1963-08-02

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last night, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, I said there was neither a written nor an oral opinion given on the surcharge order. In so far as the written opinion is concerned, there can be no doubt; I searched and found none.
Regarding the oral opinion, in reviewing the matter when I returned to my office last evening I recollected having been advised that the matter had been discussed orally at the time.
I am sorry if I unwittingly misled the house. At all events, I suggest that for the purpose of the present bill the question of whether or not there was an oral opinion, not to mention a written opinion, given to the former government is irrelevant. In my capacity as Minister of Justice and legal adviser to the crown under the Department of Justice Act, it is my opinion that the surcharge order was not validly made, and I have so advised the government. In any case, should there be only a doubt regarding this important matter it is in the public interest that such doubt be removed, and that is what the bill intends to do.



DRUGS AND PESTICIDES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton) presented the first report of the special committee on food and drugs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make which I think should be of interest to the house. The government has decided to proceed with the full twinning of the locks of the Welland canal, construction to commence this winter.
This project is considered essential to eliminate congestion which, traffic estimates indicate, would become acute by 1966 if the present single lock system were continued, and to provide for traffic growth. During the 1961 navigation season of 260 days, an average of four vessels were waiting on each of 162 days. This situation worsened in 1962, when on each of 194 days an average of seven vessels were waiting for transit. The same trend has continued to date in the 1963 season.
The locks to be twinned are Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8. With this expansion it is estimated that the physical capacity of the canal will be increased by 60 per cent.
It is estimated that the twinning project will cost $180 million. A bill will be introduced in this house to amend section 13 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, increasing the authority's borrowing power to provide the means for securing the funds.
The substantial expenditures involved in the twinning project make it necessary to give serious consideration to the matter of removing the suspension of tolls which became effective July 18, 1962.
The time schedule for completing the twinning construction and associated works involves a period of slightly less than five years. This time schedule is designed to ensure maximum safety during construction, avoidance of excessive costs and minimum interruption of navigation and vehicular traffic. It is estimated that the construction program over four full years, including five winters, will require a labour force ranging from 4,000 to 6,000 men, with reasonably uniform year round employment. In preparation for this development the seaway authority proceeded in 1960 with the engineering plans necessary, and in 1962 expropriated 320 acres of land required for twinning. The construction program for twinning will be commenced this year on work essential to the whole project, which at the same time will increase the usefulness of existing facilities.
The major construction work of the new locks, 1, 2, 3 and 7, is planned to commence in the fall of 1964, with scheduled completion in 1968. At that time construction of the twin lock No. 8 at Port Colborne, not regarded as a part of the major program, will be undertaken.
With the twinning of the Welland canal, consideration will have to be given to the
2942	HOUSE OF
Twinning of Welland Locks over-all capacity of the seaway system. In this connection the government intends to further implement the seaway project by the construction of a lock at Cornwall, Ontario, as soon as studies indicate that it is warranted.
With a further lock in the area of Point Rockway in the United States as a counterpart of Iroquois lock, the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river would then be twinned. When such construction is completed there will then be, in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river, one canal entirely in Canada and another in the United States.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the Minister of Transport is entirely in keeping with the views and course of action taken by the previous government. Therefore we give it complete support. As a matter of fact the announcement respecting the removal of the tolls was made following consideration by the government in, I think it was, May of 1962-


Lionel Chevrier: To suspend the tolls, not to remove them.


John George Diefenbaker: -and the general plan for the twinning was being fully investigated and had the entire support of the former government. It is a step that is very necessary. Because of the fact that this government chose to adopt the views that were held by the former government, and indeed all Canadians, in this regard, this is one time when there is unanimity.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the project presented by the Minister of Transport today does reveal the weakness of some of the planning and projections we have had in Canada. It is quite apparent, and I think it should be noted, that when the tolls were removed from the Welland canal it was at a most fortuitous time, in an election campaign. However, the issue to which the minister has not referred but which is very much related to this question is that the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the funds coming to it have come nowhere near living up to the projections. Neither has the traffic growth; yet the minister today presents us with an argument, which I accept, that twinning is necessary.
It certainly seems to me that in the old projection and preparation of the very large St. Lawrence seaway authority and the tremendous spending that went on there was some kind of a gap or failure in responsibility on the part of the people who initiated and developed the project. We believe it would be a poor idea to reintroduce tolls on the section


that is going to be twinned. We believe it is: time for Canada and the United States to look at their losses on the St. Lawrence seaway and their future expenditures and determine whether it might not be possible to dispense completely with the idea that in regard to-these canals and this twinning any attempt should be made to put it on a paying basis. Instead it should be recognized that these are-just basic services that are being supplied by the government.
We are delighted to hear of the possibility of improvements at Cornwall. I only suggest to the minister that there are some indications: that we could stand more marked improvements, if we are looking at the seaway system, as a whole, on the Canadian canal at Sault Ste. Marie. I think the most attractive part: of this project in some ways will be the work: generation that will be involved in it. In this sense, if that has been part of the government's thinking, it seems to me this is the kind of social capital project in a way, if you wish, the government should be undertaking: in order to provide work.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
A«J\OUjNCE1V1ISJNT Ut INTEGRATED CUSTOMS-IMMIGRATION PRIMARY INSPECTION
Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in my name and in the name of the Minister of National Revenue I wish to inform the house that a plan to integrate the customs-immigration primary inspection at Canadian border ports: of entry has been approved by cabinet following an extensive study undertaken in 1962 by a committee of senior government officials.
Primary inspection is the initial oral examination by an officer of a person seeking to come into Canada, to determine his admissibility and classification for immigration purposes, and whether he has merchandise which must be formally entered at customs. In most ports of entry at the present time this examination is made independently, in two stages, by an immigration officer and by a customs officer.
Following a series of meetings the members of the committee came to the conclusion that in order to attain greater efficiency and economy it was necessary to consider a fully integrated system of primary inspection under the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue. Such a system has been recommended by the Glassco commission. In order to achieve the proposed objective a working group consisting of representatives of both departments, the civil service commission and

*the treasury board will put the integrated system into effect following an operational study at each port of entry involved. These studies are expected to be completed before the end of the fiscal year 1963-64.
The integrated system of primary inspection may involve the transfer of approximately 200 positions from immigration to [DOT]customs. It is expected that about 100 positions will in time-and I repeat "in time"- become surplus to requirements. I wish to make it clear that no immigration or customs officer now employed is to be deprived of his job. Immigration officers who are transferred to customs will benefit from two channels of promotion, by being made eligible to apply for promotion in the customs and immigration services.
Greater efficiency resulting from an integrated customs-immigration primary inspection will be reflected in two ways; (1) quicker examination of returning Canadians and visitors entering Canada from the United States; (ii) reduction in cost.
As the examinations will be achieved with less staff, the ultimate saving is estimated at $500,000 annually.
The main ocean ports and international airports of entry will not be affected.
Staff associations have been informed of the details of the implementation of the proposed integration plan.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister give consideration to bringing before the house before the adjournment the legislation to which reference was made yesterday, implementing several of the recommendations of the Norris commission? I ask this because the information I have, if I might be allowed to make this statement at this time, is that it is not a very difficult matter to draft this legislation.
From what was said a few moments ago by the Minister of Justice it is apparent that we are not going to adjourn today. That being so, would the Prime Minister not think that we should go ahead now rather than leaving the matter up in the air? There is unanimity of support for action to be taken; all parties in the house are agreed. Otherwise there may very well be an invitation to further lawlessness and disorder and a tie-up of shipping which could certainly be obviated and avoided by action now.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: As was pointed out yesterday, action could be taken by enabling legislation, and it could be taken quickly; but that would involve giving the government power by order in council, and I am sure the right hon. gentleman would not approve of this. To have the legislation prepared in detail would require a great many days of hard work by the draftsmen, and it was not possible to begin preparation of the legislation until it was clear this was the best way to proceed.
I would point out, as was pointed out yesterday by the Minister of Labour, that it was only two days ago that the labour unions affected all agreed, except the S.I.U., to a trusteeship. It would be impossible in the circumstances to have this difficult and complicated legislation prepared within a matter of weeks. It may require a strict examination of the constitutionality of the legislation, and it might mean getting in touch with the provincial governments concerned in case they have some views to express on that point. Therefore it would not be practical to take the course of action recommended by the right hon. gentleman unless the house intends to continue in session for two or three weeks longer.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I ask the
Prime Minister if he would not consider the request made by the Leader of the Opposition in view of the interview which Mr. Staples, president of the national maritime union, gave this morning in which he said that if action is not taken now a blockade will be carried out by that union; that he is not prepared to wait three months for action, but wants action now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I listened to the report in question, and I hope it is far too pessimistic in respect of the violence which it was indicated might take place. I hope very much that the indication that this legislation is being prepared and will be made effective will hold the situation during the summer. Moreover, the Minister of Labour has said that if the situation deteriorates and violence does take place the house will be called together at once. The hon. gentleman knows, because he has had some experience with legislation of this type, that it cannot be drafted within a few days.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May we have some assurance from the Prime Minister that when legislation is drafted it will provide for a government trusteeship rather than the substitute action to which the Minister of Labour made some reference yesterday?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I will ask the Minister of Labour to deal with that point.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: The intention of the government to establish this trusteeship was indicated yesterday, and the legislation envisaged will develop provisions for a government trusteeship.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Has
the Minister of Labour or any of his officials had any discussions with any lawyers representing Mr. Banks in the last two days?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I certainly have had no discussions with any person representing Mr. Banks in the last few days, nor do I believe have any officials of the department.


Michael Starr: Can the Minister of Labour enlarge upon the constitutional difficulties other than those mentioned by the Prime Minister in his statement yesterday?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: The
Prime Minister had said he hopes the statement made by Mr. Staples was too pessimistic, but this morning's Globe and Mail reports another dynamiting in Toledo in connection with the expected arrival there of the Upper Lakes ship James North. If there is going to be more violence of this sort I wonder whether we can expect quick action in the form of legislation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Action will be taken as
quickly as possible. I would hope, as I have said, that the certainty that action will be taken will ease the situation at once on the great lakes.


Michael Starr: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the recommendation by Mr. Justice Norris regarding law enforcement, to be found on page 312 of his report, would the Minister of Justice contact the attorneys general of all the provinces concerned with respect to this and extend some co-operation to ensure the preservation of law and order, since there has been some difficulty in the past in this direction?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, through the officers of my department I have already been in touch with the attorneys general of both provinces.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would answer my question and outline the constitutional problems that are involved in this legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to reply to the hon. member for Ontario and tell him that the advice I have received from the Minister of Justice and his officials is that there are important constitutional


questions involved with respect to certain of the activities of the trusteeship as they affect certain phases of the activities of the unions that would be involved. In certain cases a careful study would have to be made to determine the relationship of certain union activities to the responsibility of the federal government for navigation and shipping.
I might add in elaboration of this point that part of the reason for the time needed to prepare this legislation is that a very careful study will have to be made of all the collective agreements and constitutions of these unions and their details in order to ensure that the trustees will have effective authority at the appropriate time. This careful study has already begun, and it will take some days before any drafting can begin.



POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the government investigated the possibility of a conflict of interest ensuing from the fact that Mr. Robinette, counsel appointed to advise the government on charges arising out of the Norris report, has himself acted for or is the partner of Mr. J. W. Brooke, counsel for Reoch Shipping, who are involved with Mr. Banks in infractions of the law criticized by Mr. Justice Norris which might very well be the subject matter of criminal charges?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for sending notice of this question to the Minister of Labour, which he has handed to me. I have looked into the matter, without of course communicating with Mr. Robinette, and I find first that Mr. Robinette is counsel for a firm in the city of Toronto. Therefore it would not appear, I am advised, that Mr. Brooke is a partner of his.
I should like also to remind the house that what Mr. Robinette and Mr. Martineau are being asked for are legal opinions, not judicial findings. If as a result of the opinions by Mr. Robinette and Mr. Martineau prosecution follows, it will be the court that will decide on this issue of guilt or innocence and not Mr. Robinette and Mr. Martineau. However, in view of the question which the hon. gentleman has put, and which is of some importance, I intend to communicate with Mr. Robinette just as quickly as I can.


David Orlikow: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that Mr. Robinette and Mr. Brooke are listed in the

most recent Toronto telephone directory as having the same address and the same telephone number?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware of that, but it is quite possible. However, it does not derogate from the fact that one is counsel for a firm whereas the other is a partner therein.



B.C. FISHERMEN'S STRIKE    INQUIRY AS TO ARBITRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him for what I hope will be a final progress report on the negotiations with the British Columbia fishing industry.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the house yesterday, negotiations resumed on Wednesday between the two parties involved, the union and the fisheries association of British Columbia. I am pleased to inform the house this morning that the situation has improved greatly in the last 24 hours. In fact, with the indulgence of the house may I be permitted to place on record part of a telegram I received at five o'clock from the union, which reads as follows:
Reurtel our central strike and policy committee decided upon receipt your telegram bearing in mind urgency expressed regarding resumption operation and failure reach agreement upon scope and terms arbitration that we shall immediately recommend to our membership acceptance of appointment by federal and provincial governments of single arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding and that the arbitrator shall decide scope and terms of reference after consultation with both parties to the existing dispute.
A few hours later I received another telegram from the fisheries association which reads in part as follows:
-the member companies of this association are prepared to accept the decision of a single arbitrator to be appointed by the Hon. H. J. Robichaud and the Hon. L. R. Peterson as final and binding upon the matter or matters which will be agreed to be referred to him.
The only problem which remains, Mr. Speaker, consists of the details of the terms of reference. I understand that the machinery is being put into motion immediately by the union to proceed with the membership vote to approve its decision to accept arbitration. If the union vote is favourable fishing will resume at 6 p.m. on Sunday.



INQUIRY AS TO TRANSLATION OF WORK BY BEAUCHESNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house if, when he took over the government, something had been done regarding a French translation of the procedural manual by Beauchesne? Had some action been taken at that time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I got a communication from the publisher in Toronto, whose name escapes me at the moment, of the English edition of Beauchesne referring to certain correspondence between himself and the previous prime minister in respect of a French translation. We have been looking up the records and have been unable to discover any correspondence of that kind or any reference to this matter in the files. Therefore I am writing the publisher to see if I can get a copy of the correspondence that he has, in order to ascertain what has been done and what should be done.


Gilles Grégoire: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us what steps are being taken at this very moment to translate Beauchesne's manual? Is some definite action being taken?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to follow up this matter as quickly as possible, and for that .purpose I am getting in touch with the publisher to find out what communications, if any, had been exchanged between him and the previous government, which have been referred to in Hansard but with respect to which there is no record as far as I know.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege,. Mr. Speaker, may I point out that there was communication. I have often found that some people file in such a way that they cannot find things. I can only say that there was communication. There was verbal communication involving very considerable discussion of the subject with a representative of the publishers; and speaking now from memory, though I am reasonably certain that this is so, there was also written communication because otherwise there would not have been a meeting between me and a representative of the publishers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if there are written communications they are not in the files.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that statement is quite unjustified on the part of the Prime Minister. I am rising on a question of privilege. I say that the communications are there. We have had several examples in the

Inquiries of the Ministry last two days of statements made that have no foundation, and this is one of them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is getting very irritable. I have had an opportunity to look at the files. This has been done, and I have said there are no written communications in the files. Is the right hon. gentleman in a position to deny that?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe must realize that his basic question has been answered to the best of the ability of those concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have had an answer to my last question. My question was, are any steps being taken so that a translation will be made? Is something actually being done by this government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, steps are being taken. The first step we are taking is to try to find out what the previous government did, bscsuss in tlis l?.st of parliament they intimated that something was being done.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, but that is not a step taken with regard to the actual translation of the manual.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. I am now informed that a letter written to the Carswell Company referring to Beauchesne was dated October 25, 1962; that enclosed in that letter was a copy of Hansard of October 19, 1962, as referred to at page 705. What I shall do is write to Carswell and secure that letter from them. If the Prime Minister says it is not in the files then I do not know where it has been misplaced, but I will secure the original from the company.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is the letter which the publisher referred to in his letter to me, which I have now received.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not know this question was coming up this morning, but the letter of July 30 has just now been sent down to my desk, and the letter referred to by the publisher from the then prime minister was of November last, as the right hon. gentleman states.
When I got this letter from the publisher I made inquiries and I was informed there was no correspondence on file in the prime

minister's office or the privy council office dealing with this matter, even though we knew the letter was received in November. It is possible that the right hon. gentleman may have taken this letter away with him when he removed his files from the prime minister's office when he left office.


John George Diefenbaker: I would be delighted if the right hon. gentleman would table that letter, because apparently he was aware of the fact that I had written it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, but I am also aware of the fact that the letter is not in the files, and the right hon. gentleman, when he left office, removed a lot of the files from the Prime Minister's office.


John George Diefenbaker: I followed the course of removing those that were personal, and that is a course which has always been followed; but the right hon. gentleman now has a smokescreen. He had the letter he knew I had written, and did not want the house to know.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the right hon. gentleman if he would examine the files he removed in order to set this letter and return it to me so I can put it on the record.


John George Diefenbaker: The right hon. gentleman misled the house.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister regarding the removal of files by the former prime minister when he left office. Does the Prime Minister think that the former prime minister took with him his commitment in regard to Canada acquiring nuclear arms?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no thought of that kind. It is of course quite customary for outgoing prime ministers and cabinet ministers to take personal files away with them. I have asked the former prime minister whether he will examine the files that he removed from the Prime Minister's office-and a great many were removed-to see whether this particular letter was not inadvertently removed also, the letter which was referred to in the letter I received from the publisher only yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: But the answer was given in the house today, and it was untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is Friday, a fish day, and the sooner we complete the question period the sooner we can go fishing.



INQUIRY AS TO PAY INCREASES FOR CERTAIN STAFF MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance whether further consideration is going to be given to an increase in salary for the barbers, locksmiths, carpenters, upholsterers and furniture finishers, who I understand are the only employees of the house who have not received an increase? There are approximately 10 men involved in these trades.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is under the misapprehension that I am Acting Minister of Finance. I am not. I do not think the acting minister knows the answer to the question any more than I do, but one of us will make inquiries and give an answer later today.


Mr. Nowlan:: This comes under the commissioners of internal economy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might just say that I have been advised by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, who was paying closer attention than I was, that this would be a matter for the commissioners of internal economy. I am one of them and His Honour is the chairman, and I am sure His Honour will ask to have the matter considered.


Mr. Speaker:: May I reply by saying that the matter is under consideration at the present time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Labour a question, notice of which I gave him a few days ago. My question relates to a brief presented to him two weeks ago by the national legislative committee of the railway running trades. I should like to ask the minister what reply or what consideration he has given to the recommendations in this brief, particularly those asking for alterations in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act so as to give railway workers better protection in branch line abandonment and run-through areas.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is correct in that the Minister of Transport and I had a meeting with these gentlemen some time ago at which a brief was presented making a number of recommendations, including certain 28902-5-187
Inquiries of the Ministry amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and a request to have an industrial inquiry commission set up to investigate certain phases of this particular problem.
At that time the Minister of Transport and I had a very useful discussion with the representatives involved. Up to the present it has not been possible for me to reach a decision and make a possible proposal to the government on the matter, but it will receive attention as quickly as possible.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. Is the idea of an inquiry still in the minister's mind?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, it is still there. (Translation):



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY MONTREAL  PROPOSED CHANGE IN PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Following the answer he gave previously to a question, can the minister tell the house when a final decision will be reached in respect to the trans-Canada highway project in the Montreal area, following discussions at a meeting with the provincial minister of highways.


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we must be supplied with some technical information by the Quebec government before a decision can be reached concerning a change in the layout of the trans-Canada highway in Montreal.
(Text):



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of a recent decision of the Canadian wheat board, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, to authorize permit holders at five delivery points in British Columbia to make deliveries of wheat, oats and barley outside the existing quota, would the minister explain to the house the reasons for this action in view of the serious implications involved?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not able to explain the reasons for the wheat board action at this moment. I am in touch
2948	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry with the wheat board, and perhaps later this day I might have an opportunity to provide the information.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question. In view of the minister's remarks, and also in the absence of a federal feed grain policy, is it not an improper use of a producers' marketing board for this action to be taken?


Mitchell William Sharp: I just want to say that the wheat policy of the Canadian government has been announced in so far as initial prices are concerned and in so far as the new program of surplus disposal is concerned. Otherwise the Canadian wheat board, which is directed by parliament to sell Canadian wheat to best advantage, continues in existence and is operating just as vigorously as it ever has operated.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, surely parliament did not direct the Canadian wheat board to go outside its regulations.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On. the order? thp Hav
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on July 18 I addressed a question to the Secretary of State relating to the proposed second ferry between North Sydney and Newfoundland. The reply I received was that there would be action in the near future. In view of the fact we are approaching adjournment I wonder if the minister would indicate whether "in the very near future" means today or soon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid that I answered the hon. gentleman's question because I happened on that day to be Acting Minister of Transport. It would hardly be proper for me to usurp the functions of my colleague today, much as I should like to answer the question. The hon. members for St. John's West and St. John's East have, I know, had this matter very much in mind. I hope the Minister of Transport can give a good answer.


George James McIlraith: I think I could assure the hon. gentleman that an answer will be given soon.


Robert Muir: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister would take into consideration the excellent work that could be done in the summer months in preparing docks.


George James McIlraith: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the minister is well aware of all the implications in this matter.



REQUEST FOR USE OF PORTS OF HALIFAX AND SAINT JOHN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of his announcement a few moments ago regarding expenditures for the seaway system, which can only be further to the detriment of maritime ports, has the minister any good news in reply to my question of a few days ago regarding the possibility of directing shipments through Saint John, which would ease the glut of 2 million bushels of grain now stored there?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the proposition that the twinning of the locks on the Welland canal will be to the detriment of Saint John, but as to the desirability of having more shipping through the port of Saint John I am in complete accord with the hon. member, and will look at anything that can be done to increase shipping through that port and the port of Halifax, the two ports where there is a problem as he has indicated.


Thomas Miller Bell: With rpc:pppt. to t.hp twinning of the locks, now that this matter has been completed would the minister direct his energies to moving ahead with the Chignecto canal, which would be a similar project?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In
the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. My question is based on information from Europe and the fact that time is running out if certain Canadian citizens are going to receive justice.
In view of the fact that the draft of the final law on the question of compensation to victims of nazi tyranny now being considered by the West German government completely ignores many of the just demands made by the victims of naziism now resident in Canada, would the minister inform the house what action the government is taking to assist Canadian citizens in obtaining adequate compensation from the West German government for their sufferings in the defence of freedom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are not yet aware of the details of the legislation to which my hon. friend has referred. We have been informed that it has

not yet passed the West German parliament. We have asked for the text of the legislation, which we expect to acquire very shortly, and when it becomes available we will examine it to see to what extent Canadian interests are affected and what can be done, if they are affected, to protect them.
(Translation):


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
I learned with pleasure that the Quebec government had decided to grant financial help in the amount of $640,000 to the victims of Abitibi West. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Quebec government has requested the federal government's assistance and, in that case, to what extent does the government intend to help the victims of Abitibi West?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no such request for additional assistance has been received from the provincial government. (Translation):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to reply to another question which was asked me concerning a man called Dion.
On July 25, I stated that 1 was looking for a psychiatrist and a lawyer. I have now found both of them. The psychiatrist is Dr. Fernand Cote, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Montreal and chief of the department of psychiatry at Maisonneuve hospital. The lawyer is Mr. Norman Borins, of Toronto.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the house, by its votes on the second reading of Bill No. C-88, has indicated what it would do if necessary, will the government now consider delaying any further action on that bill until the Exchequer Court of Can-28902-5- I87J
Inquiries of the Ministry ada reached a decision on the matters referred to it?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that there is a substantial sum of money involved in this matter, I believe some hundreds of millions of dollars, and that by bringing forward this legislation the government has indicated it is important, because of the doubt, to validate this order by act of parliament. I think under the circumstances I would hesitate to recommend that the matter be delayed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has it not been clearly indicated by the house that if the decision were that the order is invalid, legislation would be passed and would be made retroactive? Would it not be a good idea to have the court's decision rather than argument back and forth by assertion?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I doubt whether that would be so. In any event, I should like to have a further look at it, perhaps during the luncheon recess. The matter will not be reached before luncheon, I expect, and I will be pleased to look at it in the meantime.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: 

INQUIRY AS TO REAPPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister a question based upon what I hope is a wildly speculative story in he Devoir of yesterday. Has the Prime Minister received representations from the Minister of Justice regarding the removal of Donald Gordon from Canadian National Railways because of his attitude toward French Canadians working on the railway? If he has, I wonder if he could tell us whether any consideration is being given to renewing Mr. Gordon's relationship with Canadian National Railways in September, when I understand it terminates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's question is not only out of order but is wildly speculative.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is not out of order. I would like to put it to the Prime Minister for this reason. There has been considerable discussion in public about this matter, and I think it is fair to ask that the rumours be denied.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is out of order to ask a question about conversations between two members of the cabinet.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
In view of the fact that the contract of the Canadian National's president has to be renewed during the recess, could the Prime Minister tell us now whether steps or discussions have been undertaken for the renewal of Mr. Gordon's contract or for the appointment of another person as president of the Canadian National Railways?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a decision will be taken on this matter and an announcement made in the house in due course. At that time the information will be given.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of an editorial in this week's Financial Post stating that preparation of the world's fair site in Montreal would cost between $500 million and $700 million, would the minister inform the house whether this is a correct estimate? If so, would he give consideration to some other site less expensive to the Canadian taxpayers?


