1950-05-17

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. O. Breilhaupl (Waterloo North) presented the sixth and seventh reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the seventh report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I wish to draw the attention of the house to the "Canadian Weekly Bulletin," of May 12, issued by the information division of the Department of External Affairs. On the last page there is a small item which reads:
Mr. Drew's motion defeated:	Accepting the government's previously expressed view that Canada's anti-subversive laws are adequate, the House of Commons, on May 8, rejected the motion of Mr. George Drew, Progressive Conservative leader, for amendment to the Criminal Code to make communism and "other similar activities" a criminal offence.
I would point out that the motion before the house dealt with communist and other similar activities. If this was regarded as a matter to be commented on by this weekly bulletin issued by a department of the government, then it would have been appropriate that the quotation marks be in the right place and that the words of the motion itself be used. There is a distinct difference between a proposal to make communism a criminal offence and appropriate legislation to deal with communist and similar activities. I have stated on numerous occasions that an attempt to deal in an act with communism under the name of communism is not effective because it is possible to change the name from time to time. That is the reason why the resolution was drawn as it was, and asked for appropriate legislation to deal with communist and similar activities.
At the appropriate time I will raise strong objection to public money being spent on a propaganda sheet of this kind. I object to 55946-163J
such a sheet misrepresenting what has been stated in the house.



FIRE AND FLOOD DAMAGE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to communicate to the house a message I have just received, through the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It is as follows:
On behalf of my colleagues and myself I should like to convey to you the deep concern with which we have learned of the serious floods in Winnipeg. Please express our heartfelt sympathy with those who have suffered in the catastrophe.
I should also like to make the following announcement in connection with the Manitoba disaster.
The government of Canada has reached agreement with the government of Manitoba to appoint a fact-finding commission, consisting of Mr. D. Bruce Shaw of the city of Winnipeg, investment banker, and Mr. J. B. Carswell of the city of Vancouver, engineer, "to inquire into the nature and extent of the damage caused by the 1950 flood in the Red river valley in Manitoba, the cost of fighting the flood and the providing of emergency relief required because of the flood, and of emergency precautions to guard against the recurrence of such flood conditions, in order to make available at the earliest possible date a complete statement of all the essential facts necessary to determine the amount of the grant which the federal government should make to the government of Manitoba in order to assist that government in discharging its responsibilities in respect of the said flood."
Mr. D. Bruce Shaw is one of the leading investment bankers in the city of Winnipeg, where he has lived for a number of years. He will represent the government of Manitoba on the commission. The dominion's appointee is Mr. John B. Carswell, a prominent engineer of the city of Vancouver, who acted as chairman of the Fraser valley diking board set up by the joint action of the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia to supervise the reconstruction of the Fraser river valley dikes which were destroyed in the flood of 1948.

Fire and Flood Damage
I understand that my colleague, the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Claxton), also has a statement to make as to the proceedings of the international joint commission in that connection.
I should also like to inform the house that a similar arrangement has been made with the government of the province of Quebec, and is evidenced by an exchange of telegrams which I ask permission to read and table. (Translation):
The first is dated as follows:
(Text):
Quebec, Que., 16 mai 1950
Hon. Louis-S. St-Laurent,
Premier ministre du Canada,
Ottawa.
Faisant suite aux conversations par telephone longue distance hier et aujourd'hui concernant incendies desastreux a Rimouski et Cabano il esit entendu qu'un Comite charge d'obtenir les rensei-gnements necessaires sera constitud immediate-ment afin de faire rapport sans retard, aux autorites federates et provinciales de Quebec en vue de decider de 1'aide finaneiere a apporter a ce sujet. Je comprends que le representant federal sera monsieur le brigadier P. Theriault de Quebec. Le representant du gouvernement de Quebec sera monsieur Edouard Laurent secretaire du ministOre du Tresor a Quebec. Sinceres salutations.
Maurice-L. Duplessis
(Translation):
The reply I sent him this morning, after a talk with my cabinet colleagues, is as follows: (Text):
L'honorable Maurice-L. Duplessis, M.A.L.,
Premier ministre de la province de Quebec,
H6tel du Gouvernement,
Quebec, Que.
Faisant suite a votre telegramme du 16 mai concernant incendies desastreux a Rimouski et Cabano je vous confirme 1'entente entre nous telle qu'exprimee dans ce telegrarnme. Je comprends que le gouvernement de Quebec a nomme monsieur Edouard Laurent pour le representer au Comite dont il s'agit. Le gouvernement federal a nomme le brigadier A. Theriault comme son representant et le Comite etant ainsi constitue il peut commencer son enquete immediatement.
Louis-S. St-Laurent
Possibly hon. members would like to hear a translation of the telegrams so that they may see that the arrangement is in substance the same as that arrived at with the government of Manitoba. The telegram from Premier Duplessis, dated the 16th of May, 1950, reads as follows:
Following our long distance telephone conversations of yesterday and today concerning the disastrous fires at Rimouski and Cabano, it is understood that a commission charged with obtaining the necessary information will be set up at once to report without delay to the federal and the Quebec provincial authorities with a view to deciding about the financial aid to be extended. I understand that the federal representative will be Brigadier P. Theriault of Quebec. The representative of the

Quebec government will be Mr. Edouard Laurent, secretary of the Quebec treasury department. Sincere greetings.
Maurice L. Duplessis
My answer, dated today, reads as follows:
Replying to your telegram of May 16 concerning the disastrous fires at Rimouski and Cabano, I confirm the understanding between us as set out in that telegram. I understand the government of Quebec has named Mr. Edouard Laurent to represent it on the proposed commission. The federal government has named Brigadier A. Theriault as its representative, and the commission being thus established, it can commence its inquiry at once.
Louis S. St. Laurent
It may have been noticed that Brigadier Theriault is named in one telegram as Brigadier P. Theriault, and in my answer as Brigadier A. Theriault. He is familiarly known to all of us as Pete Theriault. His first name is Antonin and that explains why the initials may appear to be at variance.
I may also say I have received from the premier of Manitoba and the mayor of Winnipeg an invitation to visit the region affected by the flood. It has also been suggested that I should visit Rimouski and Cabano. I have not yet had an opportunity to see what arrangements it may be possible to make, but I can give the assurance that the government does not intend to neglect any action that will assist in securing the required information to help in arriving at proper concrete .decisions as to what aid should be extended in connection with these disasters.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I know that all hon. members of the house will welcome every step that can be taken to deal as expeditiously as possible with the great disasters that have occurred at Rimouski and Cabano, and, over a much larger area, in Manitoba.
I offer one suggestion to the Prime Minister arising out of the announcement he has made. There is this distinction between the problem which must be considered at Rimouski and Cabano on the one hand, and in Manitoba on the other. Rimouski and Cabano are urban communities; in Manitoba there is a serious urban problem and a tremendous rural problem. Along with the very competent engineer who has been chosen I would suggest to the Prime Minister that consideration be given to appointing to the commission having to do with the situation in Manitoba an outstanding farmer who could deal with that particular aspect of the problem.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I thank the leader of the opposition for his suggestion. There were only two members of the Fraser river valley commission, and it was felt that, so far as it might be possible to do so, it would be desirable to follow the same pattern. However,

in both cases the commissioners will certainly require expert assistance, and it is not intended to deprive them of any such assistance that can be of value to them in preparing proper reports.



RED RIVER VALLEY


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: If I may be permitted I should like to make a brief statement supplementing that of the Prime Minister, dealing particularly with the international aspect of the flood situation.
As hon. members know, the fact that the Red river rises in the United States, many miles south of the international boundary, and that consequently the floods in Manitoba are contributed to by waters flowing north into Canada from the United States, means that the problem of flood control is international, and can be solved only by joint action of the United States and Canada. For this reason on January 12, 1948, both governments agreed to request the international joint commission to make recommendations to prevent the recurrence of floods in the area of the Red river valley. The commission was required-
-to conduct necessary investigations and to prepare a comprehensive plan or plans of mutual advantage to the two countries for the conservation, control and utilisation of the waters under reference in accordance with the recommended apportionment thereof.
One of the principal objectives of this reference is the maximum possible control of flood conditions in the Red river valley. This presents an exceedingly difficult engineering problem, in the solution of which engineering investigations are being conducted for the commission by an international board of engineers which the commission has established, and which works in close association with provincial and state engineering authorities. The government of Canada has requested the Canadian section to expedite in every way possible the completion of the engineering investigation now in progress, and the recommendations that will be based on this investigation.
In this connection the government was assured of the full co-operation of the United States. On May 12 the United States government extended to the government of Canada the sympathy of the government of the United States of America for those suffering from the ravages of the Red river flood in Canada. They also informed us that the United States section of the international joint commission had been requested
Manitoba Flood
urgently to report, at the earliest date practicable, the best flood control measures to prevent the repetition of such disasters.
The government is grateful for this expression of sympathy, and is most gratified to have the assurance of the full co-operation of the United States government in this urgent and important matter.


