Mr. MAX CAMPBELL (The Battlefords):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Last Sunday as I was driving to Montreal, two policemen were stopping all traffic just outside the city limits. One stepped over to my car and handed me a ticket for some police benefit and asked me to buy it. I think this is something the public should not be asked to tolerate. I spoke to another motorist who had been stopped in the same way and he told me that when he refused to buy a ticket the police took the number of his car. I protest against that sort of action by municipal police, and I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley) might notify the police commission of Montreal that Canadians do not want that sort of thing.

MR. MACDONNELL-SPECIAL EXCISE TAX - REFERENCE TO REPORT IN OTTAWA "EVENING citizen"

Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, last evening at eleven o'clock I drew the attention of the house to a statement in the Ottawa Evening Citizen that a "highly-placed informant" had told the Canadian Press that the government had decided to withdraw the special 25 per cent excise tax. I said that if that were true I considered it a gross breach of the privileges of the house, a gross budget leak and a monkey wrench thrown into Canadian business. I said that I would bring up the matter again this morning and ask for a statement. I said that if that statement were true, exemplary treatment should be given to the person or persons responsible.

I think we are getting tired of government not only by radio announcement but by newspaper announcement. I suggest to hon. members of the house in every quarter that when they read about this highly-placed informant they contrast in their minds the very lowly place of the representatives of the people as against the highly-placed informant who is a servant of the government.

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, as he said, was good enough to give me newspaper notice of his intention to raise this question. The statement to which he referred was called to my attention at six o'clock yesterday evening. I had been working in treasury board on the supplementary estimates during the afternoon, and had not seen the afternoon papers. I was in the house at half past ten o'clock, but I left at twenty minutes to eleven. However, I am glad to make a statement as suggested by my hon. friend. .

I would point out to the house something of which it is well aware. It is most unusual for a minister of finance or any other minister either to confirm or to deny rumours of this kind. But in view of the widespread publicity which has been given to this rumour and the statement of my hon. friend, I have no alternative but to say that the rumour is without foundation.

I understand that my hon. friend used the words "flouting of parliament" in his statement to the house yesterday evening.

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

If it were true.

Mr. ABBOTT:

Allow me to make a speech, please. He used the words, "flouting of parliament", and asked whether it was true that these taxes might be removed by order in council. I have to paraphrase his words, because I have not Hansard before me; it is not yet available. But the hon. member used some such words. He said that if it were true that these taxes might be removed by order in council, it would be flouting parliament.

I want to call the attention of the house to the fact that when the tax bill was introduced I pointed out in clear and specific terms that the taxes were of a special temporary character and that they would be removed as soon as circumstances permitted their removal. I call the attention of the house to subsection 5 of section 1 of Bill No. 172, which reads in part as follows:

The governor in council may, when he deems it advisable either in order to avoid restricting production of goods for export from Canada or otherwise, by proclamation, declare that a section, or a part thereof, in schedule I of the

Inquiries of the Ministry

Excise Tax Act enacted by this act shall cease to have effect on and after a day fixed in the proclamation . . .

I stated repeatedly during the debate on the taxes that these taxes would be removed when circumstances justified their removal. I have had several delegations call on me, and I have reiterated that point to them. All I can say now is that the time when and the extent to which these taxes will be removed is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course and not by any rumour in the newspapers.

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

I wish to say that I did not overlook the section referred to by the minister. I am fully aware of that, but this highly-placed informant's statement was to the effect, as I read it, that the tax would be withdrawn in toto. That is why I raised the point. I understand and appreciate the minister's point.

Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the Toronto cattle market is practically closed, with a hold-over of 6.000 head of cattle, will not the government now state their present policy with regard to the embargo on shipments of cattle to the United States?

Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, the government will announce its policy in due course, and when it does so I know it will be in the interests of the producers of this country.

Mr. ROSS (Souris):

If I may ask a supplementary question, the Minister of Agriculture on his estimates said some months ago that negotiations would be carried on with the United States with respect to the quota and lifting the embargo. May I ask what progress has been made in those negotiations?

Mr. McCUBBIN:

Good progress has been made, but we are not ready yet to make an announcement.