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, a number of

hon. members, including myself, have questions on the order paper relating to this very matter, and I feel that one of my questions on the order paper is on all fours with the inference which the hon. member has raised. I would like to point out that if the government, through its minister, can answer an oral question, when it has for several weeks passed over a specific question on the order paper, then it seems to present an unfairness to the order paper questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's remarks are well taken, but it is impossible to rule on a question until I hear it. Consequently I only have partial control until I hear the question.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can he say whether the government is considering any measures to extend or increase the assistance to Canadian gold producers?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the former minister is well aware that there are another five months to go during which this type of assistance will be paid, and I can assure him that during our recess the matter will be considered.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would his department consider arranging to bring back to Canada those 86 people who are stranded in England through the failure of a commercial air line to live up to its commitments? There are also 37 Britons stranded here in Canada.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with this situation and I do not think it is proper to say that the air line was not living up to its commitment. The air line took the precaution to have its senior representative fly to Toronto, when these people were going overseas, to hand them individually their one way tickets for the express purpose of having the opportunity to advise and warn each of them that they did not have return tickets, and that the air line would not return them to Canada unless it were paid the fare. That having been done, I do not know there is

much that can properly be done by the department at the taxpayer's expense.
I must say I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of these people, and I think it most unfortunate that after what I hope was a very happy and pleasant holiday on the other side they now find themselves without return tickets. But I think it would be a pretty dangerous precedent for the government to take taxpayers' money and expend it to provide return tickets when the individuals, if I am correctly informed as I believe I am, were warned before they went that they did not have return tickets and that the air line would not fly them back unless return tickets were paid for.


Hon. A. J. MacLean (Queens):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether consideration has been given to having the Department of External Affairs advance money, as is sometimes done, to those would-be passengers who are Canadian citizens, to allow them to return to their homes and jobs.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, so far I understand there has been no request from any of them for an advance of money.
(Translation):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Is he considering the possibility of direct negotiations with Mr. Lesage concerning the transfer of jurisdiction over New Quebec to the government of the province of Quebec? (Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that matter is already under study, as the house knows, by at least two members of the cabinet.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. I sent him notice of the question yesterday. Could the minister tell me whether any progress has been made with respect to a start on the new post office building at Clinton, Ontario?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister I am very happy to inform the hon. member that the
Inquiries of the Ministry architect has submitted his preliminary sketches in which some revisions have been made, and he is now preparing the working drawings and specifications. It is planned that tenders will be called in October, for a completion date in September, 1964.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I would like to ask the minister whether we may expect that there will be prepared for submission to parliament when we return from the recess, draft legislation in respect of the establishment of a court of Indian claims, which is a matter of great concern to many residents of this country.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say this is a question which has already been thoroughly reviewed, and it is my intention to submit to cabinet a recommendation for the establishment of such a court upon the return of the house.
(Translation):



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to* the Minister of Justice.
In view of the statements made by the man-named Watson about the murder of Rocky Pearson, which appeared in La Presse yesterday, as well as the part played by an agent of the R.C.M.P., does the minister intend to have an investigation made within this police force, in order to throw some light on its activities?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have read the statements In La Presse as well as in other newspapers. I have no intention of having an investigation made, at least not before knowing the issue of the trial. Of course, when such a matter is before the courts, one must wait until judgment has been passed. I surely cannot make a statement with respect to that question without being aware of the final decision.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra asked me two questions regarding possible courses of action by the Department of National Revenue with respect to B.C. Electric Company. I am afraid I can only say that our department understands an appeal will be made from this judgment to the British Columbia court of appeal, and the tax situation will have to await the outcome of that appeal.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to either the house leader or the Acting Minister of Finance. My question relates to the status of that part of the budget represented in amendments to the Income Tax Act. As the government knows, on July 23 the Minister of Finance said the bill to amend the Income Tax Act would be introduced momentarily. We have not seen it yet. I am not asking for a debate today, obviously; but should we not have the bill and have first reading so we will know before the recess what are the statutory changes that are being made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I would prefer to make inquiries of the department and give an answer later this day, which I undertake to do.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REFERENCE OF TREATY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister concerning the Columbia river treaty. Should agreements on the Columbia be reached with the province of British Columbia during the recess, will the committee on external affairs be called to consider the agreement, so that no delay may occur in starting the project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can give my hon. friend the assurance that the committee on external affairs will be called as soon as the treaty can be submitted to it. That will require,

of course, signature by the United States as well as agreement with the government of British Columbia.


David Vaughan Pugh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Should this agreement arise during the recess, will the committee be called back?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a committee cannot sit unless the house is in session-


Some hon. Members:: Oh?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and the house will resume in September.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, unless the house is sitting.


David Vaughan Pugh: Then might the house be recalled to consider this treaty?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a different question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member suggests that if the changes in this treaty are agreed on with the United States and all the preliminaries have been cleared away, the House of Commons should be asked to resume its sittings in order to consider the treaty. That is another matter, and I will give consideration to it in the light of developments.
(Translation) '



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, considering the statement made last night by the President of the United States to the effect that China is becoming the greatest threat to world peace, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government intends to reconsider its trade policy with that possible world enemy?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: The trade policy, in so far as mainland, communist China is concerned, is governed by an arrangement made with our allies. This arrangement, which has been accepted by this government, prevents trading with communist China in all matters of any strategic importance. At the moment there is no intention of changing that policy.
(Translation):



POSSIBLE SALES TO UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Could he tell the house whether his department has completed its research on the possible selling of butter to Great Britain and, if in the affirmative, could the minister table a report on that research,

and state whether Canada will be able to sell butter on the British market in 1963, in view of the circumstances which prevail over there?
(Text):


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the subject mentioned by the hon. member is under study. Due to the price of butter at the moment we question whether this will be possible; nevertheless we are studying it, and if it is possible we will see to it that our markets are enlarged.



INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH RED CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister be in a position to inform the house before the recess how trade negotiations are proceeding in connection with the sale of wheat to China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to inform hon. members that I have just received news that the negotiations have been concluded successfully. The wheat board will be making a statement this afternoon, and I hope I shall have the opportunity later of giving the substance of the wheat board's statement to hon. members.
(Translation):



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES ROYAL COMMISSION    SUGGESTED INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the numerous requests which he has received from certain groups about the royal commission on biculturalism, does the Prime Minister intend to increase the commission's membership, in order to comply with those groups' requests?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the only consideration in that regard is being given to a suggestion that there might be an additional member from British Columbia, but no decision has been taken yet. That would be the only increase which would be made, if one were made.



TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Inquiries of the Ministry
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question, one which I would have placed on the order paper but I was informed that it would be better put on orders of the day. The question is in relation to the advertising contract which the McLaren's advertising agency holds with the Department of Trade and Commerce. I want to ask the minister whether there is any agreement, verbal or written, that McLaren's advertising agency will provide other services than those which are going to the government, say to the Liberal party, as a result of this contract.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to say that I think this question is out of order on several grounds. First, it should relate to public affairs and the hon. member is asking a question relating, if you wish, to private party matters. Second, he is making an allegation, or a statement, or an assertion. Therefore I would suggest that if he wishes to ask this question he submit it to me in writing so that it can be carefully considered to see whether or not it is in order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The question as I understood it, Mr. Speaker, was referred to you, but I should just like to say this. You said that this question concerned a private affair. If there is any understanding regarding a public contract which carries over into the private field, if political party management is a private field, then I would say that this is very much a question for the public and for this house. However, I will accept your suggestion.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, could I be permitted to answer this question. If the question is in order-and I am not suggesting it is-the answer is no.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Due to the serious grain congestion problem which is developing in western Canada, would the minister consider the advisability of amending the cash advances legislation to provide for an increase in the maximum amount available to individual farmers as advances on their grain in store on farms?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the possible amendment of this act is under consideration.

Division



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


Lester Bowles Pearson: the third reading of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of an economic council of Canada.


Michael Starr: I made a reservation with respect to this when I spoke on clause 22. It had to do with the elimination of the national productivity council. I do not intend to go over what I said at that time, it is on record in Hansard. But in view of my feeling on this matter and, I know, the feeling of many members of this house, I wish to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):
That the said hill be not now read a third time but that it be referred to the committee of the whole house with the instruction that they have power to amend it by eliminating therefrom clauses 22 and 11, the objective being to continue the lational productivity council.


Mr. Brown:: I was paired with the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Hubert Badanai: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Roxborough:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Teillei:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Mackasey:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Francis:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Coales:: I was paired with the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Edward Nasserden: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that the bill that has just been passed involves one of the prerogatives of the crown and therefore requires the consent of the crown before it can be given third reading in the house. I refer you, sir, to citation 283 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 231, fourth edition, where it is stated that the royal consent cannot be communicated in committee, is generally given at the third reading-


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry but I will have to interrupt the hon. member. This point of order should have been raised before third reading was given. The house has voted on the matter and I must rule that the point has been settled.


Edward Nasserden: With all due respect, sir, I believe I can give you authorities-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the authorities do not overrule the decision of the house.


Edward Nasserden: 1 wonder if you would hold your decision, Mr. Speaker-



EXCISE TAX ACT

Mitchell William Sharp: the third reading of Bill No. C-90, to amend the Excise Tax Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition.


Edward Nasserden: I should like to quote the authorities I have to offer you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how I can express myself more clearly. I suggest that there has been a decision of the house which overrides all the authorities you care to quote.


Edward Nasserden: I rose immediately after third reading, and I should like to quote the authorities I have in the rule books which I have before me.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat arguments that were advanced
28902-5-188
Excise Tax Act
by members of the opposition regarding certain portions of this bill. I shall restrict myself, therefore, to moving, seconded by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan):
That this bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee of ways and means for the purpose of amending it to maintain the exemptions under the provisions of the excise tax from manufacturers sales tax on building materials and machinery, and machinery and apparatus to be used in manufacture or production.
It will be noted from what I have read what this amendment purports to do, and that is to ask for a direction that this bill be referred back to the committee of ways and means so that the sales tax provision in so far as it applies to building materials and machinery, and machinery and apparatus to be used in manufacture or production, shall not be altered.


Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I wish to emphasize why in my view it is most essential that the amendment be passed by the house. In the course of the debate on this bill I drew to the attention of the Minister of Finance the fear I had, that by imposing an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery we might remove from all economic possibility of development the programs that are contemplated for the great river systems in British Columbia, and any other such river systems for the production of hydroelectric power.
I endeavour to emphasize the competing sources of power that are becoming rapidly available, and I endeavoured to emphasize what the addition of an 11 per cent tax would mean to an immense program such as the Columbia river project, which will cost $400 million and more for the first stage alone. This is a sum identical to that which the government is seeking to secure for its municipal development fund, which is supposed to have the objective of eliminating unemployment in Canada.
I am not an authority on these questions, but I shall endeavour to quote an authority. I have asked a few questions on the order paper, which have remained unanswered, and in the course of debate I asked the Minister of Finance whether the government had considered the implications of this action on the Columbia river development. The minister answered a question put by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, who asked if there had been representations from the province of British Columbia on this point, and he said that there had, that they had been considered, and rejected.
The whole point I am trying to find out is whether the government seriously considered


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I call it une o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
(Translation):
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this morning we have seen an amendment brought forward before third reading of the bill now before us concerning changes made in the Excise Tax Act. The amendment is to the effect that the bill be returned to the committee for the purpose of amending the Excise Tax Act so as to maintain the exemptions from sales tax on building materials and machinery, and machinery and apparatus to be used in manufacturing and production.
Mr. Speaker, it is a question of eliminating the sales tax of 11 per cent, no more, no less. Personally, I am in favour of the amendment and I shall support it, as will several other members of our group.
We left it to our members to vote according to their discretion. There was no decision in caucus with regard to this measure. Each of our members is free to vote as he wishes,

but I think that the majority will be in favour of the amendment because, if I am not mistaken, it is simply a question of eliminating the 11 per cent tax.
We shall be told that the Minister of Finance has retreated and reorganized his tax so as to impose 4 per cent immediately, then increase the tax by another 4 per cent in another year, and by 3 per cent in the next. But, there is actually a wish to impose an 11 per cent tax on building materials, and machinery used in manufacturing, so that the cost of living and prices of all available goods will increase, which will add to the inflation we have in the country.
To increase this tax in stages, as the Minister of Finance is doing now, or all at once, does not make a great difference.
Whether you cut your dog's tail in several short parts or all at once, the result is the same. When the tail is cut in many places, the dog only hurts that much more.
This is, in a way, what is happening in the case of this tax. The Minister of Finance with his escalator tax, which in a year and a half will be at 11 per cent, will not change anything in the situation, because the people will have to pay the tax all the same.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that for about 50 years, in our country, taxes have been gradually increased one after the other, bit by bit, as it is done again today, with the result that out of every dollar earned by a Canadian citizen about 47 cents are paid in taxes. If this tax had been imposed all at once, the Canadian people would certainly have revolted, but since the Minister of Finance is imposing it by stages, bit by bit, the people do not realize it so much but the increase still remains. Therefore, we must put a stop to those tax increases and, in my opinion, the time has come to do it.
I see the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) who seems to be quite happy with this tax. If he feels it is right for him to rejoice now, I believe that his constituents do not smile as broadly as he does at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that the expenditures at the various levels of government are increasing. The federal government expenditures are increasing. For instance, today we have before us a bill concerning municipal assistance. This will require an expenditure of $400 million. So, we appreciate the government expenditures are going up.
28902-5-188J
Excise Tax Act
However, when expenditures go up, the government must look for additional revenue. Unfortunately, we find that to increase its revenue, the government has no alternative but to take the required funds out of the pockets of Canadians by means of taxes.
As long as the government keeps to beaten tracks in matters of economic administration, it will be unable to get the money it needs otherwise than by taxation.
We are against this tax but we recognize that the government needs additional revenue. Instead of seeing the government increase taxes or try to get along without the additional revenue it needs, we would like to suggest other means to solve the problem.
I heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) suggest several times that deficit budgeting is a means of obtaining new sources of revenue. Deficits lead invariably to indebtedness, to payment of interests, and at this point, we do not go along.
We suggest therefore that deficits should be financed by the Bank of Canada, an agency of the Canadian government that does not have to charge any interest, because the Bank of Canada being a Canadian organization, it turns out that we owe money to ourselves. In short, I am in favour of this type of deficit budgeting financed by the Bank of Canada, because we would owe this money to ourselves. In that case, it is more or less the left hand that owes to the right hand and we would not object to the Bank of Canada financing the deficits.
We are against the increase of this tax and we would suggest, at the same time, other sources of revenue. Since we have explained often enough in the house how to find other sources of revenue, we feel that it is useless to dwell any longer on the subject.
That is why the majority of the members of our group will vote in favour of this amendment.
(Text):


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment is to send the bill back to the committee in order to retain the exemption on building materials and production machinery. In other words, the committee of ways and means would be instructed to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery. It is true that the 11 per cent

Excise Tax Act
tax is going to be imposed in stages. But as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has pointed out, a dog is not any more comfortable for having its tail cut off by inches rather than all at once, and the ultimate result of the legislation will be that by January 1, 1965 there will be an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery.
When the bill was at the resolution stage the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) on behalf of our party moved an amendment, or attempted to move an amendment, to strike out this clause. He did so because we are opposed to the imposition of an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and on production machinery. We are opposed to it because, in the first place, the government has said that the most pressing problem facing Canada today is that of economic growth and full employment. If the government had canvassed the whole economy seeking to find some way to defeat its own objective it could not have found a better way than the way it is proposing. Because there is no industry which stimulates more employment than the construction industry. All the way from the
1 oovfi v-i rt oomnc	cour m i 11 o	faf'lnrioc[DOT]*-ve>e>**jL*	~~~~	,	- - 
where bricks, tiles and cement are manufactured, all the transportation facilities, all the construction industries, all the electrical and plumbing fixtures industries, all those who make electrical appliances-all of these are affected by a large and accelerated building program. By imposing this tax the government is bound to bring about a reduction in the amount of building which would normally take place.
A lot of figures have been tossed around as to what this tax will cost the average builder. The Toronto metropolitan homebuilders association sent the government a brief in which they said that the 11 per cent sales tax would increase the cost to the buyer of an average small home by approximately $700; that on a 25-year mortgage of 6J per cent it would add $4.59 to the monthly payments, or $1,377 during the life of the mortgage. That is going to make a lot of prospective home builders stop and think before proceeding with the construction of a home, and it will take from their income, even if they do build a home, money which would otherwise have gone toward the purchase of consumer goods.
It is not only the home owners who will be affected. There are industries which are planning plant extensions running into millions of dollars, and it is only natural that these companies will now pause to consider what their

cost will be in the light of the imposition of an 11 per cent sales tax not only on the building which they propose to erect but also on the machinery and equipment which will go into their factory. Therefore I think the government is making a terrible mistake in selecting this method as the means of raising revenue. I think they are going to defeat the whole purpose of their major program, namely that of getting the economy rolling again and providing for full employment for all ablebodied people in Canada.
The arguments which have been put up by members on the government side have been something like this. First of all they have said: Well, we have an 11 per cent sales tax on everything else; why should construction and building materials be exempted? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the very same argument, and the very same reason why the exemption was imposed in the first place. The exemption on building materials and production machinery was introduced after the war in order to stimulate home building and construction and to provide employment; and if it was needed in the post-war period, then surely to heavens it is needed now. So that all of the arguments iur graining inis exemption are equally present and valid at this time.
The other argument put up by government speakers is that this is the fairest way for the government to raise money. Several hon. members opposite have said: Well, if the government has to have revenue surely this is the fairest way to collect it. Let me make clear in the first place, Mr. Speaker, that we have never worshipped the golden calf of a balanced budget, not because we think an economy can go on indefinitely with a budgetary imbalance, but because we argue that if the government is prepared to increase its expenditures and promote full employment, then when we get full employment that in itself will bring back to the government a greatly increased revenue, so that we will have no difficulty in balancing the budget.
We believe that the primary function of the government is to bring about a balanced economy, and that once we have a balanced economy in which production and consumption are in balance the budget will take care of itself. But if the government must find money and secure revenue, as my hon. colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) pointed out in the course of the debate there are many sources of revenue which the government is completely disregarding. It could impose a capital gains tax. At one time this was looked upon as a very dangerous proposal, something of a

socialist threat. But now that the government of the United States has, and has had for some years, a 25 per cent capital gains tax, surely Canada, one of the few countries left which does not tax capital gains, ought to look at this field of revenue as a means of raising money. As my colleague pointed out, there are large reserves of undivided profits and depreciation allowances which have been built up by many of the big corporations in this country over the years. If the government wants sources of revenue there is an area to which the government might very well look. But the government does not do that. Instead it decides that if it needs more money it will go to the people who can least afford to provide it-the home builders, the people who must buy some lumber to repair their piggery, their barn, their home or their garage. Abraham Lincoln once said that God must have loved the common people because he made so many of them. The same seems to be true of ministers of finance. They tax the common people because there are so many of them, and because it is so much easier to tax them than to tax the large corporations which have great accumulations of undistributed profits and depreciation accounts.
It is rather significant, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister brought in his budget on June 13 one of the most spectacular proposals was the imposition of a transfer tax of 30 per cent on persons disposing of Canadian securities.
There came trouping to Ottawa representatives of the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver stock exchanges. The spokesmen for the biggest business lobby in Canada, the representatives of the great financial corporations of this country, came here. What happened? Immediately the minister found there were "administrative difficulties" and the legislation was dropped. I do not think the difficulties rose nearly so much from the question of administration as from the fact that the government had stepped on the toes of the most powerful financial lobby in Canada. I think that is why the proposal was dropped.
But when we come to the government and say that this proposal is going to work a hardship on everybody who wants to build a modest home or repair a house, when we ask that the government set aside a tax which is likely to hurt the employment situation, hon. gentleman stand adamant and the largest concession they are prepared to make is to spread the 11 per cent sales tax over a period of some 18 months.
Members of this party will support this amendment because we believe the government should reconsider its proposal to impose an 11 per cent sales tax. We believe
Excise Tax Act
the exemption, which has worked very well in recent years, ought to be maintained in the statute.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: intend to take only two or three minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad I have so much support for what I have to say. I rise to support this final protest with respect to this tax. I endorse everything my leader has just mentioned as to the effect of this tax on our economic development and, consequently, on employment in this country.
I am reliably informed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) spent some time yesterday and today with about 12 technical personnel from the United States and British Columbia discussing the question of the development of the Columbia. One might call it a timid renegotiation during a period of restagnation. I rise to show, moving from the abstract to the concrete, the effect which this increase in the number of imponderables is likely to have on development in Canada, particularly on those engaged in the construction industry. Let us take the case of the high Arrow dam. Those connected with this project have to deal with the imponderable of cost which has already gone up by $5 million since Mr. Willston admitted it would cost $124 million. They have had to deal with the imponderable of the safety of the dam and the location of the dam. Now they must face the imposition of this tax. Just imagine these gentlemen discussing the cost of building this dam in the shadow of this tax and the other imponderables I have mentioned, together with the court decision rendered by Mr. Justice Sherwood Lett. I raise this matter in order to give a concrete example of how this tax will affect all those concerned with construction projects. On one hand we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs seeking to promote a project and on the other we have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) putting difficulties in his way. I wanted to make this final comment on these questions before we recess.
(Translation):


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), I do not intend to unduly extend this debate.
With regard to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), I want to inform the house, on behalf of the four Social Credit members for the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, that we are opposed to this tax. In fact, I received this morning a letter from the executive