Mr. Graydon:: When did the international joint commission set up this board of engineers to make a report with respect to that project? I ask this question because there is a feeling that the international joint commission has been pretty leisurely about this matter, since it has been two years between floods and nothing has been done.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to obtain the date for the hon. member.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Is it not a fact that from January 12, 1948, to May 1 of this year the international joint commission made no report with respect to the submission made to it two years ago?


Mr. Knowles:: During which time we have had two floods.


Brooke Claxton: My understanding is that the facts on which the report necessarily must be based can be adduced only by the engineers who have been appointed by the commission to make the investigation, and it is the report of the engineers on which the international joint commission is waiting.



MESSAGE FROM BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. Speaker:: A few moments ago I received a cablegram which I think I should read to the house. It bears today's date and comes from the House of Commons, London, England, having been sent at 5.21 this afternoon, British time. It reads:
Speaker,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
The whole House of Commons is grieved at the sufferings of the city of Winnipeg caused by the present disastrous floods. The generosity and brave friendship of your country have warmed our hearts on many occasions not far distant, and to you, Mr. Speaker, to the afflicted citizens of Winnipeg, and to the whole Canadian people we send our heartfelt sympathy.
Douglas Clifton Brown, Speaker



QUESTION AS TO DESIRABILITY OF BOMBING OPERATIONS ON LAKE WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? Can the minister say whether any consideration has
2568	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry been given to the possibility of blasting the ice in the Nelson river, or perhaps even a bombing operation in lake Winnipeg, to help get the water away? I do not know whether the idea is feasible, but it has been suggested to me and I put it to the minister.
Hori. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence): When I was in Winnipeg on Saturday that question was referred to, and I understand from the representatives of the provincial departments concerned, as well as of the armed forces that it is not considered that the course suggested would have any beneficial effect. While I saw ice in lake Winnipeg, I was informed that the presence of it did not cause the Red river to back up in a way which interfered with the flow of the river.



TERMS OF REFERENCE OF SHAW-CARSWELL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister
whether it will be possible to have the terms of the Shaw-Carswell commission tabled or made public in some way?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have just read them to the house, and I assume they will be in Hansard. If the hon. member wishes to see a copy of the statement I read to the house, I shall send it over to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the complete
document?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is the complete document.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Labour a question, based on a telegram a copy of which has been sent to me? Can the minister say whether he or his department have had a request from the trade union people in Winnipeg to waive the waiting period in connection with unemployment insurance for workers who have been put out of remunerative work by the flood conditions?


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: May I ask the hon member the name of the person who sent that telegram?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is Mr. C. P. Schubert, international representative, retail, wholesale and department store union.


Humphrey Mitchell: I may say to my hon. friend that the waiting period is statutory. It is a


provision enacted by this parliament, and an amendment to the act would be required to change it.


Mr. Fulton:: Bring it in, then.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture carried out any research work in connection with the (a) development; (b) marketing of dehydrated potato powder?
2.	If so (a) at what places was such research carried out; (b) under whose supervision?
3.	Will the results of such research be made public, and the potato growers of Nova Scotia and other provinces notified?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	No. However,, during the wap investigations were conducted on dehydrated potato strips by the division of horticulture,, central experimental farm, Ottawa, in co-operation with the division of chemistry, science service, and the fruit and vegetable division, marketing service.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Results of investigations on dehydrated potato strips were made available to processors.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Higgins:: When is it expected to bring the Criminal Code into force in Newfoundland?


Mr. Garson:: A draft bill bringing the
Criminal Code into force in Newfoundland was sent to the attorney general of Newfoundland with the request that he comment thereon and furnish a list of the Newfoundland criminal statutes to be repealed. A reply was received on May 9, and the final draft of the bill is now being prepared.


WARTIME HOUSING
Mr. Knight:: 1.	Is landscaping of wartime housing property let by contract?
2.	If so, what size units do these contracts cover?
3.	What amount of money has been spent by the government for this purpose in (a) Saskatoon; (b) Edmonton?
4.	Considering only the lots where such improvements have been carried out, what is the average expenditure per lot across Canada for such landscaping?


Mr. Prudham:: With respect to war workers and veterans rental housing, built by Wartime Housing Limited and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation:
1.	Yes.

2.	The number of house lots covered by these contracts varies from 25 to 500.
3.	(a) $57,228.60; (b) $64,643.34. Contracts for the landscaping of projects initiated under the 1948 and 1949 programs have not yet been awarded.
4.	$65 per lot.


CHALK RIVER ATOMIC ENERGY PLANT
Mr. Hodgson:: How many officials or employees of the atomic energy plant at Chalk River, Ontario, receive $6,000 or more per year, and what are their names and official positions?


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: Name- Official Position-
Keys, Dr. D. A., Vice-president (scientific) and project manager.
Lewis, Dr. W. B., Director, research division.
Taylor, Dr. R. M., Chief, medical services.
Skelly, Dr. W. R., Senior works doctor.
Hatfield, G. W., Manager, industrial operations.
Cipriani, Dr. A. J., Assistant director, biology and health radiation subdivision.
Watson, Dr. W. H., Assistant director, physics subdivision.
Williamson, Dr. N. L., Senior works doctor.
Laurence, Dr. G. C., Assistant director, chemical and engineering subdivision.
Gray, J. L., Chief, administrative services.
Renton, Dr. E. M., Works doctor.
Sargent, Dr. B. W., Head of nuclear physics branch.
Dobush, P., General superintendent, architectural service.
Cook, Dr. L. G., Head, chemical branch.
Gilbert, F. W., General superintendent, industrial operations.
Wright, R. F., Assistant manager, industrial operations.
Hansen, Dr. E. B., Dentist.
Morison, T. W., General superintendent, administrative services.


ILE A LA CROSSE, SASK., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	For how long was Mr. A. Ahenakew the postmaster at lie a la Crosse, Saskatchewan?
2.	Were there any irregularities in the post office prior to November, 1949?
3.	If so, what was the nature of these irregularities?
4.	What action, if any, was taken in each case?
5.	Have any specific charges been brought against Mr. Ahenakew as a result of the shortage in accounts which occurred in November, 1949?
Questions
6.	If so, what are these charges?
7.	If not, why was he relieved of office?
8.	Has Mr. Ahenakew offered any explanation of the shortage in accounts?
9.	If so, what is this explanation?
10.	How did this shortage in accounts first come to the attention of the authorities?
11.	What is Mr. Ahenakew's present address and occupation?
12.	What is his age?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	From August 5, 1948 to November 24, 1949.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Failure to promptly send in money order returns in July and August, 1949; (b) failure to remit relative money orders for c.o.d. parcels during October, 1949.
4.	Inquiry made by district post office inspector, Saskatoon,
5.	Yes.
6.	The district post office inspector has been instructed to lay charges under section 98 of the Post Office Act and to consult the crown attorney as regards laying charges under section 94 of the Post Office Act.
7.	Because of a shortage of about $2,000 in accounts in November, 1949.
8.	Yes.
9.	Mr. Ahenakew has stated that accounts of the store and charges on c.o.d. parcels were settled by money order without the relative money to cover the money orders being placed in the post office till.
10.	As a result of the inspection of the office by the post office inspector.
11.	Not known.
12.	Sixty-three years.


