the membership of the committee on procedures and organization. If that is agreeable I would move the motion now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it
agreed that the house shall revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Teillet):
That the special committee on procedures and organization of the House of Commons appointed October 23, 1963, be composed of Mr. Speaker and
Business of the House Messrs. Aiken, Chapdelaine, Choquette, Gregoire, Jewett (Miss), Knowles, Lambert, Lamoureux, Mac-Eachen, Macquarrie, Martineau, Pickersgill, Walker, Woolliams.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Clyde Nowlan: I presume the order of business for tomorrow is that outlined by the house leader yesterday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. Perhaps I should make provision for the contingency tomorrow evening. If, as I hope will be the case, we have disposed of the bill in committee by five o'clock we will take the estimates of northern affairs tomorrow evening. If, however, we go on as far as eight o'clock before we get into committee of supply, we would take the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and try to finish them. Of course, if we do not finish until 10.30 we will not be able to take the estimates of either department.


George Clyde Nowlan: And you will go on with the bill on Friday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, of course. If perchance this bill is not disposed of tomorrow we will go on with it on Friday.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
28902-5-269
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 31, 1963