Excise Tax Act
council of the St. Jean Baptiste societies for the Saguenay district, enjoining us to protest emphatically against the levying of this 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons why we, especially from the province of Quebec, must oppose the imposition of this tax. Hon. members are aware of the protests made by the Quebec minister of national resources and the mayor of Montreal to the effect that such a tax hampered the future development of the province of Quebec where, these last few years, there has been a remarkable expansion in the building industry.
I feel the present Liberal government has sought to a certain extent to curb the economic liberation that has been undertaken for some time by the province of Quebec. In my opinion, the house must be told about that situation, and I think the only step the government can take now is to exempt from that tax all projects carried out by any provincial agency.
As taxpayers, we can understand, to a point, taxation on an individual basis, but a sales tax of 11 per cent on building materials seems to be the most infamous of all.
Besides, through the taxation of development projects, municipal corporations and provincial organizations in Quebec, we will, in fact, be fined twice. What have Quebec citizens done to deserve such a treatment?
If the present government intended to punish the population of the province of Quebec, it could not have found a better way of doing it than levying this 11 per cent tax on building materials which are going to be used, in Quebec, in the field of public investments as well as in that of private investments.
At this time, the federal government collects in the province of Quebec an amount which is large enough to compensate the
desirable that the percentage to be implemented next April, that is when the next budget is introduced, if the Minister of Finance does introduce one, should be completely abolished, as well as the last portion which is to be imposed in the fall of 1964.
With this, I conclude my remarks, because I do not want to go on forever on that matter and waste the precious time of the house.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong this debate indefinitely, but I feel I should not miss this opportunity to point out that we are witnessing today a change of policy on the part of the New Democratic party and the members of the Social Credit party.
When the 11 per cent sales tax was proposed by the Minister of Finance, a group among those hon. gentlemen abstained from voting, while the others voted along with the government. Today, in view of that legislation being most unpopular, well, they want to make good before the people by saying that they will vote for the amendment. They just lost face-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, on a point of order


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is no question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: -I think that the first qualification of a member of parliament is to be intellectually honest and to report the facts as they happen. To my mind, when the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) talks as he did, he does not show any intellectual honesty, because we never voted against the tax, but rather against the schemes of politicians who only think of making political capital.
I therefore submit that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot should rectify his words to be honest with himself and with the house, otherwise he should refer to Hansard.
equalization payments paid to Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that it is our duty to stand against this legislation and I hope the government will finally realize that obviously this 11 per cent tax must be withdrawn.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, we just listened to a speech indicating that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was looking at himself in a mirror-
(Text):
The government proposes a gradual implementation of this 11 per cent tax, that is 4 per cent at once, 4 per cent next spring and 3 per cent in the fall of 1964. Well, I express the wish that the first 4 per cent will not be imposed, but if it is it would be


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member said we were voting against the amendment. We are voting for the amendment and I said so just a few minutes ago. It is also out of order for a member to comment on previous votes, but if

the hon. member is going to be allowed to do so may I point out to him that in the resolution stage we attempted to move for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax. We have indicated our opposition to it. The reason we abstained on the budget was that we did not want to vote no confidence in the government and get the Tories back in office, which would be even worse.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the fact that my remarks caused such a reaction in the other end of the house eloquently shows how sore a point I touched since both these representatives of small opposition parties have now been brought before the public opinion which will judge them as being in favour of the 11 per cent tax. I am not at all surprised at their reaction.
I wanted to show the people the way those gentlemen intend to defend the interests of their constituents.
Their attitude shows how afraid they are to go to the country, and that is why they abstained from voting on the one hand and, on the other hand, they voted for the legislation the first time. Today they are caught off their guard and-


An hon. Member:: On a point of order-
Another hon. Member: There is no point of order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to make a point myself. We are discussing the excise tax. (Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by pointing out again to the public opinion in Canada the stand of those people and by emphasizing that we on this side of the house have been consistent in our conduct from the beginning to this day and that we shall remain consistent in the future, because we want to protect our constituents and we do not want them to have to pay an 11 per cent tax.
Those were the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, when the budget was introduced, there was much discussion concerning taxes. It will be recalled that the 30 per cent tax on the sale of Canadian securities to foreigners was even withdrawn afterwards. There were also some interesting measures, and some others which were less interesting, for instance the 11 per cent tax.
Excise Tax Act
At that time, Social Crediters voted for the budget as a whole because it contained some good measures. However, as I said, some were less desirable, and among them there was the tax on building materials.
We recall very clearly that at that time, we proposed to discuss it and with that reservation, we stated in this house that we were voting for the budget as a whole in order to give the Minister of Finance the chance to introduce some amendments, which he did, for instance, when he came back in the house with a 4 per cent tax instead of the 11 per cent one and postponed also the imposition of that tax.
At that time, our group voted so as to enable the Minister of Finance to bring the amendment forward.
Today, reference is made to an amendment to this tax which now stands at 4 per cent.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the people who are proposing to abolish this 4 per cent tax are exactly the same people who, under the present economic system, could not act differently from the present government, because they always jeered at debt free money policy and they would not follow the policy that our group had set out for them in order to carry out the public investment programs, without taking any money out of the taxpayers' pockets. The leader of that group who says today: "Abolish that tax" is the same man who asked us repeatedly: "Where will you take that money?"
Mr. Speaker, if they will not raise funds according to the system advocated by the hon. members for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), those funds will have to come out of the taxpayers' pockets, which is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the Social Credit party reserves the right to vote against any measure as unpopular as this tax, because Social Credit always was and still is against taxes.
But I understand very well that several members of this house stand against playing that political game which is brought up again just on the eve of the adjournment of parliament.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I only wish to make one comment, Mr. Speaker, to say that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) has just made the funeral oration of his party.
I hope that the Canadian people will remember the course of action followed by the members of the New Democratic party as

Excise Tax Act
well as by the members of the Social Credit party. They wanted to cling to the government and they were afraid of an election. They failed to do their duty. They preferred to act in their own interest rather than in the public interest.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, when we see the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), blame us for voting against this tax today, we wonder what they are doing. Are they afraid to go to the country? As for ourselves we are not afraid.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We want an election right away.


Lucien Plourde: Why then, Mr. Speaker, do they throw insults at us of the Social Credit party?
Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf and on behalf of my constituents, I object to this tax, because my constituency is perhaps the one where we find the largest slum districts and where it would be high time to restore old houses, with the centennial four years away. We now are faced with a tax which will slow down construction of new houses and slum clearance.
As for the unemployed, at the very beginning of this session, the Liberals stated that their main problem was to remedy unemployment. Well, I believe that this tax will increase the unemployment rate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are going to vote for the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), because we are against this 11 per cent tax.
However, in all that, once again, we see only a petty political game in these dying hours of the session, whatever the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm may have to say to the contrary.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, we want to go to the country. Let this government resign.
(Text):


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


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question to the house I should like to say a few words in reply to some of the observations made this afternoon by hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not intend to prolong the discussion. What we have heard for the most part has been a repetition of the arguments made during the second reading and committee

stages and also at the resolution stage. My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), has dealt with these arguments at great length. This is not the first time we have heard them and they have not been changed in substance from the time they were first made.
I would remind the house about the problem faced by the nation when this government took office. Sometimes it seems to me, listening to hon. gentlemen opposite and in particular listening to those who support the Progressive Conservative party, they would have one believe that when this government took office the finances of this company-this country-were in good shape.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a Freudian slip.


Mitchell William Sharp: I need hardly assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this was not so. The financial affairs of Canada when we took office were well known throughout the world to be in a mess. The problems with which we had to deal when we took over were not very pleasant. We had to find a means of meeting the financial conditions in this country and trying to restore order in our finances. It was npppssary for this government to take some unpopular measures. I make no apologies whatever for taking unpopular measures.
As I listened to hon. members speaking I noticed that many of them were saying they would vote against this measure, not because it is not necessary but because it is unpopular. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that no taxes are popular. If they want to vote against this tax for that reason, they ought to vote against all taxes. This tax is not the sort of tax that anyone would want to impose. This is a tax that had to be imposed because of the necessity for finding a large amount of revenue. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has said on many occasions in this house, no one from the other side has suggested where the government was going to get more revenue.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I question that because we have indicated where they could get additional revenue.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I shall be pardoned on this occasion for not getting into a discussion of Social Credit theory. A discussion of this subject could take the house a long way into the small hours of the morning, and I am sure that my hon. friend and I would have a very interesting discussion but it would not move the business of this house forward.
I have heard many of these hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the dire effects of this tax. Now, Mr. Speaker, being a member of this government, I have looked into this

subject in a theoretical as well as in a practical way. In a sense, it does not matter in what form one raises the necessary revenues. They all have an undesirable effect and they are all, I assure you, unpopular. I do not believe hon. gentlemen opposite have made a case that this tax is any worse than other taxes that might have been imposed. The other day an hon. member opposite asked me a question about capital investment intentions. He noticed that there had been published by the Department of Trade and Commerce a report of capital investment intentions in 1963. I should like to draw to the attention of hon. gentlemen the fact that the report said capital investment intentions had been revised upward at mid-year by approximately 3 per cent. The hon. gentleman asked me whether those figures were going to be revised. I pointed out to him that I have nothing to do with this report except to publish it, but it was my opinion that the effect of the budget proposal now under discussion probably would be to raise those figures.
At that time, I heard some interjections from the other side to the effect that this was incredible. I should like to point out to hon. members an item that appears in this morning's Gazette, and which I think is probably closer to the truth about what is happening in Canada today than many of the things said by hon. members opposite. The article states that for the month of July building permits in the city of Montreal were approximately 35 per cent higher than in July of last year. I am not suggesting that 35 per cent is going to be the average, but what I do suggest is that hon. gentlemen opposite are being guilty at the present time of spreading unnecessary-


Some hon. Members:: Gloom.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, I will put it more shortly; they are being guilty of what we were often accused of, spreading doom and gloom.
I do not intend to keep the house any longer, Mr. Speaker. The issues before us are very clear. I believe that under the very difficult circumstances faced by this government when it took office on April 22, the budget brought down is a budget in the interests of the people of Canada and the particular measure now before us is one that ought to commend itself to hon. gentleman.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the minister a question? In view of what he has just said concerning the investment survey and the government's intention, and in view of what he has quoted from the Montreal Gazette, I should like to read two articles from the same newspaper and ask him-
Excise Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is up to the minister to answer if he wants to do so, and he seems to want to accept the question.
First of all, the Montreal Gazette refers to the fact that business spokesmen had said that the tax, that is the building materials, tax, will inhibit expansion. Mr. John Meyer in the Gazette of August 1, 1963 had this to say:
Estimates of the total value of deferrals or cancellations of new construction and machinery purchases ran in excess of $250 million when the tax was first introduced-
He is referring to the building materials tax of the June 13 budget. He said there may have been some reversals since that date because of the reduction in the tax, but they are small. He does state that investment planning and investment spending have been seriously hampered because of this tax. Will the minister comment on those observations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I only have this comment to make. The bill that is before the house today brings the excise tax into effect in stages, and whatever may have been the effects of an abrupt application of the 11 per cent tax, as was originally proposed, this bill does not have those effects. In my view, the effects of this particular measure on investment will be to stimulate it in 1963.


Stuart A. Fleming: May
I ask the minister if the government, before introducing this tax did, in fact, assess the possible results of it on the construction cost of the Columbia river project, and the possible effect on the unit cost of energy produced by that project?


Mitchell William Sharp: Since I was not, of course, in on the budget discussions, 1 cannot give any inside information. However, I am satisfied that before the budget was brought down careful consideration was given to the effect of this tax as compared with other taxes that, in my opinion, would have had to be employed and that, on balance, the effect of this tax is not more detrimental than any other tax that would have had to be imposed.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the house is on third reading of a bill and not in committee. It seems to me that if we are to make progress we should abide by the rules.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I intend to abide by all the rules of the house, as I always have. I do not think we should allow one or two of the very specious arguments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to go unchallenged. First he

Excise Tax Act
suggests that he has only heard a repetition of arguments that were made on all clauses and stages of the bill; but those arguments are still good and sound, and they have not been answered. He further suggests that the Minister of Finance dealt with them, but in reply I would say anything but adequately. He left the statements completely unanswered.
I would also point out to the minister that the finances of the country were in excellent shape when we left office. In fact I do not think there can be any shadow of doubt that they were in a lot better shape than they are now. It is obvious the country has lost confidence in the government ever since the budget came down. It was an atrocious budget and had the unique achievement of increasing both taxation and the deficit.
I suggest that the government should start thinking of cutting both extravagance and taxes. It has saddled the country with some grandiose schemes which are very costly and only add to the burden of taxation without contributing to the economic activity or employment.
There can be no greater argument or illus-+r?+ion of h0-1*7 iinoor'i_il?r fhis psirticulsir is than the action of the government when it brought in an 11 per cent tax and immediately reduced it to 4 per cent. These magic men across the way have definitely been found wanting, and I am glad to see we are receiving the support of the other parties. I realize, as has been pointed out today, that they did not support the opposition at the time of the budget division, but now I am glad to note that they are seeing the error of their ways, and I suggest that if they had supported us at that time-


Gilles Grégoire: We do not support you. We are against the tax, and that is not the same thing.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You certainly were for the tax at the time of the budget. In conclusion I point out that this amendment accomplishes what should be done for the people of Canada. If this tax is passed it will heap cost on cost on projects such as the Columbia river development, as was pointed out shortly before the luncheon recess. This tax will cause unemployment. I am as convinced of that as I could be, and I am sure this has already been demonstrated to the country at large.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suppose they are famous words for one to use, that he did not intend to take part in a debate. Such is the case, but because of the things that have been said I have one word for the Conservatives and a word or two for the government.

My word for the Conservatives is that we are going to vote for their amendment despite the things they have said to try and dissuade us from doing so. We have been opposed to this sales tax right from the start. We have at no time voted for it. We sought to move an amendment when we were in committee on the resolution stage, in order to get rid of it, and we now welcome the opportunity to vote against it at this final stage.
My word or two for the government arise from the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and if perchance he is to be the next Minister of Finance then all I can say is that the more things change the more they are the same. Speaking today as Acting Minister of Finance he said that we on this side of the house were voting against this tax merely because it was unpopular. There is no doubt about its unpopularity; but the leader of the New Democratic party made it very clear, in his effective speech not long ago, that we are voting against the tax because we believe it will increase unemployment.
We believe that this tax on the construction industry, and on the other things to which it is to apply, will work against the \70rv obmct which the Government snid it w?.s important to do something about namely increasing employment. Therefore we want the Minister of Trade and Commerce to know it is because of the fallacious arguments behind this tax, and the fallacious arguments he put forward in attempting to defend it, that we are now voting for the amendment and against the extension of the sales tax.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the amendment
lost.	
(Translation):


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with	
the hon. member	for St. Maurice-Lafleche
(Mr. Chretien). Had I voted, I would have	
voted for the amendment.	
Private Bills


Mr. Vinceni:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment, that is against the 11 per cent tax.
(Text):


Robert Carman Coates: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to support the amendment.


Mr. Bigg:: I was paired with the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Asselin). Had I voted I would have voted to support the amendment.
(Translation):


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Forest). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Sou-langes (Mr. Emard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if 43 Conservative members had not been missing, we would have succeeded in abolishing that sales tax.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that both leaders of the Social Credit party are absent this afternoon.
(Text):


Hubert Badanai: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming). Had I not been, I would have voted against the amendment.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Pennell:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Cashin:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Mr. Churchill:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Patrick Tobin Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move, seconded by Mr. Moreau:

Business of the House
That Bills S-33 and S-34 which received first reading this day be now read a second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce for consideration forthwith, and that standing orders 94(3) (a), 102, 106 and 116 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move, seconded by Mr. Klein:
That Bills SD-252 to SD-356, both inclusive, which received first reading this day be now read a second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills for consideration forthwith, and that standing orders 93, 94(3) (a), 100, 102, 106 and 116 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Lionel Chevrier: This morning, during the question period, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked whether it was essential at this particular stage of the session to go on to complete the bill relating to the surcharge order. All hon. members are, I know, anxious that the remaining business of the house be cleared up as soon as possible and it is certainly not the desire of the government to defer the conclusion of this portion of the session unless it is urgently necessary to do so.
With this in mind, and having regard to the fact that on the second reading of this bill the house has already indicated its approval in principle of the objectives the government seeks to achieve by this measure, the government is prepared not to insist that the bill itself be proceeded with today. In making this statement, I should like to emphasize that the government has no intention whatever of abandoning its plan to seek approval of the bill by parliament. Accordingly, the government will be going ahead with the bill in the house at the earliest possible opportunity after parliament resumes in the fall.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the next order is called, may I point out that it is already four o'clock and I wonder if there could be general agreement in the house that we would have the hour from five to six which is set down for public and private bills available so as to continue with government business, and that we would resume at seven o'clock to continue with government business on the items apart from the one to which my hon. friend has referred-the items which were mentioned 
last night. At the conclusion of those items, if we are able to conclude them this evening, we would then take sufficient time for private bills to dispose of the divorce bills and any of the other private bills which hon. members are willing to dispose of. If that were agreed on I think it would facilitate the conclusion of our business.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOAN BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, August 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-76, to promote increased employment in Canada by financial assistance by way of loans to municipalities to enable municipalities to augment or to accelerate municipal capital works programs-Mr. Sharp (for Mr. Gordon)-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. Smith:: No Mr Chairman My remarks on this clause are directed to subclause (a). In discussing this bill I must say that if it were not so late in this part of the session it would be hard not to say I told you so because if the Prime Minister and the government of the day had given a little more consideration to the advice directed to them from this side of the house at the resolutions stage the necessity for the wide amendments now being made would not have arisen. I am referring to clause 2(a) and I suggest to the government that they have chosen a very cumbersome and expensive way to administer the legislation.
When the minister was making his second or third explanation last night he said that he wanted the legislation to operate with the maximum speed and with the smallest administrative cost possible. I suggest to the government that they will accomplish neither objective by setting up a board. Such action is completely unnecessary, is not only cumbersome but also expensive and will also result in delay. I suggest that the government would have been better advised to follow their own precedent or, better still, the precedent of our government in the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act of 1960-61 or the method the Liberals used when they were last in power with regard to the Municipal Grants Act. Instead of setting up a board, the powers in the legislation should be delegated to a specified minister and the provisions put into operation by him. That

this system works well has been clearly demonstrated both with regard to our winter works program, the vocational training school building program and the Municipal Grants Act which has been on the statute books for some years.
Another reason that impels me to suggest this change is that the whole theory of the revisions has been that we should not interfere with provincial autonomy. Indeed, the bill itself gives the greatest power to the provinces. Under clause 8 of the bill everything is done by the province. Loans are vetted and approved by the provinces. An application for a loan cannot be submitted directly by a municipality to the federal government. It must first go to the province and be submitted to the federal government by the provincial government. For that reason the necessity for a board is substantially removed and the process would be speedier and more efficient if applications were then made directly to a minister.
The bill also provides, of course, that the services of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are going to be used in certain aspects of administration. That in itself is another indication that a board is unnecessary. I would fear that the function of the board would be largely to interfere with provincial autonomy and provincial rights and that as soon as the board is set up we will start to have conflict between the board and the provinces. The legislation would be much better administered by a designated minister under whatever portfolio he otherwise holds and with the assistance of civil servants. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):
That paragraph (a) of clause 2 be struck out and that paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) be relettered accordingly.
That is the first amendment, and I have four other consequential amendments with respect to other clauses in the bill.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to argue this case at length. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the board will have only a very small staff. It is not intended to create a new bureaucracy. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will provide most of the services required by the board.
As to the second point that the hon. member raised about relations with the provinces, may I say that this question was not brought up at the conference. This is not a matter that the provinces found offensive to them in any way, and I am satisfied that the scheme outlined in the bill of having a board is not going
Municipal Development and Loan Board to increase expenditures, interfere with simple operation or in any way affect the autonomy of the provinces.


Sydney John Smith: I have one further question. Is the minister suggesting that the board will be composed of people now within the government service or will it be composed of cabinet ministers, or will new people be brought in?


Mitchell William Sharp: My understanding is that there will be one outsider, and the two other members of the board will be from the senior civil service.


Sydney John Smith: Since the bill contemplates the termination of the legislation in 1966, which is only three years away, what security of tenure can be offered to an outsider on that basis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I could say only the security of tenure offered by the legislation. However, it is my understanding that the Minister of Finance has not anticipated that he will have difficulty in filling this position, and I agree. I think there are people of competence who would be prepared to serve on a board of this kind for the period of the legislation.


Mr. Chaiterton:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe North. What the minister has said has not convinced me that the provision of a board is at all necessary. Why consider it in the first place? I am not going to repeat the figures I gave last night, but the scope of operations of the winter works incentive program has been greater than what is proposed here and yet that whole program has been administered by the Department of Labour without creating a further bureaucratic organization.
Under section 36 of the National Housing Act an almost similar program involving loans to municipalities with a forgiveness feature has been administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Why could this program not be administered by the same corporation? The bill provides for an agreement between the board and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for use of the latter's staff. There then arises a dual responsibility. Will these employees who are going to be used by the federal government to administer the legislation be responsible to the board or the corporation?
If the Liberals were going to set up, as they promised during the election campaign, a vast program of assistance to municipalities, perhaps a board could then be justified, but this measure is little more than another form
2968	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Municipal Development and Loan Board of sewer assistance, for example, or something like the winter works incentive program. It seems completely unnecessary to have a board and I think it will lead to administrative difficulties.
I remind the minister of the difficulties that were created as a result of the joint operation of the Farm Credit Corporation and the Veterans Land Act administration. They finally had to separate because the employees found that they had two bosses and they did not know to whom they were responsible. My specific question is this: Are these employees of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation going to be responsible to the board under the agreement or will they be responsible to the corporation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not want to prolong the discussion in the committee, but when this bill was drawn it was the judgment of the government that it would facilitate the operation of this measure if, instead of having a minister directly responsible, there should be a board which would act under the direction of the minister, but in between him and the municipalities and the provinces. It is always a question of judgment as to the best form of adminisiru live machinery. I have listener to what the hon. gentleman has said. I am still satisfied that the board, in the form in which it is set up in this bill, will facilitate rather than hamper the operation of this measure. The board will not be a large institution and will not create many new offices.
There must always be a question of judgment in these things and this bill was drawn up, of course, on the advice of people within the public service who have had some experience with these matters. Their judgment accorded with the goverment's.


Mr. Pritiie:: I wonder if the minister could give us some estimate of the probable number of new employees who will be required to run this board?


Mitchell William Sharp: I doubt if the number will exceed a dozen, and perhaps it might be fewer.


Sydney John Smith: Has the minister any reason to believe that the administration of sewage loans by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been unsatisfactory? Is it proposed that substantial application under this measure will be dealt with by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation employees?


Mitchell William Sharp: The short answer to the hon. gentleman's question is that the board is expected to exercise some judgment, just as the minister would. The central purpose of this measure is to increase employment and 
it is necessary, therefore, in judging applications to decide whether a particular project, in respect of which a loan is being applied for, will have the effect of increasing employment. In that respect this program differs from the sort of program dealt with by the hon. gentleman's question. This is one of the reasons it was felt originally that it would be desirable to have some sort of board that would, in the first instance at least, exercise some judgment.


George Louis Chatterton: This objection does not apply to the winter works incentive program where the same type of discretion was exercised. In that case, too, the corporation has to certify that the project would increase employment, and yet this program was operated without creating any new organization.


Michael Starr: I feel that the government should reconsider the establishment of a board and the added expenditure thus incurred, especially at a time when we should be cutting down expenditures. After all, this fund will only amount to $400 million to cover a period of three years. This means about $133 million a year. I might point out that the municipal winter works program created work to the extent of $245 million per year just ror a few months during the winter. This is a much smaller fund with which to provide employment than even the municipal winter works program.
In so far as the sewage program was concerned, it had the same features in it, the loan and the forgiveness clause. This, too, was a very successful program which was designed to generate employment and it also was handled by the present staff or people designated from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
There is not going to be any great difficulty in making up one's mind as to the projects that will be submitted. Certain types of projects are outlined in the bill as being admissible. The people who will be responsible for the administration of this measure will make up their minds, in communication with others, as to any project that might be submitted, and agreement can be arrived at without any delay. Under the circumstances, I think it is unnecessary to establish a board to administer some $130 million a year. I do not know what they are going to do in between, because certainly there is not going to be an avalanche of projects coming in on a continuing basis. It may be that during certain periods of the time these people will be busy, but the remainder of the time they will be sitting around drawing additional moneys for doing nothing.

Municipal Development and Loan Board


Sydney John Smith: Does the minister not think that if the board exercises much discretion or judgment, as he has suggested, it is quickly going to impinge on provincial rights? It would seem to me, having read clause 8 of the bill and the other clauses, that there is little discretion left for the board. This money will be merely a bank. Does he not feel that there is an area of potential conflict with provincial jurisdiction through the appointment of a board?