TUMOUR REGISTRY
Mr. Macnaughlon:: 1.	Has a tumour registry been established in the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	If so, what are its functions?
3.	May any Canadian physician or surgeon send material to the registry?
4.	Is the registry organized to obtain information regarding the likelihood of recurrence following treatment of various types of cancer?
5.	Are tumour registries of this type maintained by other countries?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	Yes. The Department of National Health and Welfare has collaborated with the National Cancer Institute of Canada in the establishment at the laboratory of hygiene of the Canadian tumour registry.
2.	From across Canada tissues from the rare as well as the commoner tumours are being sent to the registry, together with pertinent clinical data. Microscopic preparations are made and the tumours are catalogued

Questions
and indexed for further study. Sets of preparations are made which will be available for study to those doctors in Canada concerned with cancer diagnosis.
3.	No. The Canadian tumour registry is for the use of pathologists since pathologists only are concerned with the microscopic diagnosis of cancer.
4.	The registry is in constant communication with contributing pathologists regarding this matter by means of a follow-up system which has been organized. At intervals cards are sent to contributing pathologists requesting information as to the condition of the patient from which the tumour was removed.
5.	Yes. In the United States, located at the American Institute of Pathology, Washington, and in London, England.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Cleaver:: 1.	How many employees of the information services division of the Department of National Health and Welfare are engaged as editors or writers of periodicals, booklets, etc., and/or in connection with the production of radio features, films or film strips on health or welfare education subjects?
2,	What additional staff is there in the division, and what is the nature of their duties?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Eight.
2.	Nine stenographers and typists; 6 clerical duties; 2 shippers and packers; 1 biological photographer; 2 darkroom technicians.


FREIGHT RATES
Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	How many cars of grain were shipped under the subsidized freight payments to Newfoundland since confederation to date?
2.	How many bushels of each kind of grain did each car contain?
3.	What price was the above grain invoiced at?
4.	Who made the request for the subsidy freight payment?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Information not available. Feed grain is not always shipped in car lots.
2.	Answered by No. 1. Statement shows total weight of each kind of grain shipped during period April 1, 1949, to April 30, 1950.
Kind of grain	Tons	BushelsWheat	. 609-90	20,330-00Oats	. 8,145-90	479,170-20Barley 	. 1,665-95	69,414-28Rye 	. 14-00	500-00Screenings 	. 489-15	NilMillfeeds 	. 2,354-10	NilTotal 	. 13,279-00	3.	Examination of the invoices shows that grain shipped to Newfoundland was invoiced at various prices dependent on date and conditions of purchase.4.	Payments made on claims submitted by wholesale handlers of feeds and feed grain on submission of proof that (I) the grain has been shipped and the freight paid, (2) that the grain has been sold to a consumer, retail dealer or co-operative, and (3) that the consumer or retail buyer has been allowed the freight assistance claimed by the wholesaler.
Statement of amount paid to each dealer during period April 1, 1949, to April 30, 1950:
Firm's name	Amount
Barnett & Company,
Montreal, Que	 165.00
Blatchford Feeds,
Toronto, Ont	 5,326.87
Bosco & Bower,
Montreal, Que	 672.00
Canada Packers,
Montreal, Que	 542.92
E. W. Caron,
Montreal, Que	 25,684.67
Canada Packers,
Truro, N.S	 1,427.64
Clarke Trading Co.,
Montreal, Que	 2,383.69
Co-operative Federee de
Quebec, Montreal	 17,042.70
McCabe Grain Co.,
Winnipeg, Man	 560.00
Maple Leaf Milling Co.,
Toronto, Ont	 31,795.24
Ogilvie Flour Mills Co.,
Montreal, Que	 19,624.11
Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd.,
Toronto, Ont	 945.00
Purity Flour Mills Ltd.,
Montreal, Que	 4,050.57
Purity Flour Mills Ltd.,
Toronto, Ont	 1,540.83
Quaker Oats Co. of Canada,
Peterborough, Ont	 38,249.14
Ralston Purina Co.,
Woodstock, Ont	 17,163.91
Red River Grain Co.,
Winnipeg, Man	 16,958.75
Richardson & Sons,
Montreal, Que	 2,337.90
Richardson & Sons,
Toronto, Ont	 351.38
Robin Hood Flour Mills,
Montreal, Que	 1,312.44
Rowlings Limited,
Halifax, N.S	 701.56
St. Boniface Grain & Feed Co.
St. Boniface, Man	 570.00
St. John Milling Co.,
St. John, N.B	 1,805.71

Firm's name	Amount
St. Lawrence Flour Mills,
Montreal, Que	  13,536.14
Hugh M. Scott,
Montreal, Que	 13,170.73
Speed Milling,
Hespeler, Ont	 540.37
H. K. Starnes & Co.,
Montreal, Que	 21,637.25
Master Feeds,
Toronto, Ont	 1,588.74
Toronto Elevators Ltd.,
Montreal, Que	 8,308.69
Tougas & Tougas Ltd.,
Montreal, Que	 6,887.09
Elzebert Turgeon Ltd.,
Montreal, Que	 627.30
Turgeon Grain & Processed
Feeds, Seaforth, Ont	 6,587.28
J. M. Vittie & Co.,
Montreal, Que	 2,226.41
Total	 $266,322.03


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	Did the dominion government advance any moneys to any of the provinces during 1949 for the purpose of relief?
2.	If so, how much was advanced to each province, and on what agreement?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Coldwell:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between any person or persons and the post office and transport departments since January 1, 1949, with respect to the post office at Ile-a-la-Crosse, Saskatchewan.


ILE-A-LA CROSSE, SASK., POSTMASTERSHIP
Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between Mr. A. Ahena-kew, of IIe-.i-la-Cros.se, Saskatchewan, and the government, since January 1, 1948.


AGREEMENT BETWEEN C.P.R. AND CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY
Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: For a copy of a certain agreement entered into between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the custodian of enemy property in Canada in 1931 and referred to in order in council P.C. 458, dated the 6th day of March. 1937.


Mr. Bradley:: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which happens to come under my jurisdiction, and concerns an agreement which was entered into some years ago between the custodian
Inquiries of the Ministry and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company relating to certain shares which were transferred, I believe during the first world war. We regard this as a privileged document. The question as between the parties is now before the courts, and for that reason I must object to the production of the document.
Motion dropped.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, of which I have given notice. In view of the serious situation which has developed in many parts of Newfoundland, due to the determination of fishermen not to prosecute the cod fishery this year until they are given a definite assurance that they will receive a fair price for fish caught, is the government prepared to give such assurance?, If not, will the government make a statement as to what it is prepared to do in regard to price support for the 1950 catch of (a) shore fish, and (b) Labrador fish?


Mr. J. W. MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that little can be added to the answer made to the member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) in reply to a similar question a few days ago. A meeting of persons interested in the salt codfish industry of the Atlantic provinces is being convened in Ottawa next week by the Department of Fisheries, for the purpose of ascertaining all the facts in connection with this complex problem. Notices of this meeting are going forward to the industry today. When government policy has been formulated, it will be announced.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that two questions standing in my name were passed as orders for returns on April 24. The first one dealt with travelling and living expense accounts of all departments of government since April 1, 1949, and the second with travelling expenses and living allowances of government officials who have travelled beyond the borders of Canada since April 1,
2572	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry 1949. Can this information not be provided now? The public accounts committee is sitting, and it is necessary to have it.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the question to which the hon. member refers involves a considerable amount of research, and the gathering in of a lot of items. In addition several departments are involved. We have been endeavouring, particularly during the last couple of days, to speed the obtaining of this information, but it will still take a few days before we can bring it all together.
I suppose it often happens that questions are asked which cover a wider field than the member asking the question actually intended to cover. If the hon. member could restrict his question somewhat, we might produce at an earlier date the information he wants.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think it should be necessary to restrict the question. All I ask for is the travelling and other expenses incurred by persons travelling for the government of Canada outside of Canada. That should be readily available.


Gordon Graydon: The books must be mixed up.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not keep the books.



MINISTERS AND PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: When the Secretary of State is getting the information requested by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), will he get the answer to my question which was made an order for return on March 16? It concerns the travelling expenses of cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants. I do not think it should need any research.



DOUKHOBORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the worsening situation in the Grand Forks area of British Columbia, where the Doukhobor atrocities culminated in the blowing up of the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge at Grand Forks on Sunday night, and in view of the suggestions forwarded to the Minister of Justice by the Grand Forks council and board of trade, is the minister prepared to make a statement on this serious situation which has aroused the citizens of this area?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The only information we have, other than that which has appeared in the press, is that on Monday morning, May 15, we received a telephone message from Mr. Mead, a former Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer who is advising the British Columbia government in this connection, to the effect that both ends of the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge at Grand Forks had been blown up with dynamite. It was believed that Doukhobors were responsible, and that it was an indication of defiance following the arrest of a number of Doukhobors a few days previously by the British Columbia police.
We received a telegram from the attorney general of British Columbia, Hon. Gordon Wismer, requesting that an officer and twenty men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be lent to the British Columbia police, because of the continued threat of violence in Doukhobor communities. The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police instructed that members of the force from Alberta, to the numbers requested, should report to Nelson, British Columbia, where they will act under the direction of the commissioner of the British Columbia police, and Mr. Wismer was advised accordingly.