George Louis Chatterton: Before the question is answered, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue, who is now responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, whether in his opinion the corporation and its staff would have been competent to carry out this proposal if they had been made the responsible organization? Before the answer is given, may I say that I feel we should always remember there is a tendency within the civil service to enlarge itself. I feel it is up to the government to take positive action to stop that trend. Keeping that in mind, should the government not have considered whether your corporation could have handled this?


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the hon. gentleman fully appreciates what is being done here. The board is going to be a very small one and I believe the chairman will be the only member who will receive any remuneration. In addition there will be senior civil servants on the board.
In so far as the corporation is concerned, I do not believe I could agree with him that the corporation should be set up as the judge of these projects. I feel that the short term nature of the fund and the need for speeding up these projects that would not otherwise have been undertaken, makes it imperative that the program be handled according to the proposal in the bill. We will establish a board chairman whose chief responsibility will be to pass these projects that are submitted to him with the greatest possible speed.


George Louis Chatterton: Did I understand the minister to say the board would be composed of senior members of the service?


John Richard Garland: Yes, other than the chairman.


George Louis Chatterton: It does not say so here. (Translation):


Mr. Frenette:: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell the house whether he has estimated how much time will be required before this new council is really efficient and before results of its work make themselves felt in this country? How long will it take before we get material results, once the bill is passed, of course?
(Text):


Mitchell William Sharp: We are confident that this can be put into effect to have the desired effect upon employment this winter. We feel that the additional amount of machinery that has to be established would be the minimum. In my judgment and the judgment of the government, this method of dealing with applications and administration will have the effect of reducing rather than increasing the cost of administration, because in one way or another there must be people to handle the work, and the board method seems to us to be the most expeditious and economical.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, the point I would like to make to the Acting Minister of Finance on the question of whether the board can be eliminated or not, comes from the fact that he stated the government originally thought, when it was going to set up this municipal development fund, that there should be a board to administer this very large program of helping municipalities and providing opportunities for employment.
This readily envisages a situation in which the government would think of this as one of its major economic moves to lower unemployment but when it had to go to the provinces and retreat from the position it had visualized itself in, and when all the machinery will now be at the provincial level, then it is obvious to all of us who have had experience in these matters that there is nothing for the board to do. Therefore it is a farce to say we need a board when the machinery is all in the hands of the provinces.
One of the reasons behind the winter works program in 1957 was because it was recognized, at the federal government level, that if the federal government were to give a stimulus to employment it would be very expensive to do it at that level, and what we ought to do was to use the machinery of the municipalities and provinces to help employment in the winter months. This same principle has now been forced on the federal government by the provinces.
What we are saying on this side is that since this whole grandiose vision of a tremendously large program of municipal aid from the federal government has now dissipated, and the program is being turned over to the provinces to administer, then all that is needed at the federal level is an auditor or two and a few engineers. To tell us we need a man at the senior civil service level brought in from the outside, and two senior civil servants, makes it look as if this board were going to do a great deal, but actually from the experience we have had, and which this government will get in time, the Department of Public Works and Central Mort-
2970	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and Loan Board gage and Housing Corporation can do this type of work.
Therefore I suggest very strongly that the minister can get the same efficiency and put this legislation into operation immediately by following the suggestion made by the hon. member for Simcoe North, in getting rid of the board and turning the job over to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The board may have been necessary if the federal government was running everything, but now that it has been turned over to the provinces the board is absolutely unnecessary.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I would like to speak against the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe North. I personally could not accept the suggestion that this program could be administered as an extra sideline by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or whoever might be handling it in the Department of Labour, as a small addition to the winter works program. The purpose of C.M.H.C. is quite clearly to be the instrument of a national housing policy, and it has a great deal of work to do.
I do not believe this program of aid to municipalities for sewerage treatment belongs with C.M.H.C. Such a program could be even more effective, given the proper staff and proper direction. With regard to the winter works program I think most of us appreciate the virtues and limitations of the approach made to it, and certainly anyone who has had experience at the municipal level knows that unemployment does not stop on any given predetermined date from coast to coast all across Canada.
The technical problems of the projects have to be assessed, and I cannot agree with the hon. member for Ontario in saying that there is no problem in selecting the projects. In fact I would like to say a word or two on clause 7 with regard to the criteria in selection of the projects. I am sure that, even with the agreement with the provinces, there will be room for a great deal of discussion in working out the most satisfactory type of program which will develop under this legislation. I know there is a statutory limit in dollars in the legislation before us, but I for one hope at some future date this program will grow as experience develops under the board, which I think is the appropriate means of administering such legislation.


George Louis Chatterton: Obviously the hon. member has not had much experience with the practical operations of C.M.H.C. If he had he would know that the performance of the corporation's staff in the operation of the municipalities' sewerage program could not be improved. Is he suggesting that there should be a separate department to handle the sewerage


program? This is almost a duplication of the type of work they are equipped and trained to do. If the hon. gentleman had his way we would be creating a new department for every operation.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Even with the bill as amended I cannot understand why the government still insists on using such a superfluity of wording in section 2(d) which states:
"municipality" means
(i) an incorporated city, metropolitan authority, town, village, township, district or rural municipality or other incorporated municipal body however designated,
One of the most important dispensations of civic authority and one of the oldest, even older than parliament itself, is the county, and I ask why the word "county" is not mentioned in this bill?
Counties form one of the most eligible and soundest classes of borrowers in the country, and I would imagine their omission is an oversight. Probably the minister will explain that the wording in lines 18 and 19, "or other incorporated municipal body however designated" covers counties, but why not specify them? I know of several cases where counties will be prospective users of this legislation.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: I should like to say that I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack).
If we consider the provisions of the municipal code of the province of Quebec, we find in it that the county councils are recognized as municipal bodies made up of different municipal corporations located in specific territories. It often happens that these county councils have to settle problems which arise between municipalities and I feel that the hon. member who spoke before me has rightly called the attention of the house to this particular problem.
I wonder why the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) could not insert in the definition which is found in paragraph 2 of the act, the words: "county council". In my opinion, it would help make this act more effective and it would not affect the objectives that the government has in mind in moving this bill.
(Text):


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. May I remind hon. members that the question before the committee is not the whole of clause 2, but an amendment to clause 2.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On this clause, Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I do not pretend to

be an expert on municipal works, but I did think that, having in mind the quantum or scope of the changes made in this bill and the very cogent remarks of the ex-minister in dealing with the necessity for a board, many of us in this chamber and people across the country would benefit a great deal from having some remarks from the minister in connection with this clause and the advantage or necessity now of having such a board.
I have not heard this afternoon the reasons advanced, in view of the change-I can understand it, perhaps, as originally envisaged- for its being thought necessary to have a board, or why it is thought a board will be helpful in this connection. I am very interested in this question and would very much appreciate it if the minister would explain to the committee why, in view of the changes in the bill, which to my mind take away so much of the necessity for having the board, we still have to set up this body. I hope the minister can help me in this regard.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I deal specifically with the question raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and asked again by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. I quite agree that if all provinces decide to use the procedures in paragraph 2 of clause 7 of this bill the board will be purely formal. But I do not want to force the provinces to take this course unless they wish to do so. I would like to repeat again that the function of the board is to exercise some judgment. An argument has been put forward here that the functions of this board are exactly the same as the functions that have been performed in connection with winter works programs. I assure the hon. gentleman that this is not so, and a reading of the bill will make this very clear. There is a test here that is not applied in other cases; namely a test of the additionality of employment.


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


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would say one more word in this connection. He has said he does not want to force the provinces to take advantage of this provision if they do not wish to do so. I had the impression that this change was put into the clause at the insistence of the provinces. I wonder if the minister would tell us what is the likelihood that they will not want to use this provision. Has there been an indication from the provinces that they will not be doing this, or are we just speculating here?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that some of the provinces may prefer the original procedure.
Municipal Development and Loan Board


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Smith moves:
That paragraph (a) of clause 2 be struck out and that paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) be relettered accordingly.
Amendment (Mr. Smith) negatived; Yeas, 21; nays, 63.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Remuneration of chairman.
George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, clause 4 (1)
says:
The chairman of the board shall be paid such salary as is fixed by the governor in council.
The minister said earlier that the chairman was to be a member of the service.


Mr. Lamonlagne:: No.


Mitchell William Sharp: I said, the other two.


George Louis Chatterton: I beg your pardon.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Agreement with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for services, etc.
Sydney John Smith: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Acting Minister of Finance will be able to give us the assurance that most of the people who will administer this act will be employees of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and that this provision in clause 6 will substantially provide the staff for the board.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can give that assurance. The intention of this provision is to authorize the board to enter into a servicing agreement with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is not intended to go outside, if the services can be provided by that corporation.


Mr. Smiih:: Does it contemplate that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be paid for those services, or will they have to hire additional staff? If so, does the measure provide for their raising the necessary funds to do this?


George Louis Chatterton: I have another question, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister going to' answer my hon. friend's question first?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I have been speaking to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue who is responsible for the
2972	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and Loan Board operation of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He says they would expect to be paid. He would hope he could do it, and make a little money, with the existing staff; but if he did not have enough people, he would have to hire more.


George Louis Chatterton: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. I presume this board will be reporting to the Minister of Finance; is that correct?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think this bill says the minister shall be designated by the governor in council.


George Louis Chatterton: That has not been decided?


Mitchell William Sharp: That has not been decided.


George Louis Chatterton: If the minister who is to administer this board or have jurisdiction over it is not the Minister of National Revenue, what would be the position if, for instance, the manager of the branch office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Victoria, British Columbia, had to report on an application from the municipality of Saanich? Would the branch manager send that report to the Minister of National Revenue, or to the minister having jurisdiction in this regard, if they are not the same person?


Mitchell William Sharp: The application would be made to the local people who would be the employers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at their branch offices throughout the country, and the application would be forwarded to the board and dealt with in that way.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Function of board.
Sidney Earle Smith: I should like to say a word on clause 7. The minister said when we were discussing the last clause that he wanted the board to have some discretion. It seems to me that clause 7 is written in a very narrow way. One might even say that clause 7 (1) (a) is written rather clumsily. I should like to suggest that all the words after the word "period" in the fifth line be deleted, because they could be interpreted either as narrowing the scope of the board, which would in the end limit the employment opportunities offered under this measure, or they could be interpreted as being redundant and repetitious, which would only confuse future interpretations of the clause.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I read the clause in exactly the opposite way. I suggest that the purpose of clause 7 (l)(a), which I think is the paragraph he refers to-


Sydney John Smith: Yes.
IMr. Sharp.]


Mitchell William Sharp: -is to try to establish quite clearly that the projects being financed under the act result in employment over and above what would have taken place had it not been for the act.


George Louis Chatterton: Except there are the two "periods" in the one clause.


Mitchell William Sharp: The clause says that the board has to be satisfied-
(a) that the municipal project or part thereof would not, without such assistance, have been included among the capital works projects to be undertaken by the municipality within such period, and that its inclusion therein will not result in any other capital works project of the municipality being replaced or postponed within such period;
In other words, it is to make doubly sure that we are really getting full employment out of the funds placed at the disposal of the municipalities.


Mr. Rock:: 
Mitchell William Sharp: This paragraph is very broad and enables the board to commence a very wide variety of projects under the words referred to by my hon. friend-"such other municipal capital works as are determined by the government of the province". It is quite clear, and I am sure it is the intention of all hon. members, that this bill should be for the purpose of creating additional employment. While I think all hon. gentlemen would like to see more parks, beaches, and facilities of that kind, it would be more difficult for such projects to qualify because the proportion of the expenditure which would create employment would be rather small. If, of course, projects of this kind do result in a
great deal of additional employment and they are required to be financed, they could be considered.


Gilles Grégoire: Just a few words on the matter which is very well illustrated in this clause. When I look at the French version of the bill I see subclause 1 (b) and a sentence covering 30 lines without any punctuation at all. It is very difficult to read the French version and to understand what is meant.
I am sometimes in close contact with members of the civil service, employees of the unemployment insurance commission and other boards in my constituency, and I can well understand why they have so many difficulties in settling problems raised by people. It is because the law is written in such a way that they themselves have difficulty in understanding it. I should like to suggest that the minister or the Minister of Justice should instruct those who draft the bill to write them much more clearly and not insert sentences of 30 lines without any punctuation mark. I think this is too long for anyone to understand it. That is my point, if the Acting Minister of Finance would transmit it to the people who write the bills.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will be happy to do so. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I find the English difficult to read and it is very much more difficult for me to read the French language, which does not happen to be my forte at all.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, I think that this clause is the very heart of the bill before us and I should like to make two general comments, one concerning the municipalities which I suspect will eventually be able to profit from the bill, and the second concerning the problems raised by the reference to municipal transit systems as being the type of project which might be approved. The hon. member for Renfrew South yesterday raised before the house the problems of many of the smaller municipalities, and in many cases, as in part of my own riding, they coincide with depressed areas. The smaller municipalities are limited in their investment, and my hon. colleague cited the case of a township in his riding with a total assessment of $160,000. I have a number in my riding with less than $1 million total assessment. They are limited by the municipal board of the province which puts forward the 20 per cent rule as the absolute limit on borrowings. In many cases these municipalities are already in excess of the limit of the provincial municipal board. The type of municipality which my colleague was concerned with is not likely to receive very much latitude from the provincial municipal board.
2, 1963	2973
Municipal Development and Loan Board
The presumption in many cases was that the larger municipalities would be the first to benefit. The city of Ottawa, for example, has a ratio of debt to assessment, with full adjustment for public buildings owned by the government of Canada in arriving at the assessment figure, of 27 per cent. That is already substantially in excess of the amount permitted to be borrowed as a maximum under the rule of thumb by the municipal board. There is a serious question whether this kind of municipality which has already borrowed so heavily could do much to take advantage of the legislation such as is proposed.
I think there is a special difficulty faced by municipalities outside large metropolitan areas. I am thinking of townships such as Nepean, North Gower and March and Goul-burn. These townships are rapidly finding that the spill-over of metropolitan growth is creating a rate of expansion in their areas in excess of their financial capacity to bear. The problem is not just one of capital cost, though that in itself is serious enough. Townships such as these do not have diversified assessments and they are severely limited in their applications before the municipal board. The municipal board has introduced a system of quotas with respect to applications from such townships in an attempt to limit expansion, and this reflects the difficulty which they are experiencing.
A board which was aware of this problem could do a great deal by calling the attention of provincial authorities to special areas where problems are arising. One might say that this is not the business of the federal government, but I think a quiet, helpful suggestion could often be made. There is a serious question in my mind whether provincial authorities are giving sufficient attention to the larger metropolitan areas. This reflects a situation which, partly, arises in this house where the large growing areas are not adequately represented but where the smaller and medium sized areas which for a long time have had stability of population are overrepresented. The municipal boards in many provinces are not paying attention to the problems of the smaller municipalities which border on the large metropolitan areas. I am concerned that the clause does not take this problem into account and I hope it would be possible in discussion with the provincial authorities to take note of it. I hope we shall not find ourselves in a situation where the only municipalities which could benefit would be those who least need assistance. The very small ones with heavy unemployment will experience difficulty. The very large ones which have been trying to do a good job in response to the pressure upon them will find themselves seriously limited. So a great deal
2974	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and Loan Board of discretion and wisdom will be needed in the administration of this scheme.
I am concerned about the reference to the municipal transit systems. Clause 7 (3) (e) reads:
-municipally owned public transport or transit facilities, exclusive of rolling stock and similar operating equipment.
I was pleased to see this reference to transport systems. It represents recognition of a situation which is likely to cause a great deal of trouble at municipal level. One of the things automobiles did was to condition the public to spending tax dollars for expressways and leading them into a penny wise, pound foolish attitude. Money spent on public transit systems does not have a great deal of political appeal, though money spent on highways seems to have tremendous political appeal. Yet money spent on municipal transit systems may go a long way toward the maintenance of secure financing and the preservation of the heart of the city itself. I took up this morning's Globe and Mail and saw the following in an editorial:
Metro Chairman William Allen has scheduled an early meeting of heads of departments to consider what projects should be put forward as desirable for financing bv th p npw fund An nxs*mrkl2 is the Bloor-Danforth-University subway-
I do not know whether the subway which is being scheduled meets the requirement as to eligibility. As I read the bill I do not think it does. But I would think that a rapid transport system is clearly the kind of project which should fall squarely within the scope of this legislation. I hope the phrase "exclusive of rolling stock and similar operating equipment" does not mean that a municipally-owned transport system which attempts to acquire a new fleet of buses, for example, is totally inhibited by the operation of this clause. I can understand that a municipality might have to find its own rolling stock if it were engaged, for instance, in the construction of a project such as the Bloor-Danforth-University subway, but I think we have to provide sufficient flexibility to enable other municipalities to do those things which are logical and right in the particular circumstances in which they find themselves.
I hope this clause is not intended to meet exclusively the case of one municipality where at the present time, it would, perhaps, be logical to go underground. A transit project, whether it is underground or over the surface, should make sense and should reflect whatever way happens to be most efficient and most economic without either frustrating or bankrupting the resources of the municipality.


George Louis Chatterton: I should like to suggest to the government that they completely remove subclauses (l)(a) and (b) from clause 7 so that any municipal project recommended by a provincial government might be eligible for assistance under this act. I make this recommendation on two grounds. In the first place, the municipalities expect it, because of the promises made by the Liberal party during the last election campaign that a program of over-all assistance to municipalities would be introduced by this government. I realize that the Minister of Finance said last night, as reported on page 2931 of Hansard, that it was not the purpose of this bill primarily, or even indirectly, to ease the financial plight of the municipalities. On the other hand, I should like to quote from a full page advertisement which appeared in the Victoria daily Colonist on March 31, 1963. The heading is: "Make Loans and Grants for Municipal Services", and it states:
We need better streets and roads to reduce traffic congestion, better public transit, less pollution, more schools and parks. A municipal development and loan fund will be established to provide capital for sound municipal improvements which provincial governments approve but for which financing is at present inadequate.
It is only at this point we come to the sentence:
The fund will play a big part in creating new jobs.
In other words, the promise made by the Liberals was that the creation of jobs would be incidental to the main program, which would be to assist municipalities.
The minister also said last night that if the $400 million were used before the expiry date of this measure in 1966, parliament would be asked to vote more money. I suggest the municipalities expect this government to do more than simply provide help in the creation of employment. They expect some assistance in their financial difficulties, and by deleting these two requirements he could go a long way in providing such assistance.
The second ground on which I suggest that these requirements be deleted is because of the practical difficulties which are likely to arise in the course of administration. The bill refers to anything that municipalities would not have been able to proceed with, without such assistance. The question arises, how can a provincial government certify that a municipality would not have proceeded without this assistance or would have proceeded without it? It becomes almost impossible. Even in the winter works incentive program it was very difficult to submit such a certificate, but under that program the projects were small.

Municipal Development and Loan Board
I will give an example concerning a large municipality in my constituency. They have a five year capital works program. They are planning a new municipal hall. For several years now they have set aside a certain sum of money out of current revenue to provide a reserve fund to build a municipal hall some time in the future. If this clause is interpreted literally they would not be eligible because they were going to build it in any event.
Last night the Minister of Finance said that if they accelerated it they might be eligible. Would they be if they accelerated it by one day? Would they still be eligible? It will be extremely difficult to administer this provision. Furthermore, those municipalities that have capital project plans for the future are penalized because municipal officers are often asked to submit certificates by the provincial governments and they really have to perjure themselves if the project is to become eligible. From a practical administrative point of view I think this provision should be eliminated and that the scope of the whole program should be widened as promised by the Liberals in the last election.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, in connection with clause 7 (1) (a) I should like to say something much in line with the remarks of the previous speaker. Beginning in line 28 the clause reads:
-and that its inclusion therein will not result in any other capital works project of the municipality being replaced or postponed within such period.
This is going to be a little difficult to determine. Perhaps I am merely labouring the administrative difficulties, but where there is a financial incentive to a municipality to undertake a certain project, no matter what their inclination might have been originally, and where the total amount of the capital available or the total amount of the indebtedness they are willing to incur is limited, I am wondering if there is any possibility that this clause will ever see any use whatsoever. If there is a change of mind by the municipality I cannot imagine they are ever going to say that they had not intended to carry out a particular project because it might cost them money. Perhaps this has to do with the perjury angle mentioned by the previous speaker.
I cannot see the practical application. I do not think this clause will ever be used to select what shall or shall not come within the legislation. I can only see its provisions being avoided. In fact, I think that the practical application of the legislation is going to be limited in any event by the amount of money that is available. What is going to happen is
that only this type of project will be proceeded with in these municipalities, and no others will be proceeded with. They will simply say that this was all they intended. It would seem to me to be more sensible to allow both the municipality and the province additional leeway which might result in more honesty, as my friend has just suggested. Give them a choice of any project for which they are willing to incur indebtedness.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the first part of my remarks will be in the form of a question to get an assurance from the acting minister that certain things will happen. Second, I wish to make a comment which I think should be made on this particular clause of the bill. Am I right in assuming from reading clauses 7 (1) (a) and 7 (1) (b) that if an urban municipality has a capital works program extending over the next 10 years and they go to the province and demonstrate that they are going to speed up the program beyond their ordinary rate of progress, then the amount of the speeding up to provide extra employment will be covered by this legislation?
I have in mind here a program, let us say, for the streets of Ottawa. I think every Canadian would be very glad in the national interest and from the point of view of national pride if a good foundation could be laid under these streets so that there would not be potholes big enough for badgers to find refuge in in the spring.
My second point is a fundamental one. It has often been said that in this house many members speak and vote only on behalf of the particular group they happen to represent. This comment is made quite often about those who represent farmers. It is said that we ask the people of Canada to support the government of the day in carrying out a program that will help an individual group like the farmers to achieve some stability, and a higher level of income. I should like to make it very clear how I stand with regard to this bill. I support assistance by the government to the large city municipalities and the smaller ones too, because I believe by making transportation systems more efficient in our cities, by stepping up the development of social capital in our cities and towns, we are helping all Canadians and not just the people of the cities. I wish to make it abundantly clear that I support the social purposes of the legislation, and I hope that the time will come when I will hear those from urban ridings support constructive measures in aid of agriculture if they are in the interest of all of Canada.
2976	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and Loan Board


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. The short answer is that if a municipality accelerates its program and can demonstrate this to the board, it is eligible for assistance under this legislation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: For the amount that it accelerates?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right, for those projects that it brings forward into this period which would not otherwise be undertaken at this time or for that amount of expenditure which they bring forward. May I raise a question of procedure, Mr. Chairman, in order to avoid any misunderstanding. I should like to be sure that all hon. members understood what happened when they approved clause 2 of the bill. As all hon. members know, Bill No. C-76 that we are discussing today is headed, "Reprinted as Proposed to be Amended in Committee of the Whole". I understood that when we approved clause 2 of the bill we approved it as it appears in the reprint, that is, with the amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance last night, and that when we approve clause 7, for example, we will approve it as amended in the reprint.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. There has been some confusion in the mind of the chairman for some time as to what procedure we are adopting here. If it is understood by the committee that in carrying clause 2 we carried the clause in the amended bill, fine, but it must be absolutely understood that we have carried clause 2 as amended. I should like some instruction from the minister on this particular point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, it is a technicality, but to keep the record straight we are agreeable to whatever motion the chairman may wish to put. The understanding is, of course, that the bill was reprinted with these amendments to make it convenient for the house to study them rather than moving them separately and having to deal with them individually as they were read out. However the chairman likes to get over the technicality will be agreeable to us under the circumstances.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If it can be understood that we have passed clause 2 as amended in the reprint, and if when we carry clause 7 it can be understood that we are carrying it as amended in the reprinted bill that will meet the difficulty. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We are now on
clause 7 as amended.