CANADA PRIZE ACT


Brooke Claxton: the second reading of Bill No. 221, to provide for the payment and distribution of prize money.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday, prize money dates from the thirteenth century. A reference to its antiquity was made in the London Times of December 20, 1945, where it was said:
For centuries the hope of prize was largely responsible for keeping the navy adequately manned. The reward of a successful engagement was the distribution among the crew of the value of the capture.
The arrangements for payment varied from time to time. Up to the great war of 1914-19, one-third of the value of ship and cargo taken as prize was kept by the crown; two-thirds were paid to the crew which actually made the capture. After the great war, however, the prize fund, consisting of two-thirds of the value of all prizes, was distributed not to the crew making the capture but among personnel of all His Majesty's navy on a graduated per capita basis. An admiral received two hundred and eighty-three times

as much as an ordinary seaman. The minimum qualification was one month's service at sea. Shares were distributed according to rank and sea service. Thirty months at sea was required for the maximum share. But the administration of the fund proved costly and difficult, and it was not until twelve years after the war that the final payment was made. It should be emphasized that even in the United Kingdom no one had a right to prize money but that payment was made as an act of grace by exercise of the royal prerogative.
In Canada, prize money has never been distributed at the instance of the Canadian government. After world war I, personnel of the Royal Canadian Navy participated in the distribution of the fund not as a result of Canadian legislation but as a result of the enactment by the parliament of the United Kingdom of the Naval Prize Act, 1918, and of the royal proclamation that followed. When it came to the question of prize money in 'the second world war, the situation had changed. Shortly after the war the nations of the commonwealth reached an agreement as to the method of division between the various countries.	[DOT]
Four main points were agreed to. First, since personnel of all the navies were spread throughout many theatres of war, the actual location of the capture and the ultimate disposal of the vessel taken should not be the test for determining who should benefit. It was therefore agreed that all nations would contribute to a common pool the proceeds of prize, wherever captured, and the pool should eventually be distributed among the nations on the basis of comparative strengths of their respective naval forces.
Second, it was agreed that personnel of the air forces should participate. In previous wars, only naval personnel had benefited. This was agreed to in recognition of the arduous work undertaken by air force units, and particularly by coastal commands whose efforts in search and shadowing contributed substantially to the building up of the fund.
Third, it was agreed that, for the purpose of allocating the fund between the naval and air forces, it would be assumed that the fund was built up as to seventy-five per cent by naval action, and as to twenty-five per cent by air force action. The sum due to naval action would then be divided in proportion to the peak naval strength of each nation participating, and the same approach would be adopted for the sum to air force action.
Fourth, and finally, it was agreed that each nation would determine the manner in which its share of the total proceeds would be dealt with.
Canada Prize Act
The United Kingdom Prize Act, 1948, deals with the proceeds of prizes taken during the second world war, but of course makes no reference as to how Canada's share will be disposed of in Canada. As the explanatory memorandum to the United Kingdom Prize Act, 1948, states:
Any grant of prize money which may be made under the prerogative for the benefit of forces raised by a dominion within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster . . . being outside the purview of the parliament of the United Kingdom, is not the subject of any provision in the bill.
It is estimated that the approximate net amount that will be realized by Canada in respect of prize money will be $2,500,000. If we apply the formula agreed upon, the share payable in respect of the navy would be approximately $1,700,000, or sixty-eight per cent, and the air force share would be about $800,000, or thirty-two per cent.
We have considered two alternative methods of distribution. The first was distribution to individuals. The second was to apportion the Canadian share to the naval and air force benevolent funds respectively. In considering methods of distribution, it may be convenient to see what the situation is in other nations.
In the United States of America, prize money has not been distributed since the Spanish-American war. The proceeds of sale of captured enemy vessels are paid into the treasury. The only comparable position is found in the nations of the commonwealth. Under the method of distribution adopted in the United Kingdom, the air force share will not be distributed to individuals. Instead, it will be paid to charitable and welfare organizations serving past and present members of the Royal Air Force. In the United Kingdom the naval share is being distributed to personnel who have rendered at least 180 days' service at sea, and have not, for any reason of misconduct, forfeited their entitlement. Payments will vary with rank, with one person getting as much as ten times the share of another. It is quite apparent that the only reason the naval share is being distributed to individuals in the United Kingdom is that it was felt that in view of the long tradition of prize money in the Royal Navy, it would be unfair to discontinue in respect of the second world war the practice followed for many years.
It is, however, interesting to note that in the United Kingdom section 8 of the prize act of 1948 has ensured that prize money will never again be paid. His Majesty consented that his prerogative to do so shall not be exercised in respect of any future wars. This is done because the practice of paying prize

Canada Prize Act
money is regarded as an anachronism. To quote again from the Times of December 20, 1945:
There is a widespread feeling that it would suit modem conditions of service better for this historical relic to be assimilated into the normal grant of gratuities on future occasions.
Hon. members will observe from clause 4 of the bill that the proposal is to pay the naval share to the naval benevolent fund and the air force share to the R.C.A.F. benevolent fund. No difficulty is encountered in connection with the air force share; there is no precedent for payment of individual shares in the case of the air force.
I think I should clear up one or two points. There was no undertaking, express or implied, that prize money would be paid on a share basis to personnel of the Royal Canadian Navy. We were therefore free to choose the method of distribution most appropriate to Canadian conditions, and best calculated to benefit naval personnel generally.
The various possible methods of individual distribution were carefully considered, and one by one they were eliminated as unfair and inappropriate to modem conditions of service.
The solution of paying a share to all who served in the navy without regard to rank or sea service was obviously impracticable. The proposal that only persons who had service at sea should benefit is also open to serious objections, because some of those who served on land might have contributed as materially to the taking of a prize as many of those who served at sea. Indeed only two prizes were taken by the Royal Canadian Navy throughout the course of the war. Moreover, if a period of sea service was laid down as a prerequisite, how long a period should it be? One day, one year, or the British qualifying period of 180 days? But what about men who were killed in action after a period of less than 180 days at sea? It became apparent that any arbitrary minimum period would make for unfair discrimination and would be quite unrealistic.
Then of course the question whether or not rank should be taken into account gave rise to difficulty. After the first great war an admiral received 283 times as much as a seaman, and in the United Kingdom on this occasion the differential is reduced to ten times; but still what is the proper differential?
I suggest too that the reason for prize money has long since disappeared. Today officers and men of the navy are paid on exactly the same basis as officers and men of the army and air force. The conditions of service are similar. The sacrifices involved are similar. It was our aim to treat everyone

alike. On these accounts we could not see any justification for continuing what everyone regards as something that is utterly out of date. Therefore rather than wait until the next war-if there is to be a next war-to abolish this, or to refrain from making the payment, the naval board recommended to the government that we should adopt this course as in the interests of the great body of sailors, and as a disposition of the matter which would please the greatest possible number.
It has been suggested that we should have adopted another approach to this matter, and consulted the men who might have benefited. Well, before we could consult them we would have had to ascertain who they were, and that was exactly one of the matters which gave rise to the greatest difficulty and one of the chief objections to the whole matter. Of course, the naval officers on the naval board themselves would have benefited from prize money, and they themselves unofficially consulted many of their comrades.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the manner in which it is proposed to dispose of the fund is one which best meets the circumstances. The proceeds of prize money are very similar in their nature and origin to the proceeds from canteen sales and sales of commodities made through the savings of ships' companies themselves, and should therefore be disposed of in the same way as proceeds of canteen funds, and the like, which are paid over to the naval benevolent fund.
That was the course decided upon by this parliament before with respect to canteen funds, and we believe that it is the right course to follow in this case. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the house will agree with the proposals put forward in this bill.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. gentleman
permit one question? He has told us about the anachronism of prize money, and how it was paid in the past. How does it originate? On what basis?-on the basis of the number of ships captured and sunk, the number of men in those ships who are captured or killed, or how?


Brooke Claxton: It has varied through the centuries; but substantially the prize money is the actual value of the ship and cargo that is taken in prize from the enemy.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: How measured?


Brooke Claxton: By the disposal value of the ship.