George Louis Chatterton: I should like the minister to clarify the last answer he gave. I understood him to say that if the project were accelerated by a municipality, that project would be eligible. Would the whole project be eligible? Let us put it this way. Suppose one municipality plans to build a municipal hall in January, 1964, and in order to become eligible under this plan they decide to build it in December, 1963. Suppose the project had an estimated cost of $100,000?


Mitchell William Sharp: If hon. members will keep in mind that the purpose of this bill is to provide additional employment within the period of this measure, then I think the answer is fairly obvious. I point out to my hon. friends the words appearing in paragraph 1 of clause 7, which refer to the financing of a municipal project or part thereof. The purpose of that is to enable the board to finance that part of the project that is brought forward from the later period into the period covered by this bill. The financing may be in respect of the whole project; it may be in respect of that part of the project that is completed within the time limit or, if it is brought forward in such a way that a portion of the expenditure would not otherwise be made in the period, and is made as a result of this financing, then it is covered.


George Louis Chatterton: I am sorry, but I am still not clear. Let us take this example of the municipality that wants to build a municipal hall. Let us say the estimated cost is $100,000. Let us say they accelerate that for six months. Would the municipality be eligible to get a two thirds loan and a 75 per cent write-off for the whole $100,000, provided the project is completed within this period?


Mitchell William Sharp: The test is whether the expenditures are increased within the period. If they are the same as they would otherwise be within the period of the bill, then they have not added to employment within the period covered by the bill itself.


George Louis Chatterton: In other words, the answer to my question is no.


Mitchell William Sharp: If the project were going to be undertaken in any event, then the answer is no. If, however, the project was to be undertaken five years hence and it is brought forward into this year or next year, then it could be financed.


George Louis Chatterton: Then, the statement made by the Minister of Finance last night was indeed misleading because he did say that if any project were accelerated it would become eligible.


Maurice Lamontagne: The part that is being accelerated.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it is quite clear from the text of my colleague's remarks, and he repeated this on many occasions, the purpose of the bill is to increase employment within this period. It is only those expenditures which are additional to those which would otherwise have been made within the period that are eligible. When my colleague referred to acceleration, he meant acceleration by bringing forward projects within the period covered by the bill.


George Louis Chatterton: The explanation just made by the Acting Minister of Finance makes it, in my opinion, even more necessary that clause 7(l)(a) be deleted. The answer given makes it clear that those municipalities that have capital budgets will be penalized. If the municipality planned projects before this bill was introduced, these projects would not be eligible because they had planned them in advance. Other municipalities that do not have a capital program would not be penalized in this way.
Furthermore, because the municipalities' buildings are now subject to sales tax which was not anticipated, there is more reason than ever that this clause should be amended.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Limit on single loans.
Sydney John Smith: The financing of most capital projects, speaking of the municipalities in Ontario at least, is done by issuing debentures for 100 per cent of the cost of the project. This clause contemplates that the loan fund or loan board will purchase two thirds of the debentures issued relating to the cost of an approved project. What does that mean? Does it mean that a municipality will have to issue two sets of debentures in relation to one project? If they sell debentures in the open market, they may require for one third of the debt an interest rate higher than they would for those being sold to the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, my hon. friend is right. If a municipality is not able to finance the one third out of current revenues-


Sydney John Smith: Very seldom are they able to finance even one third.


Mitchell William Sharp: -then it would be necessary for this municipality to issue a different form of security.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 9 carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rose on clause 8.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would need the consent of the committee to return to clause 8.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Municipal Development and Loan Board
On clause 8-Provincial approval.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder whether consideration might be given to some different form of regulation than that which I understand applies under the sewage loans legislation. As I read this provision, it is rather similar to the provision in respect of securing provincial approval for borrowing authority as applied under the sewage loan legislation. I do know that rather practical difficulties have existed during the period while I was a member of one of the smaller municipal councils in British Columbia in respect of the ability of the municipality to present the necessary bylaw to its ratepayers.
Under the sewage loan legislation, and I think it would be similar under this measure, it was impossible for a council desiring to present a bylaw for approval of the ratepayers to get any assurance prior to the submission of the bylaw that the project would qualify under the legislation. While it was possible, I know, to get some sort of unofficial indication that approval might be granted if the bylaw passed, nevertheless I think the minister will realize that the principal question in determining whether or not a municipal project which would create employment will go forward is the ability of the council to indicate to the ratepayers that the project can be financed on favourable terms.
I wonder if the minister could give to the committee some indication of how this clause will operate in that connection? It seems to me that the operation of this clause, particularly in conjunction with the provisions of clause 7, will make it difficult to have some projects go forward. I do not believe there are too many municipalities in this country, unless they have satisfied some sort of capital development fund and built it up over a period of years, who could go into the kind of project that would be allowed under this measure, except by some form of borrowing of the total amount. In effect this means that the municipalities have the complication of selling at least part of their debentures on the regular money market. I feel that if there were some way in which it would be possible for the municipalities to get official assurance that in fact a particular project would be approved, it would make it simpler for many municipalities to qualify under this provision. In my own thinking it would have been a lot simpler if it had not been necessary for the municipalities to be involved in two methods of raising the money.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been looking at these clauses while the hon. gentleman has been speaking, and I do not think there is anything in clause 8 that would in fact interfere with
2978	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and Loan Board the working out of processes that would avoid the sort of difficulties he has put forward. Therefore may I suggest to him that his remarks in this connection are now on the record and perhaps will have some influence on the administration, but I do not see anything in the bill itself which would add to these difficulties.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I thank the minister. Actually members of councils have, in the past, been in the position of in effect sticking their necks out and having to assure, without official knowledge, the eligibility of a project, and it would create uncomfortable situations if for some reason later on that turned out not to be the case.


Sydney John Smith: On clause 9 might I ask one further question?


Lucien Lamoureux: I understand we reverted to .clause 8 at the request of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and I am wondering if we could not pass clause 8 as amended?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: 
Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can give that assurance.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Limit on single loans.


Sydney John Smith: The rate of interest that a municipality pays on its debentures has, as one of its governing factors, the amount of outstanding debentures that are already existing charged to it. We can envisage cases in this connection where they will be issuing debentures for this board, at the same time as debentures to be sold on the open market. Is there any system of priorities as between open market debentures, being the first debentures issued, so that the board's debentures would be second mortgages in that sense?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have to confess to my hon. friend that I do not know the answer to that. This is a very technical question and it would be very difficult to predict just what processes will be followed in all cases. Perhaps there will be different practices amongst municipalities and provinces.


Sydney John Smith: I suggest that a loan cannot ;be approved under this bill until the board
[Mr. Sharp.l

is assured that the municipality has the first third of the money. When they are considering the administration of the bill, that might give the opportunity to have the commercially sold debentures held to be the prior debentures to the board debentures.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is very difficult to answer this question because financing may occur at many stages, at the end of the work or the beginning, and the relative priorities will probably have to be settled at the time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Reduction of indebtedness for completion.
Sydney John Smith: Could the minister tell us how the forgiveness is to operate? Is it to be forgiveness at the beginning or a forgiveness entirely at the end, or is it so much a percentage forgiveness for each debenture payment as you go along?


Mitchell William Sharp: The short answer to that is that the forgiveness is at the end, before the debentures are issued.


Sydney John Smith: The last debentures; so that in the meantime the municipalities have to levy a higher amount. It would seem that if the forgiveness could be a percentage across all debentures it would have a stabilizing effect on the municipal tax levy.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Prescribing interest. (Translation) :
Guy Favreau: 
Lucien Lamoureux: I understand that this is probably due to a misprint and I assume that the bill, in its next printing, will be corrected accordingly.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

Municipal Development and Loan Board
On clause 13-Limitation as to time and total amount.
Sydney John Smith: When the minister was speaking last night he suggested that if the loan fund worked well he would be coming back to parliament for more money. Suppose we have the situation where one province is in a position to take advantage of this fund more quickly than others, what will happen? For instance, there is some indication with regard to the technical school building program that the province of Ontario, in a per capita sense, has got rather ahead of the other provinces. That might happen again. One province might have a shelf of needed public works to go ahead with, and might run out of its per capita share. What would the government do in that situation.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am always pleased to see my hon. friends opposite waver from side to side on this question.


Sydney John Smith: I have never wavered. Half a loaf is better than none.


Mitchell William Sharp: At one time they are afraid there is not enough money, and another time they are afraid that there are not going to be any applications. However, I do not want to open a debate on that. I think the answer to the question asked by my hon. friend is, that under the circumstances he has envisaged the government would not hesitate to come back to parliament to be sure the purposes of the act are fulfilled.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 14-Advances to be out of C.R.F.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a couple of questions on this clause. First I would like to know how much money there is in the consolidated revenue fund.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, because my hon. friend gave notice that he would probably ask questions of this kind my officials have filled me full of information. There were $570 million in the consolidated revenue fund as of yesterday.


Gilles Grégoire: While we are on this problem, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a couple of other questions. Can we know where this money is coming from?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is coming from taxpayers and from those who lend money to the government.


Gilles Grégoire: With regard to this clause, Mr. Chairman, we would like to move an amendment.
(Translation):
I move, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, that clause 14, lines 41 to 44 inclusive on page 5, 28902-5-189
be amended as follows:
Alter the word "advances" strike out the words "out of the consolidated revenue fund" and substitute the words "from the Bank of Canada".
(Text):
Amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 6; Nays, 58.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause carry?


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before pursuing the study of this bill, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that our hon. friends opposite take on today a position that is entirely contrary to the one they adopted last year, when they voted in favour of an amendment which was more or less on the same lines-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure that the hon. member is well aware that he cannot refer to the way some members have voted in the house or in committee.
(Text):


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to tell us whether it is impossible to use the credit of the Bank of Canada for the purpose of this fund. Is it impossible to use the credit of the Bank of Canada under these conditions?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not want to interfere uselessly, but it seems to me the very point now raised by the hon. member for Cariboo has been disposed of when the amendment was voted down.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I did not hear what you said, Mr. Chairman; I did not have my earpiece on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps I can speak just a little louder. I was saying that the point now raised by the hon. member is precisely the same as that which was disposed of when the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe was defeated.


Bert Raymond Leboe: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the questions are related in that way at all. I am now asking whether this is possible. The vote showed they did not agree with it, but I am now asking whether it is possible.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should point out to my hon. friend from British Columbia that regardless of where we borrow the money, it goes into the consolidated revenue fund. So this may make some difference to the finances of the country. But the particular point the hon. member has raised is not very relevant to this bill, because if the government of Canada
2980	HOUSE OF
Municipal Development and Loan Board were to borrow from the Bank of Canada, it would go into the consolidated revenue fund.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I think it is relevant for the reason that we are planning a deficit budget here in parliament and the increase in the money supply is going to be the same in either case. All I want the minister to do-and he can say yes or no-is say whether it is possible. All he has to do is answer my question yes or no. Surely it must be one or the other.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must say that I agree with the proposition put forward by the minister, that this point is really not relevant to the clause now before the committee. It appears to the Chair that the hon. member is perhaps proposing to amend the Bank Act, and that is not before us at the moment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a bill which will authorize the spending of $400 million; that is the matter we are now studying. If the money is coming from the consolidated revenue fund, from where will it be taken to go into that fund? The amendment has been defeated, but the point is that this money will come from that fund. Where will the money be coming from to go into the fund? I think the question of the hon. member for Cariboo was completely in order for the reason that it is in order to ask the Acting Minister of Finance whether it is possible to have the Bank of Canada finance the consolidated revenue fund in regard to this $400 million. Is it possible, or not?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, it is possible. In my opinion, inadvisable.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister this question. If it is inadvisable, why did the Liberal government in 1939 borrow money directly from the Bank of Canada? I think that was done in October, 1939.


Mitchell William Sharp: This, as you have said, Mr. Chairman, is a very complicated question dealing with the money supply. I would be quite happy to debate this question with my hon. friend, but I really think that at twenty minutes to six on what I hope will be the last day of this part of the session it would be inadvisable for me to enter into such a debate, just as it would be inadvisable for the government of Canada to borrow large sums of money from the Bank of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 15-Agent of Her Majesty.
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether clause 15 involves any of the rights of the crown, its patronage, its property or its prerogatives.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think the short answer to this question is that the effect of clause 15 is to make the board a corporation of the crown; to make it henceforth a representative of the crown and to give it the status of a body acting not on its own behalf but really on behalf of the crown. So that anything that is made by the board is deemed to have been made by the crown.


Edward Nasserden: Am I correct in saying that this means that this involves the rights of the crown, its patronage, its property and its prerogatives?


Guy Favreau: Surely it does not abrogate or diminish in any way the rights or prerogatives of the crown, because the board will be created when the law is enacted by an act of parliament and will be regulated by regulations enacted by the crown in right of Canada. So that the board will have no jurisdiction to do anything which will in fact affect the rights of the crown, because if it did it will be acting beyond its jurisdiction.


Edward Nasserden: I am not clear on that point. Does this involve any of the rights of the crown, is what. T am getting at.


Guy Favreau: I am sorry if my answer is not clear. It is because the hon. gentleman's question is not clear to me. If he would care to give an illustration of what he fears, or of what right of the crown might be involved or affected, I might be in a position to answer him.


Edward Nasserden: The clause reads:
The board Is for all purposes of this act an agent of Her Majesty, and its powers under this act shall be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty.
(2) For the purposes of this act, the board may, on behalf of Her Majesty, enter into agreements in the name of the board.
I am asking whether this involves the rights of the crown, and whether the minister could answer that question.


Guy Favreau: All acts of any agent or officer of the crown do involve the rights of the crown, but the question is whether that board, agent or officer acts in accordance with the authority given by the crown and the instructions of the crown. As the bill is drafted, surely even when the board purports to act in its own name the effect of the bill is that any legal undertaking given by the board will be deemed to have been given by the crown itself.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point ol order. My point of order is that this bill involves one of the prerogatives of the crown and therefore requires the consent of the crown before it can be given a third reading in the House of Commons. May I refer you to citation 283 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 231 of the fourth edition:
The royal consent cannot be communicated in committee, is generally given at the third reading, and its omission, when it is required, renders the proceedings on the passage of a bill null and void-
The procedure with respect of signifying the "consent" is different from that in giving the recommendation of the crown. The recommendation precedes every grant of money the consent may be given at any stage before final passage, and is always necessary in matters involving the rights of the crown, its patronage, its property or its prerogatives.
I should also like to quote from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 413, where we And the following:
A misapprehension has sometimes arisen as to the time when the ''consent" of the crown should be given to a bill. The procedure with respect to signifying the consent is different from that in giving the recommendation of the crown. The recommendation precedes every grant of money; the consent may be given at any stage before final passage, and is always necessary in matters involving the rights of the crown, its patronage, its property, or its prerogatives.
Then on page 414 we find the following:
If the royal assent is not given at the last stage, the speaker will refuse to put the question. If a bill, requiring the royal assent, should be permitted to pass all its stages through some inadvertence, attention will be called immediately to the "fact in the house, and the proceedings declared null and void".
I should like to draw your attention to what is said in this regard in May's sixteenth edition, page 825, as follows:
The fact that a bill affecting the interests of the crown has been mentioned in the speech from the throne does not exempt it from the need for the royal consent.
Where a bill affecting the interests of the crown has been suffered, through inadvertence to be read the third time and passed without the royal consent being signified, the proceedings have been declared null and void.
The English translation of Faucher De Saint Maurice's parliamentary procedure, dealing with the matter on page 657, reads as follows:
I am of the opinion that the consent may be given at any time before the final question, "That the bill do pass", and that in the absence of such consent, this final question is the only one which the speaker is prohibited by the law of parliament, and by constitutional usages, from putting to the house.
All of these authorities are agreed on the necessity of the crown's consent. They are
Municipal Development and Loan Board also emphatic that without that consent a bill is declared null and void. This is a very commendable piece of legislation and my purpose in bringing this matter-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Has he by any chance a copy of the statement he is making? It is a little difficult to follow for anyone who would like to comment upon it.


Edward Nasserden: I will let the hon. gentleman have it when I have completed my remarks, if he would like it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So would I.


Edward Nasserden: I have only one copy here; I wish I had more.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very commendable piece of legislation which is before us. My purpose in bringing this matter up at this time is not to try to destroy the bill. I am not trying to delay the proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Edward Nasserden: Well, hon. gentlemen opposite can raise cain all they want here today, but I spent the better part of a couple of weeks going through the rule books on this question and I should like an answer today for my own satisfaction, and I believe for the satisfaction of others as well.
In the British House of Commons the procedure followed has been in conformity with the views expressed by the authorities I have mentioned. There are a great many citations to which reference might be made and which might be brought to the attention of the house in support of these views. The practice in Great Britain, as evidenced by the journals of their house of commons, might be interesting to the members of this house. I refer to volume 107, page 157, where we find this:
The house was moved, that the entry in the votes ol yesterday of the proceedings of the house on the third reading of the Rhyl Improvement Bill might be read, and the same being read;
And notice being taken that Her Majesty's interest is concerned therein, and that Her consent had not been signified thereto;
Ordered that the proceedings on the third reading of the said bill be null and void.
The situation was the same with regard to another bill which had been dealt with by the British House of Commons.
This matter became the subject of an interesting debate in the Canadian House of Commons on May 29, 1951, at which time the distinguished leader of my party, the then member for Lake Centre, questioned the procedure which was being followed. The minister of justice of that day was piloting a bill through the house regarding the Petition of Right Act and by his statement as reported in Hansard, 1951, at page 3505, he confirmed

Municipal Development and Loan Board the practice which appears to have been overlooked in this instance before us today. His words, as reported on page 3505, are as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the governor general, having been informed of the purport of Bill 192, an act to amend the Petition of Right Act, gives his consent as far as his Majesty's interests are concerned that the house may do therein as they think fit.
Third reading was then moved, and the bill passed.
Mr. Garson reinforced that practice on January 23, 1953, when he is reported in Hansard-


Guy Favreau: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but would he care to answer a question for the enlightenment of hon. members?
On what ground does the hon. gentleman claim that the rights and privileges of Her Majesty are being affected by the present bill? I think an answer to this will help us pursue a debate, if there is to be a debate on this.


Edward Nasserden: I was just coming to that, Mr. Speaker. The quotation to which I wish to refer is to be found on page 1272 of the debates for 195s Mr Carson moving a bill had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, before you put this motion may X say that His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house; and having also been acquainted with the purport of the measure to be introduced has given consent, so far as Her Majesty's prerogatives are affected, to the consideration of the bill.
In 1959, as reported at page 5660 of Hansard, volme V, covering the debates of July 14, the Hon. Ellen Fairclough, dealing with legislation to confirm an agreement between Canada and New Brunswick respecting reserves, said:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General having been made acquainted with the purpose of this bill, has given consent so far as Her Majesty's property rights are concerned, that the house may do therein as it shall think fit.
There is a further example on similar lines which could be quoted.
The purpose I have in mind in bringing this up is to remind the house that government in Canada is carried out by the crown, by the Senate and by the House of Commons. By the omission of this little phrase I think we have left something out, not only in this bill but in the bill I tried to deal with this morning as well as in one of the bills which has already passed this house. I had not completed my study of this matter at that time. It is in the hope that the question is one of interest to other members of the House of Commons that I have brought it forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not want to suggest that a debate be instituted at this time. The Chair is not sure it has the experience to decide on such an interesting, and perhaps novel point as the one raised by the hon. member for Rosthern. I may say, however, by way of preamble, that it is difficult for the Chair to rule that a bill which the government and members of parliament generally feel does not require royal consent does, indeed, come within that category. It is difficult for the Chair to substitute its own opinion and say that it does. This having been said, I should like to turn to the citation which has been quoted by the hon. member, that is, citation 283. It is obvious that his whole argument, as has been suggested by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Favreau, is based on the premise that certain rights and privileges of the crown are affected. It says:
The consent of the King or Queen, as the case may be (to be distinguished from the royal assent of bills) is given by a privy councillor to bills (and occasionally amendments) affecting local and personal interests which concern the royal prerogative, the hereditary revenue or personal property or interests of the Crown or Duchy of Cornwall.
It has not been shown clearly to the Chair that any ot tnese things is affected by this particular bill and I therefore feel that the point of order raised by the hon. member cannot be sustained.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggest that the point of order raised by the hon. member carries a great deal of weight, as well as being a most interesting one. As the hon. member gave the references, I referred to Beauchesne, Bourinot and May and continued to read in the paragraphs to which he made reference. It appears to me there is more to this than might appear to anyone who was just listening for the first time to the contention being put forward. I think we may assume that the hon. member has a valid point here and I would suggest that in the circumstances a ruling from the Chair be deferred until later this evening or until after Mr. Speaker can have a look at it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that a ruling, right or wrong, has already been made. I purposely hesitated before making it, realizing that hon. members might wish to speak on the point of order, although I was not altogether satisfied that such a discussion was desirable at that point. I trust that the hon. member will agree that the Chair, having made a ruling, it is a little late to revive the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rosthern. I would suggest we proceed to the third reading of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not in any way
criticizing the ruling you have made. Far

from it. None the less, I feel that on the basis of the authorities to which reference has been made this is a matter where a decision by yourself could not be regarded as a precedent. I had no idea this matter was to be raised by my hon. friend until this afternoon. I mentioned this last evening in my opening remarks. I did so because of the vast changes in this act-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may conclude, during the discussion last night I asked whether or not-	.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to appeal against your ruling. I want to point out this-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the greatest deference to the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that the Chair is in a position where it is difficult to admit that there could be a debate on the ruling which has been made. I appreciate that it will not help very much if there is an appeal from the ruling, as far as time is concerned. On the other hand, the right hon. gentleman will be the first one to realize that we have to go on the basis that the ruling, as I said, right or wrong, has been rendered, and I would not think much could be achieved by reopening this ruling. I am sure that the important and interesting point which has been raised, and which was also raised on another bill this morning, can be raised on bills that will come before the house on future occasions, and perhaps in the meantime the legal officers of the crown will have an opportunity to study the interesting point raised by the hon. member for Rosthem. But in view of the normal procedure of the house I would feel that a ruling having been rendered, I should ask the co-operation of the hon. gentleman to consider the matter closed. I would therefore ask if it is the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, the motion being for third reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I just rise because I was called during the discussion of the bill in the committee stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? Carried. When shall the said bill-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak for a moment or two on the principle of the bill. I simply want to say that I am pleased that the government listened to the representations of members and amended the bill so as to include incorporated local authorities in the principle of the bill with respect to municipalities. This will be received 28902-5-190
Wheat Sales to Red China with great pleasure by a lot of small communities which can benefit from this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I have consent to revert to motions to make a statement that I promised earlier in the day?


Gordon Minto Churchill: How long is the statement going to be? The supper hour is reduced now to 55 minutes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have been submitting continually today to making compromises. I tried to raise a matter a moment ago and I have no further argument about that. However, the rules are the rules and it is now after six o'clock. There is no reason why we should agree to compromise when the same attitude is not being shown to us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important statement but if the house does not wish to receive it at this time it may later.


John George Diefenbaker: At seven o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7 p.m.

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the house that the Canadian wheat board has made an announcement today regarding a new long term wheat agreement with the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation. This agreement is similar in form, although not in every respect of course, to the agreement signed on April 22, 1961, between the wheat board and the Chinese corporation. Under the agreement, the Chinese corporation has declared its intention to purchase from Canada three to five million long tons, that is approximately 112 to 186.7 million bushels of wheat over a three year period, August 1, 1963 to July, 1966. The Canadian wheat
2984	HOUSE OF
Wheat Sales to Red China board has undertaken to make such supplies available to the Chinese trading corporation concerned with specific quantities, prices and shipping periods to be negotiated periodically.
The terms of payment for sales under the long term agreement are 25 per cent cash when each vessel is loaded and the balance of 75 per cent in 18 months with interest. The deferred payment provision is made possible by a guarantee to the Canadian wheat board by the government of Canada, similar to the guarantee that was given on the occasion of the previous agreement. The first sales contract under the long term agreement has been negotiated and provides for the export to China of 500,000 long tons of wheat from Pacific coast ports during the period August 1, 1963 to January 31, 1964. I am sure all hon. members will agree that this is a worth while and important step in what I hope will be a substantial and continuing market for Canadian wheat in mainland China.
We have now in prospect sales of at least three million long tons of wheat to the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation over the next three years subject only to price negotiations respecting individual contract under the long term agreement. In order to promote mutually advantageous trade the Chineses State Trading Corporation will, of course, seek to maintain and develop their market in Canada for various items. It is in our mutual interest to provide them with an opportunity to do so, subject to appropriate safeguards to avoid market disruption and damage to Canadian producers. In this connection, the Chinese State Trading Corporation have undertaken to limit their exports of sensitive items, including textiles, to Canada.
The signing of the first contract under the agreement in an amount of 500,000 tons for delivery in the last half of the year is a clear indication of the intention of the China national cereals corporation to make this a workable agreement to the mutual benefit of both parties. The successful conclusion of the agreement and the initial contract is a step towards meeting the desire of our major farm organizations to concentrate efforts on moving as much grain as possible into export markets as a means of dealing with the problem of supply and demand. Let me assure those organizations and members of the house that the efforts of the Canadian wheat board and the government to expand wheat sales generally will not cease with the conclusion of this agreement with the China national cereals corporation.
Before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, may I also offer my hearty congratulations to the chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat


board who on this occasion, as on previous occasions, has done such a good piece of negotiating.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I had expected to hear this announcement at six o'clock but due to circumstances it was not made then, and I had an opportunity to have a preview of it before the minister spoke. I am, therefore, reasonably better prepared than I would have been had the announcement been made at six o'clock.
My first observation is this: Surely, no announcement could be made in this house that more clearly vindicates the position of the previous government and of myself personally with regard to sales to communist China. I think now the minister must be aware, even if some of his colleagues are not, of the reasons I went to Kowloon at the end of April, 1961. He is now reaping the rewards of the foundation that was laid during my visit to that city in April, 1961. If hon. gentlemen opposite had wanted to be fair and reasonable, they would have noticed when I came back from Kowloon that I said very clearly I went over there for three reasons: First, to establish how they were going to pay lor the wheat; second, to lay the foundations for an extension of the longterm agreement beyond 1963-it is all on the public record-and third, to see what I could do to find ways and means to establish trading relations that would be harmonious and helpful to us both.
This agreement is very sweet reading to me tonight. I am going to promise the minister that under no circumstances from me- and I hope not from any other member of the Conservative party-will he ever have to face up to what I had to face up to in the period that I was minister of agriculture in charge of the Canadian wheat board.
I give it to you in the words of your own Prime Minister, who in this house said this deal was a windfall in 1961 and would never happen again. He said it was a case of cash to our friends, and credit to those we did not recognize diplomatically. Another man who is now out of the house, the former member for Assiniboia, who became the policy maker for the Liberal party on agriculture stood up and said the whole deal was a hoax, a fraud and a myth. He is the only one who has become a myth. Even one of the present Liberal members of the house, who is not in his place now, stood up and inferred that this deal with China was treason to our country. This is the kind of thing I had to take.
Then we had a free lance newspaperman by the name of Jack MacBeth who wrote a series of scurrilous articles that would do

credit to a John Bircher. He collected all the scuttlebutt he could find in the fan-tan clubs of Hong Kong and published it as truth. Where is he today? He is an executive assistant to a minister of the crown. I have sat idly-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Idly is right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the grain producers in western Canada will, in view of the larger than normal crop that is growing, be pleased to hear the announcement that has been made this evening. There were a number of members in this house from all parties, except the government of the day, who felt that the first deal with mainland China was perhaps a windfall sale because of a severe drought in that country. The extension of this agreement for a further three year period indicates that perhaps it was not altogether a windfall sale, and we should give some credit to the previous government for initiating action in finding this large market for Canadian wheat.
I think the terms of the agreement are essentially the same as those announced several months ago, and therefore require very little comment from me. There is perhaps one major difference, which is that there is now a firm contract for 500,000 long tons of wheat for delivery between August 1 this year and January 31, 1964. The Canadian wheat board and the minister at that time may have known of firm contracts, but I do not believe they were made known to the farmers in western Canada. - _	 -


There is one problem we can envisage with this kind of deal; that is, we get a large portion of the export of Canadian wheat tied up with one country which we all recognize is getting into difficulty with its neighbours. I remember that last fall when the dispute arose on the Chinese-Indian border there was very serious concern about what was going to happen to the Canadian wheat exports to mainland China. Even today we hear rumblings of difficulties along the border, and if this should flare up into something serious- and we all hope this will not happen-it is certainly going to put this whole agreement in jeopardy again.
I would therefore express some concern about the loss of volume to some of our traditional markets that has taken place over the last ten years. I would urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) to make a maximum effort toward building up these traditional markets to the volumes we exported some eight or ten years ago. I have a great many statistics that were given me in a sessional paper in reply to a question I asked. I am not going to read them all, but I will give some examples. For example, in 1952-53 we sold Great Britain 102 million bushels of wheat. By 1961-62 this had dropped to 73 million bushels. I agree there were some erratic movements of the volume for each year; but if you look at the whole period you will see there has been a steady decline in that market. The same is true of Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and some of the south American countries, particularly Brazil, which was buying substantial quantities of wheat from us ten years ago and now they are not buying any. So I think it would be of great importance for the stability of the wheat market if the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the wheat board were to increase their efforts toward improving sales to these areas, where I think the sale continuity would be a little more reliable.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I say that we in this party welcome this announcement. We hope these sales will continue and that no difficulties will arise in the interval which will interfere with this deal. While no price is stated, I presume it will be going out at what is the international market price whenever the deliveries are made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that the member for the constituency in which the head office of the Canadian wheat board is located has an opportunity to say anything regarding the activities of that board. But that particular member is very happy tonight to congratulate the Canadian wheat board on the contracts and the agreements

that have been announced by the board and here in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). We feel this is not the time to have too much discussion or argument about who went to China when. The important thing is that this contract has been concluded; that the Canadian wheat board has been assisted by this government, as it was assisted by the previous government, in terms of making it possible for the board to guarantee the loans. We welcome the various items of detail that were given to us in the statement made this evening.
We agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) to the effect that we must look for other markets as well as the tremendous market in mainland China. I think it is perhaps not out of place for us to note that the problem of food, the problem of hunger, the problem of poverty, all those things that are economic, are world wide problems and it is good to note that there are times when in pursuit of settling those problems we get around the difficulties of diplomatic relationships.
It does seem to me that if we find it possible to deal with the people of mainland China in terms of trading our wheat for the commodities they have to sell to us, the day must come when we will recognize the de facto government that is there and try and get China into the councils of the nations of the world so we can do something to remove the causes of friction and tension between east and west. By the same token, if we can sell our farm products, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has suggested, to the countries that he listed, I think we not only help to find markets for the products of our farms but can play our part in helping to make one world out of a planet that all too often is torn with strife and dissension.
We congratulate the wheat board on what it has done. We are glad that this government, like the previous government, has been able to give the backing the wheat board needed; and we congratulate the farmers of western Canada on the benefit there is for them in the announcement that has been made tonight.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister just one question for clarification in regard to the statement he made. Mention was made of the fact that 41 million bushels were left of the previous contract. Are they included in this contract from 112 million to 186 million bushels?
Divorce Bill


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman from Qu'Appelle will remember, the Chinese corporation was only obliged to buy a minimum quantity of wheat, and the maximum quantity was an obligation upon the Canadian wheat board to deliver if called upon. The Chinese decided not to call upon any further wheat under the old contract and they replaced it by the present contract.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, although I do not want to speak at length on this sale of wheat-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it is a well recognized rule that when a statement is made on motions, as was this one, there is a comment from one member of each party and there is no debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is my understanding. Indeed, I had some qualms about allowing the hon. member for Humboldt-Mel-fort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) to submit a question to the minister. I think we should not pursue the matter any further.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Another kind of closure.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, my question was just to clarify one point in the minister's statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I appreciate that.



DIVORCE


Mr. Speaker:: I have received a message from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed Bill No. C-93, an act authorizing the Senate of Canada to dissolve or annul marriages, with amendments. The amendments are as follows:
Amendments made by the Senate to the BUI C-93, sent up from the House of Commons, intituled: "An act authorizing the Senate of Canada to dissolve or annul marriages".
1.	Page 1, line 9. Strike out line 9 and substitute the following:
"subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3),"
2.	Page 1, lines 28 to 32 inclusive. Strike out subclause (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) If the bill referred to in subsection (2) is disposed of otherwise than by becoming law or by reason of prorogation or dissolution of parliament, the resolution dissolving or annulling the marriage shall have full force and effect on the date on which the bill has been so disposed of."
3.	Page 2, lines 1 to 10 inclusive. Strike out subclause (4) and substitute therefor the following:
"(4) Where a petition or a bill seeking the annulment or modification of a resolution of the Senate dissolving or annulling a marriage has been disposed of by reason of prorogation or dissolution of parliament, and a new petition and a draft bill to the same effect are not filed with the clerk

Divorce Bill
of the parliaments within thirty days of the commencement of the next ensuing session of parliament, such resolution shall come into force on the expiration of such thirty days. If such petition and draft bill are so filed within such thirty days, the operation of such resolution shall be suspended in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2)
4.	Page 2, lines 11 to 21 inclusive. Strike out clause 3 and substitute the following:
"3. The Senate shall, before adopting a resolution for the dissolution or annulment of a marriage, refer the petition therefor to an officer of the Senate to be designated by the Speaker of the Senate, to hear evidence and make his report thereon to the Senate standing committee on divorce but such officer shall not recommend that a marriage be dissolved or annulled except on a ground on which a marriage could be dissolved or annulled, as the case may be, under the laws of England as they existed on the 15th day of July, 1870, or under the Marriage and Divorce Act, chap. 176 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1952."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, so that this matter could be considered if the house so wished later today, and if there was general agreement that this could be done, I would move, seconded by Mr. Walker:
That the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. C-193, an act authorizing the Senate of Canada to dissolve or annul marriages, be placed on the uiuex	for consideration later this d*y


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to follow these amendments which have been made by the Senate, and it occurs to me that it would be a good idea if arrangements could be made to distribute to members of the house the bill as it was with the amendments typed thereon, so that we can at least make an attempt to understand the changes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion may I say that I think the request of the right hon. gentleman is most reasonable. It would be impossible to follow the amendments from hearing them read. I was given a copy of them which appears to have been mimeographed. It looks to me as though there are some copies at the table, and I hope that before we reach the point when we would consider this matter, if we do, that the right hon. gentleman's suggestion can be complied with.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the motion is simply that the matter be placed on the order paper for consideration later this day, if there is general agreement. I think we all know what "general agreement" means in this case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is perfectly correct.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I might crave the indulgence of the house, there was tabled in the house yesterday a report of the joint committee on the library of parliament having to do with the positions of certain members of the staff. All the other members of the staff, or practically all of them, I think have been dealt with, and I wonder whether I could make a motion to ask the house to concur in this report?
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Deschatelets, that the report of the joint committee on the parliamentary library, submitted to the house on Thursday, August 1, 1963, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Text):
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

John Whitney Pickersgill: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $724,687,939.03, being the aggregate of-
(a)	two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $641,050,276.00;
(b)	an additional five-twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 107, $208,333.34;
(c)	an additional two-twelfths of the amounts of atomic energy item 5, public works item 20 and loans, investments and advances item L65 of the said estimates, $1,468,333.34;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the amounts of external affairs item 78, legislation items 40 and 45 mines and technical surveys items 30, 35 , 40, 50, 70, 80, 100, 105, 130 and 140, northern affairs and national resources items 25 , 30, 45 , 50, 100 and 105, public works item 180, transport item 50 of the said estimates, $6,058,666.67;
(e)	two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (A), for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1964, (except external affairs vote 96a and loans vote L63a), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $50,605,805.50;
(f)	an additional five-twelfths of the amount of finance item 5a, $415,833.34;
(g)	an additional two-twelfths of the amount of finance item 70a and loans, investments and advances item L65a, $11,380,690.84;
(h)	six-twelfths of the amount of the item set
forth in the supplementary estimates (B), for the fiscal year ending March 31,	1964, laid before
the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $3,500,000;

(i) six-twelfths of the amount of the item set forth in the supplementary estimates (C), for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $10,000,000;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1964.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has the minister a statement to make in explanation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might say that after consultation with hon. gentlemen opposite the government came to the conclusion that we should not ask for more than 60 days supply, which would take us up to September 30. That is what in principle the resolution covers; that is to say, two twelfths of the annual supply. As hon. members know, particularly those of long experience and hon. gentlemen who formerly sat on the treasury benches, there are certain items about which at this time of year more than the ordinary two twelfths is expended. That explains the difference in the other items apart from the normal one. I shall be glad, with the assistance of one or two of my colleagues, to explain any item I am capable of explaining beyond that; but I think in principle that is the explanation. I might say there is no case where the full amount of an item is being requested.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That statement expressed in other terms is what a Minister of Finance normally says on estimates of this nature to protect our rights in the future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a form of words usually set down in the bill. I have not had this experience before, but I was instructed by those more experienced than I to say it when the bill comes on. But the hon. gentleman is perfectly right. There is no thought whatever that in granting the supply the committee would be asked in any way to forgo the fullest right to examine every dollar of the proposed expenditure for the whole of the fiscal year.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I understand that during a debate on interim supply, one may deal with a few points of general interest. This evening, I will, during a few minutes, touch upon two special points which I should like to draw to the attention of the government. However, before doing so, I would like to mention that we, on this side of the house, have noted for some time that we did not altogether preach in the wilderness and that the ideas we have been advocating are finding acceptance. For example, last year the government endorsed the idea of setting up a
Interim Supply
system of debt free money and this afternoon, to a question asked by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) replied that it was possible to borrow money from the Bank of Canada. And during further explanations, the minister of commerce mentioned that small amounts would be easier to borrow. Already we find that the government is seeing the light and has decided to enlarge its field of vision and to show interest in new theories. The very fact mentioned this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it would be possible to borrow from the Bank of Canada, indicates a great progress in that direction. He mentioned this afternoon, that the $400 million which are being provided were perhaps too large an amount. But he implied that with smaller amounts this government might consider allowing this procedure.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is a good beginning, one likely to encourage us in future to advocate new theories which, we hope, will greatly benefit the citizens of this country.
Mr. Chairman, there are two points on which I want to call this government's attention. The first is that hon. members from the district of Saguenay-Lake St. John, which comprises four ridings, that is, Chicoutimi, Lapointe, Lake St. John and Roberval, have received a number of resolutions from municipal boards, social clubs, chambers of commerce and the St. Jean Baptiste society, to the effect that we, the four members who represent that district in this house, should vigorously oppose the stockpiling of nuclear arms at the Bagotville air base. There is a military base at that point and there has been talk of stockpiling nuclear weapons in that area to equip Voodoo type planes.
I would point out to this government that there are Starfighters stationed in France. Lately, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) stated that those Starfighters would remain in France, even if they were not equipped with nuclear arms, because the French government does not want such nuclear arms, over which it would have no control, stockpiled on its territory. If it was felt that Starfighters would be useful if armed with conventional weapons instead of nuclear weapons, and are being left in France so armed with conventional weapons when they were supposed to be designed only for nuclear warheads, the Voodoos are

Interim Supply
in exactly the same position. Those aircraft are in a country whose peace-loving people are not afraid to protect their country when the time comes to do so. In fact, the Saguenay people proved it, and for that matter, so did people from all parts of Canada who do not see the necessity of stockpiling nuclear weapons.
That is why we, the four members for that district, because of representations received from municipal councils and social organizations of that area, are against any storage of nuclear weapons at the Bagotville military airport.
I hope that this request will be duly considered and that before any action is taken, our claims will be looked into and we shall be allowed to discuss the problem with authorities concerned.
Mr. Chairman, the second point I should like to raise has to do with a case which gives an idea of the atmosphere which exists within certain crown corporations. Since the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) and his nnrlinmpritnry secretary (Mr. Cantin) are both in the house at this moment, I hope they will take under advisement the case I am going to refer to and that they will take the necessary steps with the C.N.R. to improve the atmosphere which prevails within that crown corporation.
In 1941, a certain Mr. Thomas Tremblay, of Jonquiere, was employed as supervisory foreman in that community, a position he held for 13 years, that is until 1954. Now, when it was learned that he would be retiring in eight months, he was relieved of his job as supervisory foreman and assigned to duties as a plain workman. Accordingly, he did not get as large a pension as he would have received as supervisory foreman, the position he held during 13 years.
I wrote several letters about this matter. I must admit that I got polite replies, in French at that, from the president of the C.N.R. In fact, when I saw that he was answering me in French, I wanted to be just as polite and I wrote to him in English. We exchanged letters that way for a while and I feel that this is one way in which we can foster true bilingualism in Canada.
In any case, even though the answers were polite, they were always indefinite, for they resorted to arguments which were mostly unconvincing and even rather unpleasant.
[Mr. Gregolre.l
As a matter of fact, it is an unusual situation for an employee who has worked 35 years for the C.N.R., during which he was foreman-supervisor for 13 years, to find himself in a lower position thus receiving a lower pension and, worst of all, eight months only before his retirement.
Mr. Thomas Tremblay, of Jonquiere, has attempted in vain to have his case revised before 1955. I must say that ten letters at least have been exchanged with C.N.R. authorities but that nothing has been done to settle the matter.
Mr. Chairman, while we are studying interim supply, I take this opportunity to submit this case to the house, and I hope that the Minister of Transport will take it into consideration, for I feel that there is a deliberate policy of discrimination directed against some C.N.R. employees in our district.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I wanted to say. Before resuming my seat, may I wish a happy holiday to all the hon. members. We deserve it, as we had to work like slaves during the last few months and go through two sessions and two election campaigns.
(Taxi).


Mr. Willoughby:: I rise at this point not to discuss the details of this resolution concerning interim supply but to draw the attention of hon. members of this committee to a specific instance of what I consider to be a great moral obligation on the part of our country to a totally disabled member of my constituency. I wish to bring to the attention of the committee a most unfortunate situation which throughout British Columbia has come to be known as the Doctor Nigel Clark case. I am only going to take a few minutes but I should like to outline very briefly to the committee some of the details of this case.
On January 20 of this year this 32 year old medical man of Lillooet, British Columbia, was called by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He was advised that a young lad lay injured on the side of a mountain. He responded immediately and was conveyed to the scene of the accident by the R.C.M.P. Unfortunately, after attending the injured lad the doctor himself slipped on the ice, fell 150 feet into a canyon and fractured his neck. He is now totally paralysed from the neck down.
As a married man with five children he is financially destitute. There have been voluntary donations by the medical men of British Columbia but he has now come to the end of

those donations and it is expected that he will be dependant upon social welfare within the next few months. He has been under continuous medical care, of course, since the accident, but at the present time it is obvious that his disability is permanent. There is little hope that he will ever be able to support his family. At the present time he is being considered for several awards for bravery and devotion to duty, but how empty these awards must be to a man of this type who was looking forward to a life of devotion to his medical practice. How inadequate a return this is to one who should be looking forward to the provision of a home and the education of his children.
Medical men with a proper humane attitude will never refuse a call to duty but the experience of this young man as already outlined gives rise to a very serious question. Should members of the medical profession, in taking such dangerous calls at the request of the police, demand the same protection as members of the police forces or members of the armed services who suffer accidents in the course of their duties are granted?
I submit this extraordinary case to the house for what may seem extraordinary humane considerations. I submit it, knowing full well that there is no legal obligation involved in the laws of our country as they now stand. But I submit it should receive every consideration on the basis of a moral claim which I hope will result in the maximum assistance to the one disabled and to his dependants. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that there is a time in our deliberations when we should consider extraordinary situations on the grounds of moral obligations and not necessarily on the basis of legal commitments. If ever a case demanded such consideration, that of Dr. Nigel Clark, who was injured on a call to duty by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is outstanding. He should receive not only our sympathy but rather ample provision for financial assistance on a basis at least as ample as that provided for a member of the R.C.M.P.
I submit this case for urgent consideration at this time of interim supply and I ask the government to treat it as a moral obligation. I know that everyone in the house will agree that the case of Dr. Nigel Clark merits the most favourable and realistic assistance. I do ask that some immediate action for his relief be undertaken.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could make available to the committee some information-


Mr. Fairweather:: If we could hear you it would be better.
28902-5-191
Interim, Supply


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wonder whether I could take this opportunity to make available to the committee some information in connection with the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, possibly the minister could wait until the conclusion of this matter because when a matter is being discussed it should be concluded. I should like to say a word with regard to the representation made by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is not the kind of motion where we have to stay with a subject, but if the Leader of the Opposition would like to follow the hon. member for Kamloops I would be happy to yield to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the presentation that has been made by the hon. member for Kamloops is one that touches the heartstrings of all of us. The statement he made, objective, unadorned and without emotion, made an appeal to all members of the house. Indeed, in the years I have been here I have not heard a similar reaction on the part of hon. members as was evident a moment ago. I hope that the Minister of Justice will give earnest consideration to these representations. The hon. member has pointed out that there is no legal obligation, but there is something greater than that. When a member of the medical profession answers the call of duty and endangers not only his own life but also the happiness of his family a case is made out for an ex gratia payment. I am not going to say any more at this time, but this is an appealing case.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member for Kamloops for having raised this matter, with which I am sorry to say I am not familiar. It may well be that the hon. member has written to me about it though I must confess I have no recollection of it. I am sure the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition as well will realize that there are a great many cases concerning not only officials of the Department of Justice but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that come to my attention from time to time. I listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. member and I can assure him that as soon as I get back to my office on Monday one of the first things I will do is to bring this question to the attention of the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: May I express my thanks to the Minister of Justice. I brought this matter before the committee on the understanding that he was already familiar with it. I have correspondence in my file here in