Major James William Coldwell: Have they abandoned the old idea of paying on the value of the men captured or killed?


Brooke Claxton: No, men are not valued; only the ship.


Mr. Pearkes:: That was blood money.


Brooke Claxton: As the hon. member for Nanaimo points out, that fell into a different category, though frequently lumped together for purposes of consideration. But in this instance the two vessels taken in prize by Canada were the German vessel Weser and the Italian vessel Capo Noli. These would have been condemned at prize by the Canadian prize court, which would have fixed a value on them, and it would have been that value, or the proceeds of their sale, which would have been paid into the prize fund. However, in this case both ships were sunk before they were condemned at prize, and the proceeds of the insurance on the ships now represents the value of the ships and constitutes the Canadian contribution toward the pool.
Under the old arrangement which was in effect until the first world war, the crown would have kept one-third-because all this goes to the crown and forms part of the royal prerogative-and two-thirds would have been paid to the officers and men of the ship which made the capture. At the end of the first world war it was decided that apportionment should be made among all those who served at sea for a certain time. The proposed method of distribution in the United Kingdom is that distribution would be made to all those men who served 180 days, with senior officers receiving ten times as much as the seamen.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker,
I	do not think it is necessary to go into the historical background of the distribution to the sailors of that portion of the funds which was obtained from prizes. It has been discussed in this house before. The fact that conditions of service have changed, rates of pay have been augmented and the benefits to sailors after their service have increased tremendously in comparison with the conditions obtaining a hundred years and more ago, bears out the contention that the distribution of prize money grants to sailors is an out-of-date method.
Naval traditions, however, die hard. After the first world war considerable sums of money were distributed by the admiralty to men of the Royal Canadian Navy. Many of these same men served during world war
II	and they had a reasonable anticipation of obtaining some prize money grants at the end of that war.
Canada Prize Act
The minister has called attention to the fact that the admiralty has decided that in any future war no prize money will be distributed to the men of the fleet. He said that the admiralty had recognized that it would be unfair not to distribute prize money after this war to men who had been expecting it. If it is unfair not to distribute money to men of the Royal Navy who were expecting some small grants from prize money, it is equally unfair not to distribute some small amount of money to the men of the Royal Canadian Navy.
It is no use saying that there was no undertaking. Of course there was no undertaking, but there was no undertaking as far as the men of the Royal Navy were concerned. These grants have always been acts of grace and the men of the Royal Canadian Navy know perfectly well that there was no undertaking to pay these grants. But they expect that the same act of grace would apply to them as was applied to the sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy after the last war. They feel that it is an ungracious act that there should be denied to them the small amount of money which would be coming to them as a result of prizes which were captured.
The amount is quite immaterial. The fact remains that there is an old naval tradition which is being broken. That is hurting the morale of the navy and it is hurting the men who served in the navy and are now retired into civilian life. I regret very much that the minister has arrived at this decision.
If the men are not going to receive the grants there is no better place for them to go to than the naval benevolent fund. But I am still firmly of the opinion, which opinion is supported by a number of letters I have received recently-I received one only yesterday and another one from Esquimalt only a week ago-that the men feel this very keenly and resent what they consider to be a high-handed and arbitrary decision to refuse them the small amount of money they thought was coming to them.
If the money is not going to be distributed among the crews of the ships, then these men would like to see it go to the naval benevolent fund rather than anywhere else. Yesterday the minister said, as reported on page 2563 of Hansard:
The suggestion that prize money was necessary as a kind of compensation for the loss of possible earnings has ceased to exist, particularly in Canada, where our benefits to veterans are on a more favourable basis than in any other country.
That may be true, but the purpose of the naval benevolent fund is to augment those very benefits which the minister points out

Canada Prize Act
are so generous. The explanatory note to section 4 of the bill states that the naval service benevolent trust fund is used to relieve distress and promote the well-being of members or ex-members of the naval forces of Canada or their dependents.
One of the objections raised is that many of the men in the service today would not have contributed anything toward the actions which produced these prizes because they are new recruits who came into the navy since the cessation of hostilities. It is little use to continue this argument which has been continued at some length. The minister and the government have made up their minds to distribute this money in the manner indicated. I repeat that I regret that they have reached that decision as I consider it unfair and breaking an ancient tradition which might well be preserved. I submit it would have been much better to have taken a little time and distributed the amounts accruing to the individual men. Therefore I am opposed to this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that I am also opposed to this bill for the reasons outlined by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). However, one thing strikes me particularly about this matter and that is that whereas the minister has pointed out that in the United Kingdom it has been decided not to continue the distribution of prize money in any wars which may subsequently take place, they are going on to distribute all prize moneys which accrued as a result of the war just concluded. We in Canada have gone a step beyond that and have decided not only not to distribute prize money in any subsequent war in which we may be involved but not to distribute prize money of the war of 1939-45.
That being the case I would have expected to find in the bill some concrete provision that hereafter no prize money would be payable, that notwithstanding whatever source it might come from in the future no prize money would be distributed to Canadian sailors or members of the air force. There is no such provision in the bill. It seems to me that that should have been made clear in the legislation so that men who join the forces in the future will know exactly where they stand. To me that makes the bill twice as objectionable as it otherwise would be.
We are legislating to lay down a principle to be applied now and in the future and are also denying to a group of men what would otherwise have been theirs. It seems to me that the bill is so utterly devoid of principle that it becomes nothing more or less than-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Theft.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was going to use that word
but the hon. member for Greenwood has supplied it for me. The minister has said that it is difficult to get in touch with these men to find out how they feel about it and so the government decided to take the law into their own hands and pass legislation which has a retroactive effect, which is always objectionable. It is particularly objectionable in this case because it denies to men who served through the war money, small though it may have been, which they felt they were entitled to by virtue of their service and the vessels which they captured. I think this is a most objectionable and fraudulent piece of legislation, and I am opposed to it.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in protest against the bill. As the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) said, I feel that no organization is more deserving of this prize money than the benevolent funds if it is not going to be distributed individually. The amount of money involved for each individual would probably be very small indeed. Nevertheless it is the principle involved. In future wars it will not be distributed individually, and possibly it should not have been during the past war as the minister has said that no assurance was given that it would be. On the other hand, no statement was made to the men that it would not be distributed, and they expected it and looked forward to it as a matter of tradition and right. After they have waited for some word about this matter for the past five years, the government has now decided that it will not give it to them. I honestly believe that the whole matter of awarding prize money is out of date, but nevertheless during the period of the past war every sailor in the Canadian navy had a right to expect the payment of prize money in line with the traditions of the navy. If he was not going to get it he should have been told prior to his enlistment. If the bill dealt only with future wars I might be in agreement with it, but I do not believe in taking their prize money away five years after they have earned it-something that has been traditionally theirs.


Mr. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks of the last two speakers I think I should present the opposite point of view. I do not pretend to speak for the air force but I know the feelings of my colleagues with whom I served in that force. Their general feeling is that the method proposed by the bill is the only sensible way to distribute this prize money. The practice of distributing prize money goes back to the days of the privateers when crews were enlisted forcibly by letters of mark. These men were sent abroad and they

believed they were going to get a good thing out of whatever they captured. Such a practice really has no connection with our modern navy, army or air force. If it is a question of awarding it to the navy because of what they captured, then may I suggest that if there is one service which should be getting the prize money it is the Canadian army. Infantry and tanks captured a thousand times more real property than the navy.
There is a second point which I think is important today. It is the matter of trying to get consistent terms of service in the three branches of our armed forces. This is not a new thing with me. I remember at the time of the conscription debate in 1944 one of the reasons why the army had such trouble in getting recruits at the very time that the air force was turning them away was the fact that conditions of service in the air force had been made so attractive, mainly owing to the great interest taken by the former minister for air, the present member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). As a Canadian and a veteran I am glad to see the steps that have been taken since the war to provide the same conditions of service and the same rewards for service in each of the three branches. Without any authority from the air force association or anybody else I can say that no airman joined at the beginning of the war with the expectation of receiving prize money. I further say that not one Canadian in a thousand who joined the Canadian navy ever thought or expected to receive prize money. I would also say that the great rank and file of veterans who served either in the navy or in the air force think that the best place to put the money is in the benevolent funds in order to help those of our colleagues who may need assistance from that source. When I hear the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) making a suggestion of fraud I think he is getting very far from the feeling of the average man who was in the services with regard to this prize money.
The point I want to make is a little different. If the money is going to be turned over to the navy and air force benevolent funds for the use of naval and air force veterans who may need help, I think there is a direct obligation on the government and on parliament to exercise a little more scrutiny of the funds than is the case today. In the last two or three days I was a little shocked to read in a newspaper-I just cannot put my finger on it at the moment

a report of the R.C.A.F. benevolent fund. As I recall, in round figures the fund amounts to around $2 million. Last year they paid out about $50,000 in grants and loans to deserving air force veterans. The astounding thing, however,
Canada Prize Act
is that the cost of administration was $53,000. It may have been an error in the paper but if it cost $53,000 to administer loans amounting to $50,000 then the government had better take an active interest in the proceedings of this benevolent association before turning over this prize money.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to try to make a mountain of this matter but I cannot help expressing a word of regret because it seems to me, as has already been said, that we are dealing ex post facto with a situation which existed. I very much doubt that the minister will be able to assure us that no reference to prize money was made in the recruiting of navy personnel. I doubt very much that he could give such an assurance, and even if he did it is quite possible that a good many men, knowing the history of the navy, may have been induced to join by that as well as by other reasons.