Interim Supply
connection with the case which indicates the matter was referred to his department. I do not say it was referred to the minister specifically but it was dealt with by the R.C.M.P. They expressed their sympathy but said there was no legal obligation in the matter. Naturally, therefore, I brought it to the attention of the house tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all members of the house will feel that the hon. member for Kamloops has brought to our attention a case that deserves not only our sympathy but positive action along the lines that the member suggested, and I am sure we are all grateful to the Minister of Justice for his assurance that he will give this matter his attention.
I should like to say on behalf of our party that we are prepared to grant to the government the two months interim supply that is being asked for tonight. This is a routine request which has been made with the usual assurance that we will have the fullest opportunity later in the session to discuss the items, portions of which we are voting at this time.
As hon. members are aware, an interim supply debate is one that is rather wide open. We are free to discuss any of the matters towards which we vote money. But it is not my intention to make a wide-ranging speech at this hour of Friday night or at this stage of the session. I should like, rather, to say a few words about the part of the session we have had thus far, and to indicate what I feel is the most disappointing feature of it. I imagine that in the next week or two the newspapers and periodicals of the country will run editorials and feature articles about this session. It will be interesting to see what adjectives they use, and what titles they give to it. There are a number of things that have happened that will, of course, receive their attention as they try to assess the value of what we have done.
I believe the most disappointing aspect of the session that we have had up to this point, these first 56 days, is the failure to get something definite done with regard to the increase in the amount of the old age pension. If there is one thing that was discussed on just about every platform during the election that was held last spring, it was the question of raising the amount of the old age pension, and of providing other ways of increasing old age security generally. All parties were committed to do something in this field. Certainly, the party that won the election was one that had made very strong commitments. I was so aware of that commitment that, in my own case, on election night in my committee rooms I expressed to my followers

who were there the belief that whatever other mistakes might be made by the government that was elected that night, we would be able to get out of it in this parliament an early increase in the old age pension.
When we came down and heard the speech from the throne, we were informed of the proposal to introduce the Canada pension plan. After a while we got the resolution on the order paper. We had the newspaper reports of speeches made outside of the house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We were assured that in due course we would get not only a new piece of pension legislation known as the Canada pension plan, but an increase of $10 in the pension paid to those who draw pensions under the Old Age Security Act. Despite the fact that there have been these evidences that it is going to happen, it is most disappointing to us in this house, and even more disappointing to those who are affected throughout the country, that the effective date of that increase has been put off until, so far as we can find out, some time in 1964.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare when she was speaking on this subject, said the effective date of the increase would be early in 1964. I was pleased the Prime Minister said to me the other day that the effective date might be earlier than I feared. This is an interesting use of the word "fear". I can only hope that since the Minister of National Health and Welfare said some time early in 1964 and the Prime Minister used the word "earlier", that does at least give some credence to the newspaper reports that we can count on the date of January 1.
However, Mr. Chairman, the old people of Canada do not feel that is good enough. It does seem to me we should have some clear statement from the government before we wind up tonight as to when that $10 increase is to be made effective. A couple of times during this session the Prime Minister said that we could get along with these things if other business were out of the way. I think he realized that was realy a bluff, and a couple of times he realized his bluff was called. Actually, the government has not been prepared to move with this piece of legislation in this part of the session. But it does seem to me now, before we wind up tonight, we should be told what that effective date is going to be.
We have been promised that the resolution on the Canada pension plan, which was started, will be called as early as possible after we come back in September. I see no reason why it should take any length of time at all to get that resolution and that bill through this house. If we get it through in the early part of October, as I am sure we

can, I see no reason why we could not have the assurance that the effective date of this $10 increase would be within a few days or a few weeks at the most after the legislation has been approved. If we could have that kind of assurance, I can assure the government it will have the co-operation of the house in getting the legislation through in the shortest possible time.
The government may contend that there has to be some relationship between the starting date of the $10 increase and the starting date of collections under the contributory feature of the new plan. The government has already indicated the $10 increase to this old age security pension is going to be paid prior to the date when the contributions start. In other words, some means of financing that advance payment is in the mind of the government. If that is the case, we see no reason why that period cannot be extended so that this $10 increase can be made effective much earlier than is in prospect at the present time.
People are interested in the idea that some time before long we will have in this country a pension system that will make it possible for people generally to have $150 or $175 a month as a pension out of the Canada pension plan and old age security. This is going to be possible only for people who retire in 1975. This is not much help to people who are old age pensioners at the present time and are being asked to wait another three or six months before they get this $10 increase. I think that even tonight the Prime Minister should make a definite statement to this house and tell us the earliest possible date at which that increase could be made effective. I am sure all members of all parties in the house would back up my statement that if we could have the assurance that an increase will be made effective at an early date, the government will have the co-operation of the house in getting that legislation through very quickly after we come back. As a matter of fact, if it would assist in getting this pension started at an early date,
I can tell the Prime Minister that we in this party would be glad to come back earlier than September 30, the date that has been suggested.
There are other things about this portion of the session to which I might refer. However, I would rather pinpoint my remarks on this one subject. To me, this is the most disappointing feature of these 56 days of this session, that we have not received a definite decision from the government as to when that $10 increase is going to start. We have done some other things that were good. We have done some things about which there will be a lot of discussion. I still think we owe it 28902-5-191J
Interim Supply
to the old people of this country to tell them when that increase is going to be effective, and to let them know it will be soon.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, the interim supply which we are now considering gives me the opportunity to make a few remarks that I wanted to make a little while ago when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) made his statement concerning the wheat sales to communist China.
We have listened with great interest to the minister's statement and we welcome this piece of news. This sale will not only be advantageous to the farmers of western Canada but will profit as well the eastern farmers. The well-being of both, either of the east or of the west, is closely related. When western farmers are happy, eastern farmers are happy also.
However, in the course of his statement, the minister mentioned, if I remember well, readjustments which are necessary concerning the import of textiles.
Coming as I do from one of the most important centres of the textile industry in the province of Quebec, I cannot help but take this opportunity to say a few words. In fact, it seems to me that my electors would be vexed with me if I did not ask the minister in their name to do everything he can to protect our textile industry.
As the hon. gentleman and his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabasca (Mr. Pepin) probably know, the textile industry is the backbone of many of our towns and municipalities. As a matter of fact, for a great many towns and villages in my area, the textile industry is the main activity.
Unless the minister, in the dealings with communist China, pays special attention to this very important industry of ours, the result could be more unemployment for employees who spent the major part of their life in that industry.
So, on behalf of employees of the textile industry in St. Hyacinthe and other cities or communities where this industry is the main livelihood of people, I ask the minister to pay special attention to that question, in order to preserve the livelihood of our people. And I am confident, knowing the sincerity of the minister, that he will want to act on my recommendations.

Interim Supply
(Text):


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I would like the indulgence of the committee in order to make a brief statement of information to the house with respect to the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
Hon. members may recall that early in the session I announced certain proposals with respect to vocational training, especially with respect to federal assistance for capital construction. I had hoped it would have been possible to have brought forward the amending legislation at this date. That has not been possible, but certain provinces would find it to their advantage to know what is in the government's mind with respect to this so that they could plan their own programs in connection with capital construction of training facilities. Therefore I thought the committee would permit me to give a very brief indication of what the government has in mind so that I will be able to advise the provinces accordingly.
As hon. members know, the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act provides in section 4 for a contribution by the federal government of 50 per cent of capital expenditures incurred by the provinces on training facilities, until the expiry of agreements on March 31, 1967, plus an additional 25 per cent if these capital expenditures were incurred before April 1, 1963.
As hon. gentlemen also know, this program has made a marked contribution to the creation of student places, and under the program 138,000 additional student places have been provided. The government now intends to extend the period during which the additional 25 per cent will be available, and it is to the conditions under which this 25 per cent will be available that I address myself.
The government is proposing that the 25 per cent additional contribution be continued on the following basis: The highest per capita federal contribution approved up to March 31, 1963, is $480, which sets the top standard for the federal contribution on a 75 per cent basis. This happens to be the case for the province of Newfoundland. It is proposed that other provinces be allowed to meet this per capita standard of $480 so that the additional federal contribution of 25 per cent will be continued in each province until the per capita of federal payments in provinces have reached this standard of $480, or until the expiry of the present agreement on March 31, 1967, whichever is sooner.
Once the $480 per capita standard has been reached in a province it will, of course, be eligible for a continuing 50 per cent contribution to capital until the end of the agreement.
[Mr. Ricard.l
I thank hon. members for allowing me to make this statement, which will give me a chance to advise the provinces and tell them in detail the amounts each province may receive under this additional 25 per cent.


Douglas Mason Fisher: 
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question for clarification. It is on the same line. According to what the minister just said, this amendment will bring a new scope to the bill, and I wonder whether it takes into consideration the fact that the province of Quebec might not recuperate the difference in the amount which Ontario has received under this scheme and which Quebec has declared she has not been able to receive. I think the minister understands my question. I think this was the complaint that may have caused the minister to discuss this new arrangement. I would like him to tell me what the discussions were and give his comments on this question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question of my hon. friend I would say that one of the purposes of this proposal that will be brought before the house later in the form of a resolution and then a bill is to make it possible, for example, for some provinces, including Quebec, to participate more fully in this program. The response among the provinces has been uneven and the purpose of this new formula is to make possible a more equitable participation. I talked about the per capita contribution. I should make it clear to members of the committee that I am talking about the federal contribution per capita in the age group 15 to 19; the average federal contribution per capita for Canada in this group up to date has been $225, while in Quebec it has been $51 and in Ontario $458.
By taking the highest province, which is Newfoundland, and bringing all other provinces up to that level it will allow every province to more or less share equitably in the program. Mind you, once this level of $480 is reached, the provinces will continue to receive the 50 per cent contribution. This only applies to the additional 25 per cent. I understand that the province of Quebec will accept this particular proposal. I cannot inform my hon. friend from Port Arthur definitely as to the attitude of the province of Ontario, but I will say that even under this proposal the province of Ontario stands to gain a further sum under the 75 per cent arrangement.


Sydney John Smith: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us how many people there are of
Interim Supply
that age group in Ontario? I wonder whether the minister has those figures. It seems to me that on a rough calculation it would mean $22 additional per student, if I have subtracted $458 from 480 correctly. How many students or persons are there in Ontario in the age group 15 to 19 that the minister mentioned? Does he have that figure, or could he get it for us?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman,
but I do not have that figure. However, I can assure my hon. friend that when this proposal comes before the house for definite action I will be able to give him all this information.


Sydney John Smith: Am I right in assuming that it is an additional $22 per student in Ontario within that age group, however many there are?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think this is correct.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask another question on this matter. What adjustment will be made as this program goes along for the fact that the per capita figure will be changing as we get the flood into the 15-19 age group? Is there any allowance made for that, or is the per capita formula based upon the number of students right at the present day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My hon. friend has raised an interesting point. The per capita proposal is based on the 1961 census. It was not expected that we would make any adjustment to take into account this particular aspect, but I think it is something that is worth considering.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What proposals have been put before the minister in terms of the continuing contribution of the federal government toward the upkeep of the vocational assistance program? Is there anything there at all?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment is confined to capital construction assistance. In the resolution that is on the order paper my hon. friend will notice there is an additional federal contribution of training allowances for unemployed persons from 75 per cent to 90 per cent. Also the federal contribution will increase from 50 per cent to 75 per cent with regard to training costs in industry for employed persons. So there will be, in addition to this capital cost provision, additional federal assistance for training programs for the unemployed and the employed in industry.


Sydney John Smith: Mr. Chairman, could the minister say whether any consideration has been

Interim Supply
given to this question. For example, if a province is able to keep more of its young people of that particular age group in school, will any consideration be given to that province? It might be that we could build schools and people would not attend them. Will there be any adjustment made there?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These programs normally will be presented as I understand the matter, by provincial governments. They will naturally -or one would expect this to be so-bring forward training facility construction programs in accordance with the need that is felt for training places in each province.


Sydney John Smith: The capital contribution is mechanical in the sense that it relates only to census figures?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, could the minister say what the new ceiling will be for the total federal contribution on the 75 per cent basis, supposing every province should come up to the Newfoundland standard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 
Allan Joseph MacEachen: -subject to confirmation later, I think the additional federal contribution arising from the 25 per cent solely will be, up to the $480 per capita, in the amount of $122 million.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to be a little more specific on this question. The present scheme is for four years, if I understand it correctly, from April 1 this year to April 1, 1967, or to the maximum of $480, whichever comes first. My point was this: how will Quebec, which has complained that they did not receive their fair share of the money allowed for such a program, recuperate the difference of money she has claimed she did not receive from the federal government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The province of Quebec will bring forward its program. The federal government will participate in such a construction program until 1967 up to the $480 contribution per capita, and the province of Quebec will have this additional period of several years to share in the program. I am confident that this period of time will permit the province to participate in this program to the fullest possible extent.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister has a breakdown of what can be picked up by each of the provinces under the extension that is now being offered to them.
[Mr. Smith.}


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have an estimate. I did not expect I would get into so many details tonight but I would be glad to give an estimate of the maximum additional contribution based on the $480 per capita level and arising from the additional incentive contribution of 25 per cent. It is as follows. Newfoundland is the best off province in this case and will not be eligible for the 23 per cent in the future. I am glad to see Newfoundland in that category. Prince Edward Island, $733,000; Nova Scotia, $7,890,000; New Brunswick, $6,972,000; Quebec, $66,935,000; Ontario, $3,262,000; Manitoba, $9,694,000; Saskatchewan, $8,926,000; Alberta, $3,855,000; British Columbia, $13,511,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might say a word. The hon. gentleman has a resolution on the order paper. This particular matter is not covered by interim supply at all; the Minister of Labour just took advantage of this to give the house some information so that he could give it to the provinces without being in contempt of the house. If we could pass interim supply I would be delighted to call the resolution, since there is so much interest in the matter, and see if we could nass that tonight too.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am spurred by this announcement and the fact that the Prime Minister is in the house to ask him a couple of questions about some of the cornerstones of Liberal party policy as it affects education. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could let us know now what are the government's intentions in three specific educational areas.
The first one is the demands and requests of the Canada Council for assistance, particularly in postgraduate work so that we can have an adequate supply of university people. I understand from reading their report that there is a real urgency about this. The second matter is in the field of the $100,000 scholarships. What is coming along there? The third area is an area represented by the presentation made to the Prime Minister about a month and a half ago by university officials, I think through the national conference or association of universities, asking for an immediate projection of the kind of assistance that the federal government will be prepared to give. I remember the argument tended to be toward the kind of plan that the British universities have through the university grants committee, where they have some kind of five year basis to work on and so enable planning to be done to meet some of the growth problems they have. Since we have had one announcement relating to education I think we would appreciate knowing what the Prime Minister has

in mind in these three areas, in each of which, according to the proponents of the particular area, there is real urgency.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been in touch with representatives of the universities in respect of two of the three matters mentioned by the hon. member. The cabinet has given preliminary consideration to the requests which have been made for additional financial assistance in the field mentioned, and the government has appointed the former deputy minister of finance as special adviser on federal aid to education. He has been going into these programs and reporting to us as to what can be done. We are being pressed, as my hon. friend may know, by the universities association, through Mr. Andrews, to give them some indication of our policy as quickly as possible so that they can plan ahead. All I can say at the moment is that these matters have been considered but no decision has yet been reached as to what we can do. This is one of the matters which, when the session ends, we will have to take into more active consideration than we have been able to do in the past two or three weeks, because we are very much aware of the importance of the problem.
So far as the scholarship program is concerned, that is still part of our policy. It is a commitment which we accept. I recall in the last discussion I had with the representatives of the universities that one or two of them mentioned that they would be a little worried about an influx of federal scholarships at the moment into the universities, when they have difficulty in the matter of accommodation, both in respect of facilities and teaching, with regard to the students they have now. They seem to put first priority for assistance on construction, and assistance in fields other than federal scholarships. But this is part of our program which we intend to carry out.
I am afraid I cannot say anything more than that at present, but I hope that in the autumn when we reassemble we will have some definite information to convey to the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Prime Minister did not tell us anything about the Canada Council and its needs, particularly in the area where the $50 million is proving very inadequate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry that I did not mention that specifically, but it is one of the matters on which I cannot give definite information to the committee at the present time. I have talked to the Canada Council about it. I have a memorandum from them and the matter is being considered by our-
Interim Supply
selves and Mr. Taylor at the present time; but we have not come to any decision on that matter yet.


Edward Nasserden: There is one matter I should like to mention tonight concerning the grain situation in western Canada. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that during the election campaign reference was made to an alternative to acreage payments, the payment of $3 per bushel on the first 300 bushels of wheat. As the Prime Minister knows, we on this side of the house stood by the policy we had put into effect during the years we were in office. In view of the congestion problems which are developing in western Canada, the shortage of cash which is likely to plague the farming communities in western Canada, and also in view of the fact that this government has shown that it can change its mind, and has done so on numerous occasions during the present session of parliament, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, if there are difficulties over the payment of the $3 per bushel for the first 300 bushels of wheat, he will give consideration to action taken by the former government by way of acreage payments and try to fulfil that commitment made by the former government. I know that the Prime Minister must know that the problem of cash in western Canada will be a great one this coming winter. I also know that he is a man who cares, and I hope he will give consideration to this particular problem.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, during the recess we will be glad to give consideration to all aspects of agricultural problems, including the one mentioned by the hon. member, and which is sometimes misreported as $3 wheat.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

['May I just include in these kind remarks the Clerk and the Clerk Assistants. We in turn thank you. We try to do our best. Sometimes in the last few days there has been fairly vigorous activity, and I should like to extend a Scotch invitation to cross the hall to room 16 just as soon as we have completed the proceedings.\nOn motion of Mr. Pickersgill the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m. until Monday, September 30.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, the sum of $724,687,939.03 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Atlantic Development Board Act Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance)
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-94, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1964.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, the sum of $724,687,939.03 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the bill be read the second time.


[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-Short title.
['that the bill be read the second time.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before clause 1 carries, I feel I should, on behalf of the government, give the customary assurance in the customary words. The proportions requested in this bill are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to September 30, 1963. In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by
x-ui_ ljii mu. js-	-x* xi-; - vni [DOT]_ xi- - -   i
i/iaxo wui. iuc xvsxxxx v_*x txxxo uni xo txxc usual
one for interim supply bills. The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we go on to the private members' business which was agreed on earlier I wonder if I might be allowed to revert to motions in order to make a brief statement to the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Pickersgill.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to announce the names of the six new members of the Atlantic development board, whose appointments were approved today by His Excellency the Governor General.
Hon. members will recall that parliament approved these new appointments recently when it passed amendments to the Atlantic Development Board Act, one of these amendments being designed to increase the number of members on the board from five to eleven.
The new chairman of the board is Ian Malcolm MacKeigan, Q.C. of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Mr. MacKeigan has had a distinguished career at the bar of Nova Scotia since he was admitted in 1939 and during the war and afterwards he held high offices in the service of this government here in Ottawa. He is presently a vice president of the Canadian Bar Association for Nova Scotia and is also extremely active in community organizations. Mr. MacKeigan's term on the board will expire on January 23, 1966.
The two other members whose terms will also expire on that day are Robert C. Eddy of Bathurst, New Brunswick, and Albert Martin of Corner Brook, Newfoundland.
Sddy	nirnnnnnn /-lit v-1 r-t lUn nnn
ond world war with the Canadian army, was wounded in action and was awarded the military cross. After the war he served on the staff at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, and since 1946 he has been employed by the George Eddy Company Limited in Bathurst, New Brunswick. He is a director of his company and several other firms in Bathurst. He is the chairman of the board of school trustees in Bathurst and a member of the board of governors of the Atlantic provinces economic council.
Mr. Albert Martin is president and general manager of the Bowater's Newfoundland Pulp and Paper Mills, Limited, and is also president of the Mersey Paper Company, Limited, in Liverpool, Nova Scotia. In the first world war he served overseas with the royal Newfoundland regiment, having joined the regiment when he was 15 years of age. Since 1923 he has been employed steadily by the Bowater's organization and by its predecessor companies and he served in various positions with the company before his appointment as president in 1962.
Three other members of the board have been appointed for terms of two years which will expire on January 23, 1965. They are Carl F. Burke of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Captain Maxwell Burry of Glovertown, Newfoundland and Stephen A. Dolhanty of Florence in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Burke is a former president of the maritime provinces board of trade and has since 1941 been managing director of the Maritime Central Airways, one of the most successful air lines of its sort in the world.
Captain Maxwell Burry of Glovertown, Newfoundland, is one of the most successful fishermen in Newfoundland. He first went to Labrador when he was 11 years old aboard his father's fishing schooner. Seven years later, when he was 18 years old, he was master of his own ship. In recent years Captain Burry's interest has again been centered on the Labrador fisheries and he is given a large share of the credit for reviving this important fishery within the past two or three years.
Mr. Dolhanty is presently vice president of district 26 of the United Mine Workers of America, an office he has held since 1950. He has worked in the coal mines in North Sydney since 1923 and has held various offices in his union over the years since then. He has been active also in the co-operative movement.
Brigadier Michael Wardell of Fredericton, New Brunswick, who has served as chairman of the board since its inception on January 24 of this year, will continue to be a member of the board until his term expires on January 24, 1965. He will be eligible for reappointment for a three year term.
The other members of the present board, Mr. Frank Sobey of Stellarton, Nova Scotia, Mr. Melvin McQuaid of Souris, Prince Edward Island, Mr. Fred Ayre of St. John's, Newfoundland and Mr. Donat LaLande of Moncton, New Brunswick, will serve on the board until January 24, 1964, and they too are eligible for reappointment.
Succeeding appointments to the board will be for terms of three years, the initial appointments having been made, as the act provides, for varying periods of time so that the membership of the board will not change completely in any one year.
I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, to be able to announce these appointments. The new members, I am sure, will bring to the board great ability and a wide diversity of experience in many facets of the economic and social life of the four Atlantic provinces. I am very grateful to the new members and to the old for their agreement to serve on this board and I am grateful too that the board will not lose the valuable services of the original members.
I may say, sir, that I have arranged to have a meeting of the board in Halifax on Tuesday at which I hope to be present myself. I would envisage a short open session before the board goes on with its business session, and I am quite confident that any members from the Atlantic provinces who would wish to be
Private Bills
there for the first part of the session and could find it convenient to be in Halifax would be most welcome.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the minister a question, and in asking it I do not want to be misunderstood because I think the appointments are good ones. Is the minister aware that there does not seem to be a representative from the greater Saint John area in spite of the fact that southern New Brunswick is recognized by everybody to be the industrial centre of the Atlantic provinces?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is quite right and it is quite a serious omission. Perhaps it will be considered by some hon. gentlemen in that corner of the house to justify their view that there should have been 15 members on the board instead of 11. But a real effort was made to take account of geographical as well as other considerations. I am sorry to say that not every occupational group is represented.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Agriculture?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are several members of the board with experience in agriculture, including Mr. Burke. I admit he has spent quite a lot of his time in the air in recent years, but he told me the other day he spent the first 21 years of his life on a farm outside Charlottetown and he has never been very far from the farm since. I would imagine that Mr. McQuaid also has some knowledge of agriculture. Of course, Prince Edward Island is, I suppose, the paramount agricultural part of the Atlantic provinces, though I see the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) shaking his head.


George Clyde Nowlan: Go easy. I do not want to have to make a speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Prince Edward Island is a little larger than the valley.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Wahn.
Eighth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace).

Mr. Edmund Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, if we are still on motions, by unanimous consent I move seconded by Mr. Moreau:
That Bills S-33 and S-34, reported this day by the standing committee on banking and commerce, be placed on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole later this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker pursuant to standing order 75, by unanimous consent I move, seconded by Mr. Moreau:
That Bills SD-252 to SD-356, both Inclusive, reported this day by the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, be placed on the order paper for consideration by the committee of the whole later this day immediately after order No. 1 on private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Private bills-Consideration of Bill S-15, an act to incorporate the Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada.-Mr. Enns.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe the understanding that was reached at four o'clock was that the first bills that would be taken would be the divorce bills to be followed by any other private bills to which the house was willing to agree.
Order stands.


DIVORCE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
the house in cunumuce un Dills Nos. SD-252 to SD-356 inclusive, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clauses 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, as these bills were not before us the other day and because of the fact they have been before parliament on previous occasions, can the chairman of the standing committee assure us that the committee has checked to see whether there are affidavits of the current session indicating that these parties still want to proceed with the divorce actions? Also, could he inform the house whether or not notices have been sent informing these people that if they wish to contest these cases they may do so?


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Chairman, we received the usual report from the other place that the usual affidavits have been received, that these bills we are now dealing with are completely regular, that the petitioners wish to proceed and that there has been no change since they were originally considered in the other place. The committee considered these bills this afternoon and considered the bills to be completely in order.


William Arnold Peters: We are not objecting to them, but I believe there will be other bills. It is very important that when we are finally disposing of these bills we do not make any mistake by divorcing someone who does not wish to be divorced or someone who is dead

or something of that nature. The committee might feel that this could not possibly happen, but it can. Without this assurance from the committee we are taking a great deal for granted. I only hope that parliament will have the power to remedy any mistake that is made in this regard. It really would not matter to someone who was deceased, but if someone intended to contest a divorce and notice had not been given, I think we might run into some difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Clauses agreed to.
Preambles agreed to.
Titles agreed to.
Bills reported, and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-26, respecting Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company-Mr. Granger.
Bill No. S-35, respecting the Crown Life Insurance Company-Mr. Addison.
Bill No. S-30, respecting the Monarch Life Assurance Company-Mrs. Konantz.
Bill No. S-31, respecting The Canadian Manufacturers' AQ^npiatinn.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill No. S-33, respecting The Canada Accident and Fire Assurance Company-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace).
Bill No. S-34, respecting The National Life Assurance Company of Canada-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace).