James Sinclair: That is putting a pretty low price on naval enlistment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, I disagree with that entirely. I do not agree that there should not be a sort of element of sportsmanship in a thing which had a great element of risk in it anyway. As the hon. member pointed out so well, the army, about which as a former member of the air force he spoke so generously, had considerable opportunity as a matter of fact by private initiative to do a little collecting on its own, whereas those who were on the sea and in the air did not have much chance to do that. Speaking seriously again, I will not labour the point but I cannot help but say that I do not believe this is the proper way to handle it.


Major James William Coldwell: Did the hon. member say "private enterprise" or "private initiative"?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Private
initiative. I cannot forbear expressing some regret that we did not see fit to deal with this matter as they did in Great Britain where it seems, as so often is the case, they found a useful compromise.


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to inject myself into the debate but there have been certain remarks in connection with the bill about which I should like to say something. While I cannot speak for members of the Canadian navy I feel-and it is my experience that this is the view of those who were in that service-that few looked forward to prize money on enlistment. I feel that those who enlisted did so for a much higher purpose than obtaining prize money which might be theirs as the result of moneys in this fund. It seems to me also that many of

Canada Prize Act
those who served in the army, navy and air force have now rehabilitated themselves in civilian life, and that they are quite prepared to have the money turned over to those less fortunate who may need it for some benevolent purpose.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Brooke Claxton: I have only one or two words to say. In the first place I should like to assure the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that I made most careful inquiries of the navy and at national defence headquarters, and it was not possible to find that in any recruiting publicity the holding out of the possibility of prize money was used as an inducement to men to enlist. Therefore, so far as we have been able to ascertain, there was no holding out of such an inducement. I should like to suggest to the hon. member with all respect that the nature of his own comment on this subject indicates how little seriousness there is in the opposition to the move we are now making when it is put in terms, even facetiously, that payment to individuals would be justified because in a sense it might equalize the possibility in the army of obtaining some loot. I hope the hon. member was not very serious about that. If I may say so, it indicates the level of the arguments put forward by those who have opposed this measure. I venture to say I have seen more of the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy during the last three years than most hon. members, and I have taken every possible opportunity to discuss with them what was their own desire with regard to this measure. I can assure hon. members that I have not as yet come face to face with an officer or man who felt that the right way to deal with this was a way which everyone in this house admits is out of date. The resolutions and letters that have been sent to us are very largely limited to one locality in Canada.
I do not believe for a moment that any principle whatever is involved in this. There has been no holding out, no inducement; the question is how this money, which is a windfall, may be best disposed of in the interests of the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy. In adopting this course we have not satisfied everyone, but we have proceeded as the great majority of the men who served at sea would like us to proceed; that is, for the benefit of those of their comrades who are less well off than some of the others.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the second time.


Brooke Claxton: If I have consent I move:
That Bill No. 221, an act to provide for the payment and distribution of prize money, be referred to the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 133, an act respecting national defence, and that the committee be empowered to consider the said Bill No. 221.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 210, to amend the Customs Tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Where duty does not exceed 15 per cent ad valorem.
James Sinclair: Perhaps I might say just a few words of explanation in the beginning. If hon. members will refer back to the ways and means resolutions, they will find that the ways and means resolution on the customs tariff is almost exactly identical with this bill. While a resolution usually sets out the general intent of the bill only, that is not possible in the customs tariff resolution, because there has to be specific reference to the items that are to be changed; and if you compare the ways and means resolution with the important sections of this bill you will find them exactly the same, with the exception of section 2. In the resolution there were three subclauses, which here have been consolidated into two; I shall deal with that when we come to the section.
In view of the fact that we had a very long discussion on each clause in the resolution stage, and the fact that this bill is identical with the resolution, I do not see that anything is to be gained by repeating what I said at that time. However, since this is the second of the tax bills, perhaps at this time I should answer the one question which was unanswered at the time we discussed the excise tax bill. The hon. member for Peterborough West and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox asked at that time whether this prepared whipping cream which was being exempt from sales tax was just 30 per cent cream. I have made inquiries and find that it is cream of 30 per cent butterfat, so it is all cream. The hon. member for Danforth asked whether steps were being taken to ensure that this concession was extended only to real dairy products, and not to products which were either adulterated with vegetable oils or

composed entirely of vegetable oils. I have made inquiries and find that the pure food act covers that, so this sales tax exemption applies only to pure dairy products.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand the change here is the insertion of the words "under the British preferential tariff" and so on, and that this is an outcome of the Geneva treaties.


James Sinclair: That is true.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the parliamentary assistant say a further word about that?


James Sinclair: Before Geneva there was a special 10 per cent discount to the duty on imports from British countries where the duty was in excess of 15 per cent. It was argued at Geneva, however, that in those instances where the rate of duty on British goods and the most-favoured-nation rate of duty were the same this 10 per cent discount constituted a hidden advantage for the British, an advantage not contemplated under those agreements. That was threshed out, andi it was agreed that this 10 per cent will not apply on items where the British tariff and the most-favoured-nation tariff are the same. In order that hon. members could see the effect of it I put on Hansard a list of those items on which the British tariff and the most-favoured-nation tariff are the same. That is at page 2176, and it shows that these items amount in all to about $3 million, in a total British import of over $500 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder If I might take this opportunity to ask the parliamentary assistant whether he can tell me anything concerning representations which have been made to the minister regarding the tariff on irrigation sprinkler heads. It has been represented that these articles are not readily available in Canada and that western producers particularly, who have to irrigate their orchards, are penalized by the very considerable tariff that is charged when these sprinkler heads are imported. I believe the Minister of Finance has been giving consideration to the matter over the past couple of weeks, and I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can tell us the present position.


James Sinclair: The question was raised a year ago by the hon. member for Kamloops and, I think, the hon. member for Calgary East, with respect to the complete portable irrigation equipment. That situation has been adjusted; there is an ample supply available in Canada today. I am told, however, that there is a temporary shortage of the sprinkler heads. This has been brought to the attention of the department and they
Customs Tariff
are trying now to see that a satisfactory supply is made available; or if that cannot be done an adjustment in regard to the tariff will be carefully considered. There is no adjustment in this tariff.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then do I understand that if an adequate supply of sprinkler heads cannot be made available domestically the department will consider an adjustment in the tariff for future years?


James Sinclair: That is one of the items for discussion at Torquay this summer.


Mr. Thatcher:: I am still not clear on section 1. Do I understand the parliamentary assistant to say that on these items he mentions, cotton goods and the like, the concession which the British formerly enjoyed is being taken away? Does that mean in effect that they are going to have to pay a tariff of 10 per cent more on those goods?


James Sinclair: The problem stems back to the fact that over and above the British preferential tariff the British had been given another discount of 10 per cent on those tariffs which were in excess of 15 per cent. At Geneva we gave other countries the same tariff rate as the British on some items in return for concessions made to the United Kingdom. We were told that was not good enough. They said that they were supposed to be on the same rate as the British, and while the tariff schedule shows that they were, we were still giving a 10 per cent discount to the British. This is discrimination which we agreed not to impose under the Geneva trade agreement. Our country agreed and the British agreed that Canada should discontinue this discriminatory practice, and as a consequence in all those items on which the British preferential tariff and the most-favoured-nation tariff are the same, the discount is no longer allowed. The discount still applies on a great range of items on which the British have a tariff preference even over the most-favoured-nation.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: In effect, this clause 1 takes away a 10 per cent preference, a tariff preference or a discount preference, whatever you want to call it, on these particular British goods. Is that correct?