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that Bill No. C-93 has been returned from the other place with certain amendments proposed from that place, which Your Honour communicated to us earlier this evening. It was no part of the agreement reached at four o'clock this afternoon that we should consider this matter, and therefore I feel I should ask whether the house is prepared at this time to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the consultation that has taken place I would suggest that we proceed with the bill as it has been sent back amended to the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric Alfred Winkler: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. C-93, authorizing the Senate of Canada to dissolve or annul marriages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest we hesitate a moment. I think there are consultations that might lead to an acceptable consequential amendment.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the five amendments made in the other place this afternoon are ones with which we are pleased to agree, with one change. The change would be in the fourth recommendation, on page 2, line 11, and I move, seconded by Mr. Knowles:
Page 2 lines 11 to 21 inclusive. Strike out clause 3 and substitute the following:
3. The Senate shall adopt a resolution for the dissolution or annulment of a marriage only upon referring the petition therefor to an officer of the Senate, designated by the Speaker of the Senate, who shall hear evidence, and report thereon, but such officer shall not recommend that a marriage be dissolved or annulled except on a ground on which a marriage could be dissolved or annulled, as the case may be, under the laws of England as they existed on the 15th day of July, 1870, or under the Marriage and Divorce Act, chapter 176 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am given to understand that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) would probably be acceptable in another place. It seems to me, and such advice as I have been able to receive suggests that it is an improvement on the amendment suggested by the Senate. Speaking for myself I would hope that the house might see fit to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for amending the Senate amendment and sending it back to Their Honours in the hope that this matter might be finally determined before the royal assent tonight.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I think that the manner in which it has been presented is absolutely correct, and I agree that we proceed in this manner, especially now that we have the assurance by the Secretary of State, who has more influence in another quarter than I do.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know, sir, whether I would be regarded as a Simon Legree; however, I see the Minister of Labour is not here. I was going to suggest that we take his resolution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Suspend the sitting.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


SUMMER ADJOURNMENT
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before we suspend the sitting I would like to make a motion governing the time of adjournment so that it would not have to be done when we come back from the other place. If that is agreeable to the house I move, seconded by Mr. Denis:
That when this house adjourns later today, it stand adjourned until Monday, September 30, 1963 at 2.30 o'clock p.m., provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker after consultation with Her Majesty's government that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
This, I may say, is the form of words that has been used on certain other occasions when the house was somewhat apprehensive that there might be a need to meet before the set date of adjournment. I think it is within the knowledge of all hon. members that the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Labour indicated this was a contingency of which the house should take account in taking its adjournment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps it should be clear, Mr. Speaker, that we could be called back earlier for any contingency that might satisfy Mr. Speaker, and not just for the one the minister mentioned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Far be it from me, sir, to presume to say what would satisfy Your Honour.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest, if there is no more business, that we suspend the sitting upon the call of the Chair and the ringing of the bells. But before we do that, in the best tradition of the house may I congratulate all hon. members upon the good work they have been doing for many weeks, the rather difficult problems faced, the hot weather endured, the dehydration suffered; and with the idea of trying to repair some of the damage may I have the pleasure of inviting all members of the House of Commons and of the press to join with me in room 16 just as soon as possible.
At 9.26 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 10.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:

Royal Assent
Ottawa, August 2, 1963
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wilfred Judson, Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today at ten o'clock p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting The Suveieigii Lilc assurance Company of Canada.
An act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
An act to provide for the establishment of an Economic Council of Canada.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act to promote increased employment in Canada by financial assistance by way of loans to municipalities to enable municipalities to augment or accelerate municipal capital works programs.
An act authorizing the Senate of Canada to Dissolve or Annul Marriages.
An act respecting Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company.
An act respecting The Monarch Life Assurance Company.
An act respecting The Crown Life Insurance Company.
An act respecting The Canadian Manufacturers Association.
An act respecting The National Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An act respecting The Canada Accident and Fire Assurance Company.
An act for the relief of Margaret Catherine Smith.
An act for the relief of Gladys Noreen Monette.
An act for the relief of Joseph Leo Gerard Bougie.
An act for the relief of Nicholas Cimbru Chambers.
An act for the relief of Suzanne Chasse.
An act for the relief of Esther Wertheimer.
An act for the relief of Lygery Varverikos.
An act for the relief of Frank Hamilton Mingie, junior.
An act for the relief of Rosemary Beatrice Clare.
An act for the relief of Marie-Paule Jacqueline Lorette Champagne.
An act for the relief of Klara Brody.
An act for the relief of Bernice Bordensky.
An act for the relief of Jacqueline Belanger.
An act for the relief of Christina Aube.
An act for the relief of Brigitte Dophide.

An act for the relief of Anita Margaret d'Esterre. An act	for	the	relief	of	Gladys Jean Desjardins.An act	for	the	relief	of	Sylvia Dankner.An act for the relief of Florence Patricia Da Silva. An act	for	the	relief	of	Judith MacBeth Cuggy.An act	for	the	relief	of	Giuseppe de Cristoforo.An act	for	the	relief	of	Beverley Hayden Crerar.An act	for	the	relief	of	Paulyn Leblanc.An act	for	the	relief	of	Gabriela Kiwitt.An act	for	the	relief	of	Dorothea Margaret Kay.
An act for the relief of Wilma Karls.
An act for the relief of Felix Hollinger.
An act for the relief of Abie Herscovitch, otherwise known as Allan Herscovitch.
An act for the relief of Doris Sibyl Jane Hassell. An act for the relief of Ezreh Harry Herscovitch. An act for the relief of Robert Fleischer.
An act for the relief of William Rankin Edmondson.
An act for the relief of Leonard Emond.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Irene Marjorie Adams.
An act for the relief of Zbigniew Stanislaw Janicki.
An act for the relief of Harry Hyman.
An act	for	the	relief	of Nadia-Anne Hruszij.An act	for	the	relief	of Christine Johnson.
An act for the relief of Arlene June Kaczur.
An act for the relief of Mary Teresa Hough.
An act for the relief of Bernard Hebert.
An act for the relief of Catherine Harper.
An act	for	the	relief	of Wilhelmina Grundy.An act	for	the	relief	of Edith Diane Greenberg.An act	for	the	relief	of Catherine Mildred Gray.An act	for	the	relief	of Nancy Ruth Grabina.
a- 

4-	+V. ~	nf T nnillo rioroelrt;
An act for the relief of Constance Valerie Laurie. An act for the relief of Ellen Chase McKellar. An act for the relief of Angus McIntosh.
An act for the relief of Claude Gerard Montpetit. An act for the relief of Maureen Carol McAlinden. An act for the relief of Vera Irene MacKenzie.
An act for the relief of Marguerite Ann MacDonald.
An act for the relief of Sybil Lillian Lupovich. An act for the relief of Minnie Lichtenstein.
An act for the relief of Jean Bernard L'Heureux. An act for the relief of Margaret Ada Lewis.
An act for the relief of Violet Pearl St. James Lamoine.
An act for the relief of Mildred Kligman.
An act for the relief of Zelda Barbara Kimberg. An act for the relief of Margaret Ann Kenwood. An act for the relief of Madeleine Kallweit.
An act for the relief of Philippe LeBeau.
An act for the relief of Joyce Irene Larocque.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Anne Kotania. An act for the relief of Marie Celine Pierrette Lapointe.
An act for the relief of Shirley Sarah James.
An act for the relief of Lena Quelle.
An act for the relief of Charles Harold Page.
An act for the relief of Rosa Jacobson.
An act for the relief of Patricia Ann Marguerite Allaway.
An act for the relief of Marylin Jean Alie.
An act for the relief of Juliana Magdelene Ashley. An act for the relief of Alphonse Audet.
An act for the relief of Denise Bachelder.
An act for the relief of Alma Ivy Bankley.
An act for the relief of Edouard Joseph Armand Baril.
An act for the relief of Therese Beaulieu.
An act for the relief of Jeannie Belchik.
An act for the relief of John Faucher.
An act for the relief of Ruth Ilona Elkin.
An act for the relief of Hazel Durocher.
An act for the relief of Jean Helen Donnan.
An act for the relief of Margaret Joan Digby.

An act for the relief of Joseph Paul Alderic Belisle.
An act for the relief of Guy Bertrand.
An act for the relief of Pamela Blair.
An act for the relief of Kenneth Allen Blight. An act for the relief of Marie Yvonne Lucie *Godard.
An act for the relief of Marie Augustine Jeannette Gibbs.
An act	for	the	relief	of	Nicole Marie	Geoffroy.An act	for	the	relief	of	Susan Gabor.
An act for the relief of Alexandra Deliyannakis. An act for the relief of Joseph Fortin Decelles.
An act for the relief of Josephine Mary Croll. An act for the relief of Anita Cleri.
An act for the relief of Alice Elizabeth Clarke. An act for the relief of Judith Elizabeth Caron. An act	for	the	relief	of	Collin Mills	Campbell.An act	for	the	relief	of	Lorraine Burt.
An act for the relief of Linda Alice Burrows.
An act for the relief of Gerhard Hermann Buch-faolz.
An act for the relief of Wilma Gloria Bryson.
An act for the relief of Joseph Luc Roger Pelletier.
An act for the relief of Clara Edith Papp.
An act for the relief of Frances Cynthia Nevitt. An act for the relief of Betty Naimovitch, otherwise known as Betty Naimo.
An act for the relief of Elsa Munch.
An act for the relief of Mildred Dawson Meakins. An act for the relief of Margaret Rose McDuff. An act for the relief of Vickie Marks.
An act for the relief of John Elijah Marshalluk. An act for the relief of Jean Letovsky.
An act for the relief of Lee Leopold.
An act for the relief of Guy Lefebvre.
An act for the relief of Kate Gillman.
An act for the relief of Margarete Gerda Ruhnau. An act for the relief of Catherine Gerasimos An-drulakis.
An act for the relief of John Joseph Huitson.
An act for the relief of Suzi Elizabeth Perry.
An act for the relief of Vivian Geoffrey Power.
An act for the relief of Gordon Richard Alexander Ramsden.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Lindener.
An act for the relief of Marie Aline Martine France.
An act for the relief of Shirley Margaret Woolley. An act for the relief of James Richard Williamson.
An act for the relief of Isadore Titleman.
An act for the relief of Lloyd James Simpson.
An act for the relief of Lilly (Lillian) Shapiro. An act for the relief of Blima (Wendy) Shapiro. An act for the relief of Marie Theresa Sckyra.
An act for the relief of Anne Marion Prentice. An act for the relief of Patricia Marjorie Mai-sonet.
An act for the relief of Jennie Zajko.
An act for the relief of Pawel Olejnik.
An act for the relief of Millicent Vera Seagrove. An act for the relief of Patricia Sabetta.
An act	for	the	relief	of	Isadore Rosenblatt.An act	for	the	relief	of	Calvin Harold Robinson.An act	for	the	relief	of	Real Richard.An act	for	the	relief	of	Louisa Emily Elizabeth
Porter.
An act for the relief of Eva Florence Plaskett. An act for the relief of Madge Estelle Pinkerton. An act	for	the	relief	of	Allan Barry Phillips.An act	for	the	relief	of	Paul Parizeau.An act	for	the	relief	of	Jean Elizabeth O'Reilly.
An act for the relief of Josephine Rose Nawrocki. An act for the relief of Valerie Jean Morton.
An act for the relief of Franklin Dale Hufford.
An act for the relief of Carroll Lynne Milette. An act for the relief of Evelyne Millette.
Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Leo Rene Maranda.
An act for the relief of Edward Sidney Mansfield. An act for the relief of Elizabeth Angela Stirling. An act for the relief of Patricia Ann Small.
An act for the relief of Jeanette Rosenberg.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Siev.
An act for the relief of Maurice Sealy.
An act for the relief of Helena Jadwiga Igiel Wodnicki.
An act for the relief of Amira Wilson.
An act for the relief of Hyman Omri Tannenbaum. An act for the relief of Doris Irene Trerice.
An act for the relief of Glen Stewart Tornay.
An act for the relief of Audrey Barbara Sutton. An act for the relief of Adele Kathleen Strachan. An act for the relief of Bertha Staruch.
An act for the relief of Mihaly Szakacs.
An act for the relief of Doreen Dreyer Eastwood. An act for the relief of Jacques Ekaireb.
An act for the relief of Rosaire Gauthier.
An act for the relief of Gertraud Holzer.
An act for the relief of Marie Joan Patricia Jeffries.
An act for the relief of Anita Guido Knezevic-An act for the relief of Celia Lesnik.
An act for the relief of Joan Mary Pearson.
An act for the relief of Georgine Plzak.
An act for the relief of Marcelle Rosenberg.
An act for the relief of Helen Beverley Sabo. An act for the relief of Ruby Rita Smith.
An act for the relief of Marketa Tata.
An act for the relief of Ellen Smolar.
An act for the relief of Carmen Abrams.
An act for the relief of Margaret Ellynore Abbott. An act for the relief of John Andre Anderson. An act for the relief of Anne Marie Asselin.
An act for the relief of Percy Beauvais.
An act for the relief of Shirley Brimacombe.
An act for the relief of James Coade.
An act for the relief of Ann Marie Cooke.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Sangster.
An act for the relief of Margot Scott Connor.
An act for the relief of Stasys Vysniauskas.
An act for the relief of Francoise Campion.
An act for the relief of Claire Bradford.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Evelyn Lyon.
An act for the relief of Gerald William Henderson. An act for the relief of May Margaret Morelli. An act for the relief of Franz Zeitlhofer.
An act for the relief of Lily (Laura) Anita Karbelnik.
An act for the relief of John Matthew Hardman Pickford.
An act for the relief of Jean Alice Rinder.
An act for the relief of Donald Beakes.
An act for the relief of Guy Bertrand.
An act for the relief of Lloyd Carlton Willard.
An act for the relief of Francis John Nobbs.
An act for the relief of Marie Jacqueline Dusa-blon.
An act for the relief of Helen Oulton.
An act for the relief of Gwendolyn Grace Lanctot.
An act for the relief of Margaret Kathleen Lister. An act for the relief of Judith Joy Spector.
An act for the relief of Myrtle Alice South wood. An act for the relief of Teresa Lesiuk.
An act for the relief of Ion Ignatescu.
An act for the relief of Mary Gallagher.
An act for the relief of Mary Catherine Weath-erby.
An act for the relief of Linnea Erna Barbara Walker.
An act for the relief of Rhoda Lipschutz.
An act for the relief of Leslie Thomas Norval Modler.
An act for the relief of Lajos Nagy, otherwise known as Louis Nagy.
An act for the relief of Paul Orlivsky.

Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Marie Jeannne Beaulieu. An act for the relief of Rachela Zimber.
An act for the relief of Jacqueline Henriette Pujol.
An act for the relief of Rebecca Rosenstrauss. An act for the relief of Irene Tyminski.
An act for the relief of Frances Lyman.
An act for the relief of Andre Durocher.
An act for the relief of Anna Elizabeth Strickland.
An act for the relief of Michele Breuer.
An act for the relief of Magella Bergeron.
An act for the relief of Lucien DeCoeur.
An act for the relief of Marie Henriette Antoinette Marguerite Bloodworth Pringle.
An act for the relief of John Joseph Laflamme.
An act for the relief of Eliane Trottier.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Bertha Spires.
An act for the relief of Albert Henry Grabel-dinger Willis.
An act for the relief of Ivy Elizabeth Sherry.
An act for the relief of Susanne Reiner.
An act for the relief of Elaine Redmond.
An act for the relief of Paul Emile Niquette.
An act for the relief of Robert Fernand Marcoux. An act for the relief of Harold Moreau.
An act for the relief of Philip Dalgleish.
An act for the relief of Daniel Gaston Jules Caron.
An act for the relief of Alexander Burke.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Aurelia Breard.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Laurier Allain.
An act for the relief of Agnes Agai.
An act for the relief of David Filmore Sadler. An act for the relief of George Mantadakis.
An act for tne renei oi ir'airicia Beverley DimcO. An act for the relief of Marie Emilia Rolande Git tens.
An act for the relief of Barbara Gladys Gregory. An act for the relief of Julianna Gulyas.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Edith Herman.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Olga Rapoport.
An act for the relief of Nellie Rothman.
An act for the relief of Virginia Ruth Parmiter. An act for the relief of Paul Aime Bedard.
An act for the relief of James Robert Breslin.
An act for the relief of Soshy Judith Marcovitz. An act for the relief of Robert Charles Chapman. An act for the relief of Werner Burke Michelsen. An act for the relief of Dorothy Estelle Lord.
An act for the relief of Jean Alexandria Etheridge.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Cowan Frawley. An act for the relief of Anita Klaiman.
An act for the relief of Haia (Clara) Fuchsman. An act for the relief of Georgiana Brasseur.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Doreen Howell. An act for the relief of Molly Sacks.
An act for the relief of Frances Sheila Madden.
An act for the relief of Marie Raymonde Violetta Dalpe.
An act for the relief of Ginette Ingrid Leopold. An act for the relief of Kathleen Ryan.
An act for the relief of Anna Annette Brahmi.
An act for the relief of Rochelle Caplan.
An act for the relief of Edna Belchem.
An act for the relief of Therese Genest.
An act for the relief of Robert Harrison.
An act for the relief of William Joseph Rowe.
An act for the relief of Cecile Caille.
An act	for	the	relief	of Robert Inglis, junior.An act	for	the	relief	of Beverly Anne Runions.
An act for the relief of Anton Welte.
An act	for	the	relief	of Leo Paul Turcotte.An act	for	the	relief	of Marie-Louise Guay.
An act for the relief of Marsha Liberman.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Socaranski.
An act for the relief of Sheila Liebling.
An act for the relief of Joan Marjorie Gregor-Pearse.

An act for the relief of Giselle Mignault.
An act for the relief of Hugh O'Connor.
An act	for	the	relief	of	Ruth	Moss.An act	for	the	relief	of	Dora	Elfriede Elizabeth
Christian Kovacs, otherwise known as Dora Elfriede Elizabeth Christian Kovac.
An act for the relief of Maurice LeBel.
An act for the relief of Sonja Bagry.
An act for the relief of Therese Beaudoin.
An act for the relief of Ella Jane Lyon.
An act for the relief of Maria Lenkei, otherwise known as Maria Leichtag.
An act	for	the	relief	of	Doris	Elinor Roberts.An act	for	the	relief	of	June	Blickstead.
An act for the relief of Angelika Tasler.
An act for the relief of Hale Calvin Reid.
An act for the relief of Jeannine Elizabeth Sharpe. An act for the relief of Olga Antonina Burkousky. An act for the relief of Evelyn Frances Rae.
An act for the relief of Kenneth James Graham Tait.
An act for the relief of Margaret Elaine Gallagher. An act for the relief of Joyce Ethel Empey.
An act for the relief of Roger Bernard Angel.
An act for the relief of Marie Claire Rolande Dubois.
An act for the relief of Jean Guy Prud'homme.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Gilles Graveline.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Ingeborg Schmidt.
An act for the relief of Margaret Clewes.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Patricia Hilton.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Vida Irene Louise Me-
Callum.
An act for the relief of Karl Heinz Schulte.
An act for the relief of Beverley Trachtenberg, otherwise known nn	Tratt
An act for the relief of Monique Mercure.
An act for the relief of Eli Kraus.
An act for the relief of Edouard Pellerin.
An act for the relief of John Andrew Milne.
An act for the relief of Alethea Sarah Ivy Fowler. An act for the relief of Marcheta Lino Edwards. An act for the relief of Gwynneth Margaret Forget.
An act for the relief of Joan Reid Koken.
An act for the relief of Eloise Sonne.
An act for the relief of Jean Ilene Buckley.
An act for the relief of Anna May Sergent.
An act for the relief of Karl Heinz Wunderlich. An act for the relief of Margaret Anne Harvey. An act for the relief of Josephine Isabella Geiger. An act for the relief of Barbara Ann Wallace.
An act for the relief of Thelma Freeman.
An act for the relief of Karl Heinz Kerlikowsky. An act for the relief of Aranka Ilona Berendy.
An act for the relief of Muriel Howarth Hulbig. An act for the relief of Amy Sandra Glendinning. An act for the relief of Dorothy Alice Usher.
An act for the relief of Suzanne Moreau.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Carol Johnston.
An act for the relief of Lillian Florence Catherine Hurst.
An act for the relief of Armand Gauthier.
An act for the relief of Maria Papadakis.
An act for the relief of Anna Luella Matthews. An act for the relief of Dawn Dorothea Marsden. An act for the relief of Donna Maureen Vincent. An act for the relief of Therese Geraldeau.
An act for the relief of Gizella Ethel Bogoly.
An act for the relief of Simonne Michele Mona Bouchard.
An act for the relief of Therese Rivet.
An act for the relief of Irene Elizabeth Malloch. An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1964.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that before I
make a motion for adjournment I should like,

if I may be permitted to do so, to say a word to all hon. members and especially to Your Honour about what I think has been the remarkable way in which we have terminated this part of the session in these last few days. It does seem to me that, although there have been one or two hot days when the heat was reflected in this chamber, the spirit of co-operation which, I hope, will grow in the latter part of the session, was most evident. As I look over the items which are on the order paper and those which my colleagues insist must be put on it before we adjourn for Christmas, I assure you, sir, that I hope we can take it that every question will be in order, that they will all be short, and that the answers will be shorter still; in fact that we shall get down to business and surprise all of us by getting out in November instead of in December.
I think the events of the last day or so mark a stage in the development of our national institutions. I say this because we have all been conscious of the fact, in the last few years, that there was a duty before this house which was not being performed and which, perhaps, could not be performed. Except for a short backlog which will be dealt with before the present session is over, that is no longer a duty of this house, and I think our consciences will be little easier for that.
I think we all appreciate, sir, the spirit in which you have presided over our deliberations in these first 56 days. It is our hope that before the 100th day of the session is reached we may all go home with the feeling that we have done well for our country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to associate myself with the non-controversial remarks of the leader of the house in complimenting you on your conduct of the business of this house in circumstances which were, at times, very trying. We fully appreciate the problems which have faced you and the success with which you have kept this institution on the level we expect of it. With all members of the house I also join with the house leader in using that adjective "remarkable" which can be interpreted in many ways. It has been a remarkable session, and our hope is that when the session opens again in the fall we will be able to expect the same interest, activity and vigour that we have shown during the 56 days that have elapsed. I should point out to the Secretary of State that if we commence on the 30th of September and conclude on the 20th of December, which is possible, that would be a 60 day period. With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, we are anxiously waiting to see you in another place.
Royal Assent


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I just rise to say that we too are pleased that we have been able to make the progress we have, especially in the last few hours, and we would hope that when we commence again we would have the momentum that we had when we adjourned for the recess. If so, I think that the wishes of hon. gentlemen across the way will be carried out. I should like to say on behalf of our group, Mr. Speaker, that we are very pleased with the way in which you have conducted the business of the house and through you we would like to present our best wishes to your deputy and to the deputy chairman of committees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to join in the unanimity that we are enjoying in these closing moments of this part of the session. We are happy to join in the felicitations to Your Honour and through Your Honour to all members of the house. We too are pleased with the progress that has been made in recent days and we look forward to our return at the end of September or earlier, as the case may be. If the government will just bring in the kind of legislation that all members of the house want to support, the co-operation will be wonderful and we could well have one of the best sessions we have ever had in the history of the country.
(Translation):


Hon. Azellus Denis (Posimasier General):: Mr. Speaker, may I add a few words in French to wish you, and all hon. members and staff, "bonnes vacances".
I am convinced that for two or three days, at least, members will not be asking me for post offices or mail contracts. On the other hand, I am sure they will go through their ridings to find out if new post offices could not be erected somewhere or new mail contracts awarded.
When all those requests have been received, there will surely be enough post offices in Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: May I just include in these kind remarks the Clerk and the Clerk Assistants. We in turn thank you. We try to do our best. Sometimes in the last few days there has been fairly vigorous activity, and I should like to extend a Scotch invitation to cross the hall to room 16 just as soon as we have completed the proceedings.
On motion of Mr. Pickersgill the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m. until Monday, September 30.


END OF VOLUME III