James Sinclair: A 10 per cent discount, not a duty..


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: In dollars and cents, whether you call it a discount or a tariff, it is the same.


James Sinclair: A 10 per cent tariff is different from a 10 per cent discount on a tariff.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The parliamentary assistant used the word "discount". Will he make it clear by giving an illustration, because there is a confusion in terms here.

Customs Tariff


James Sinclair: I shall give an example. Take an item on which there is a twenty per cent tariff if the goods are of British origin, and twenty per cent under the most-favourednation treatment. Actually, if we had not had this arrangement in our tariff law both would pay twenty per cent, but because of this provision in our law we were giving a ten per cent discount on that twenty per cent tariff. In effect, therefore, as the goods were of British origin they would receive a ten per cent discount, yet in our tariff we would have both the British and most-favourednation rates of duty listed as twenty per cent. It was claimed that this was a hidden discount which we agreed at Geneva to eliminate as soon as the necessary legislation could be enacted.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But if there was a one per cent difference, you would still be able to give the discount?


James Sinclair: That Is right. It applies to such a small range of goods, only about $3 million out of a total of $520 million.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But it all boils down to one thing, that it is an increase in the tariff against British goods; at least the net effect is that. In a few months we are going to Torquay to negotiate these agreements, and it seems to me that the government is not coming to parliament very often about these things. When the delegation is there perhaps they will whittle away any British preference we may have left. I think this is a matter for concern in this parliament, and I wish the minister would state this afternoon what the policy of the Canadian delegation is going to be so far as the British preferential tariffs are concerned. He must have some idea. I think we should have freer trade, but I think at the moment this British preference, in view of our trading position, should be approached with some care.


James Sinclair: I think the member for Greenwood has grasped the point of this, but I shall explain it again. The difficulty which the British and we have, as well as many other nations, in trying to get goods into the United States is that the United States has a tariff schedule, and then they have so many other restrictions. Despite the fact that the tariff is open, there are these other difficulties in the way of getting goods into that country. This problem has been brought up again and again by both the British and Canadian exporters and manufacturers.
At Geneva a real attempt was made to do away with all these hidden concessions, discounts and so on which actually vitiate the effect of the published tariff. The only example we had of that was this very thing. We told the most favoured nations they were getting the same tariff on certain goods as the
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
British. These countries had to make concessions to us to get it, only to find out that, while that appeared to be true in the tariff schedule, by this other agreement we were giving the British a ten per cent discount, actually a two per cent tariff reduction in cases where the rate was twenty per cent. These countries of course said, "You are no better than the United States so far as that is concerned; all of these things have to go." Our great hope, and that of all the countries, of getting into the American market as freely as we would like is the removal of these concessions from the British preferential tariff. We have taken our step towards doing that.
Getting rid of these hidden concessions, so far as we are concerned, actually affects $3 million worth of goods in a total importation of $520 million. I do not think that is too great a concession to be given by the British or by ourselves in order to achieve uniformity. If all the countries who signed the Geneva agreement can get away from these extra concessions and hidden discounts which actually destroy the open tariff picture, then uniformity will be achieved.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we are constantly doing this sort of thing without any assurance from the United States that we are getting similar treatment. Our government agreed to the Geneva agreement, and for a time I think it adversely affected our trade with Britain. We have never approved of that agreement in this house, but bit by bit we find ourselves giving more concessions, allegedly because of the methods adopted by the United States. I have not been able to find out that we have been able, to any great extent, to iron out these difficulties with the United States that have bothered Canadian exporters for a great many years.
For example, I was informed that the exporters of apples from the Annapolis valley into the United States had their apples stopped at the border. Although the boxes were marked "product of Canada" the wrappers in which the apples were wrapped were not marked "product of Canada", and because there is some regulation that each package must contain the name of the country of origin, there was great difficulty in getting those apples into the United States. Another example, which is better authentically from my point of view, concerns the manufacture of some bricks in the maritime provinces. A couple of carloads of bricks were ordered for a town in the state of Maine. The car was marked "product of Canada", but the customs authorities of the United States insisted that every brick should be marked "product of Canada". The young men told me that they

had to unload the carload of bricks and rubber stamp each brick, "product of Canada."
Now, it seems to me


Gordon Graydon: That is the brick for brick tariff wall.


Major James William Coldwell: There is no question about that. It seems to me that if we are going to make concessions, if it is only two per cent or a fraction of one per cent against the customer who has in past years been our best customer, we should pause before we agree to a provision of this sort. Because of the Geneva agreement and the non-discriminatory features of this agreement, we have made some quite valuable concessions to the United States, and have placed some considerable barriers against our trade with the United Kingdom. While I think we must do whatever we can to improve our trade relationship with the United States as well as with Britain, I do not think these arrangements should be one-sided, and they should make a greater effort than they have been making to remove these rigid regulations which they used from time to time to prevent the importation into their country of goods from Canada and from other countries. I believe that is the important point.


James Sinclair: I am glad the hon. member has raised this matter. In the resolution stage I said that although we have not introduced formal legislation so far as the Geneva trade agreement is concerned, we have given statutory effect to about 465 out of almost
1,000	items considered at either Geneva or Annecy. One of the few advantages I can think of, in so far as these continuing conferences are concerned, is that at Geneva certain agreements were reached. We came back to the various countries at the next conference and were able to show that we had done a great deal towards implementing that agreement. It is for that reason I want to see this bill passed. Then none of the signatories to these agreements will be in a better position than Canada. We shall be able to say, "We have done this; what have you done?" The other countries which have not made measurable advances in carrying out the spirit of Geneva are not going to be able to ask for further concessions.
When this bill is in effect, we can say we have gone still further in carrying out the provisions we agreed to at Geneva. I am very glad the hon. member raised the question of the marking of products because it is another example of a technique which has been used, quite aside from the provisions in the tariff to block the entry of goods from Canada into the United States. We are doing our part in this connection and I am told there is legislation before congress now. The
Customs Tariff
Americans apparently are also anxious to have their house in order before they take the next step. In section 3, when I come to it-I mentioned it in the resolution stage- we had an extra penalty. If the goods were not marked in accordance with our regulations we had, as well as a penalty, an extra 10 per cent ad valorem duty which we imposed. It was agreed that that sort of thing was actually in restraint of trade and the signatory countries should do away with this extra penalty. To hold goods and mark them at public expense was all right; but then to put on a penalty duty as well was not right. Here we are taking our action to correct the situation which the hon. member aptly described with regard to Annapolis valley apples and with regard to bricks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answers given by the parliamentary assistant make the government's position clear; but I wonder if he can just give us some facts which will complete the picture. As I understood him, he said that we shall be in a position to say to these other nations, "We have gone very far to fulfil our part of the obligation." In fact, as I understand him, he said we had gone further than other nations had gone, so we shall be in a good bargaining position at Torquay. That may be a sound position to get into from the point of view of bargaining, but I do not think it is a sound position to get into unless we be sure that the other nations are going to agree. When we point out to them that we have gone this far and they have not, if we are not sure of that and if we go on taking the lead, we are definitely harming our trading prospects and particularly we are hurting the country which in the past has been our best customer. I should like to know, though not in any detail, how far the United States has gone. I suggest that the parliamentary assistant tell us generally whether in fact these tactics of ours have succeeded in bringing the United States as far along the road as we would like to see them go.


James Sinclair: I am informed that, of the 23 countries that signed at Geneva and the 9 more that came in at Annecy, satisfactory action has been taken by all the countries of which we have record. It is difficult to check accurately, especially since there has not been much time since Annecy and most of these governments have had only one sitting of their parliaments; but at Torquay we shall know how far they have gone. If we have gone farther than any of them, then we will be in a position to mark time. But I am informed that we ourselves and Britain, the people who are of course most interested in export trade, are the countries that have done

Customs Tariff
the most in trying to live up to the things that we said we would do at both Geneva and Annecy.
As to the question of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I should like to make one little point about his suggestion that we have hurt Britain's trade. As you will recall, last month for the first time-


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes, I know.


James Sinclair: Just as an indication that we are moving in the right direction, for the first time last month we have a British balance of about $2,500,000.


Major James William Coldwell: I think I qualified it by
saying that when it came into effect we hurt Britain.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am still not satisfied with the explanation given by the parliamentary assistant. As I understood it, in effect he says this clause introduces another step which the government is taking to remove trade barriers. Yet in the next breath he says that the effect will be to increase the tariff against these British goods to the extent of about 2 per cent. I do not see how, time and again when these restrictions are coming off, it always means an increase in the Canadian tariff against British goods. I do not see how that is easing trade restrictions. I should like the minister or the parliamentary assistant to tell me this. When we made this concession, if that is what it was, to certain countries, was there any specific condition that we get any return for it?


James Sinclair: The general problem was to make the printed tariff schedule the actual tariff schedule. As long as countries said, for example, as we said about the British and most-favoured-nation rates on certain items, that the tariff rates are the same, and then with regard to the British, we gave the British a discount, we were in effect not telling the truth in our tariff schedule. We were not alone in doing that. I think perhaps it is not the right thing for me to say here, but the general feeling at least in this country is that the Americans are perhaps the worst offenders in having other hidden blocks than tariffs. The whole object of Geneva was to tear away all these other hidden blocks and devices used in restraint of free trade across international boundaries. The only one which we had at that date, except in the marking provision, which I will mention, in section 3, was this special discount which we gave where the British preferential and mostfavoured-nation rates were the same. We still give the British a special discount on all their other tariff rates above 15 per cent. But in this case where we have ostensibly in our

tariff schedule said that the British rate and the most-favoured-nation rate are the same, we are in reality afterwards giving the British this discount of 10 per cent of the duty paid. I cannot explain it any more clearly than that. If the other hon. members understand it, perhaps we can go on to the next item.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: We have no alternative but to accept that explanation, but we still do not have to like it. This thing in effect means an increase in the tariff on these British goods.


Mr. Quelch:: There is one question I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant. In view of the fact that the United States is the nation today that needs to expand its imports more than any other nation, in consequence of which we are having a great deal of trouble with regard to the scarcity of dollars in the world today, can the parliamentary assistant give us a general idea how far the United States has gone since the Geneva meeting in reducing these tariffs? I am not asking for an itemized report, but for a general idea how far they have actually gone to date. There has been a great deal of talk about reducing tariffs in the United States, but apparently the United States tariff wall is still a fairly high one.


James Sinclair: I am certainly not in a position, in discussing our own Canadian tariff bill, to give you an explanation of what the Americans have done. In our department we have our economic policy counsellors who are willing to provide that information because they make a point of following the results in other countries so that they will be in a position at these various trade conferences at Geneva and Annecy, and now at Torquay, to stack up what we have done against what other countries have done. But there has been a marked improvement, not so much through changes in tariff. This is an example not of a change in the effective tariff rate but of the removal of a hidden discount which was an unfairness and which did give rise to complaint by countries which we were saying were getting the same tariff treatment as the British rate when actually in effect they were not. I myself feel that the best way that we can do our part in any of these international conventions and conferences to clear away these things which are affecting us much more than they are affecting our customers is to put our own house in order, as we are trying to do under this amendment and a little later under the amendment on the marking of goods.


Mr. Johnston:: Can the minister tell us what items are being affected by this reduction or this increase?


James Sinclair: I put the entire list on Hansard at page 2176, at the request of the

hon. member for York West, so that hon. members would have a chance to study it. The entire list is there. This is the list of goods in which the British have the same rate as the most-favoured-nation rate. Of course in the great majority of cases the British rate is substantially lower than the most-favourednation rate. But in these particular items through various trade negotiations between ourselves and Britain, and between ourselves and other countries-because, after all, Britain is not our only market-we have established this list of goods on which the British rate and the most-favoured-nation rate is the same. The total value, when you add them all up, is about $3 million. The total value of the imports from the British countries last year was around $520 million. That does not mean to say that, because we are now abolishing this special discount in this $3 million range, that entire market is actually going to go over to the Americans. Actually, I doubt whether there will be any loss in it. This list still will be sold in Canada. But at least we have done our part in removing one of these hidden discounts which has acted so much in restraint of trade in the past.


Major James William Coldwell: This question was raised at Annecy, was it?


James Sinclair: Yes, but at ^Geneva, not Annecy.


Major James William Coldwell: Who raised the question of this discount?


James Sinclair: I am informed that the United States themselves were the ones who raised it at Geneva.


Major James William Coldwell: As we look at this list it appears to be relatively small, $3 million. When you look through the list you find that is one in which the United States is primarily interested. It contains such things as milk foods, prepared cereal foods. I do not know about kippered herring.


James Sinclair: Milk, for example, $166.


Major James William Coldwell: If you look at the goods manufactured and come down to cotton clothing you find: shirts, not knitted; cotton clothing, women's and children's dresses; men's smocks and overalls; tray cloths, table cloths; quilts and counterpanes; sheets; towels; wash cloths and bath mats, pillow cases, typewriter ribbons. These are products in which the United States are particularly interested. By this they can now come into our market and compete a little more favourably with the British manufacturers or the commonwealth manufacturers.
Customs Tariff


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, the United States have submitted a list of 2,500 items on which they are reducing duties. Has the parliamentary assistant that list?


James Sinclair: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would help us to some extent, would it? Is the duty entirely removed or only partially removed?


James Sinclair: The list is available if the hon. member wants it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would like to see it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the clause carries I think the parliamentary assistant might answer the direct question. He has said that we have taken the lead in matters of this kind in eliminating what he called hidden discriminations in the hope that the country which is the key one in world trade today, namely, the United States, would do the same and permit those countries so concerned with export to export to her freely. I think the parliamentary assistant should answer the direct question: Are our officials satisfied- since we have taken the lead, and since we have made what I understand amounts to quite substantial concessions at Geneva and Annecy-with the response to those gestures so far made by the United States in a reciprocal manner?


James Sinclair: I am informed that they are very pleased, and that is one of the reasons for this conference, namely, to check on the detail of what actually has been done. But I am informed that the economic policy advisers in our department, the Department of Finance, are very pleased with the action taken so far.


Gordon Graydon: Are they easily satisfied?


James Sinclair: The Department of Finance is never very easily satisfied. The hon. member knows that.


Gordon Graydon: The country is not always satisfied with them.


Charles Edward Johnston: Will the action taken here not increase the cost of goods in Canada by the amount of the tariff? That means another increase in the cost of living. If our cost of living index keeps going up you will need a ladder to get to the top of it.


James Sinclair: I point out to the hon. member that if he looks over this list he will find that almost every item is produced in great quantities today in Canada. The British and the United States manufacturers must meet the Canadian prices. That is especially true of the textile group. The great bulk of textiles used in Canada today is made in Canada. If this were the sole market for these

Customs Tariff
goods, if this were the only source of these goods, then there would perhaps be a noticeable increase-I doubt whether it would be noticeable: an increase of 10 per cent discount on the tariff might not be noticeable in the case of small goods. But here the governing factor is the cost of the Canadian goods which are the great majority of the products here.


Major James William Coldwell: Would it not constitute a slight increase in tariff protection for the Canadian manufacturer of these goods?


James Sinclair: It could in these cases where the British are the competitors. In these cases where the most favoured nation is the competitor there is no change in the position.


Charles Edward Johnston: What chance is there of getting a lowering of prices of the goods which go into every home, if we are going to keep raising the tariff? Certainly there is no incentive here to bring down prices. We stop the British from bringing in cheaper goods and we permit the United States people to increase their prices by an increased tariff, which seems to me to indicate that we are just pushing the prices up instead of trying to get them down.


James Sinclair: The primary purpose of the whole pattern here is of course a provision to get rid of these hidden concessions. If you are thinking in terms of the British goods which have a monopoly today, and none of these appear on this list, then the effect of this discount would be to increase the cost of such goods by the amount of 10 per cent discount on the duty. If, however, as is the actual case in the great bulk of these goods, the Canadian production is the governing factor, then the British will have to shave their prices to meet the Canadian prices.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want a little further enlightenment on this. I take it that the situation is this. One of the nations we are negotiating with brings down its tariff to the point where it is on the same level as the British-I think the parliamentary assistant said that in most cases the British have been lower.


James Sinclair: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I assume that to be a good thing from our point of view. Could we get some indications as to just what improved trade we have had with those countries which have done that? I am excluding the United States. As a matter of fact, I think the parliamentary assistant could have made a stronger statement as to what had happened in the United States after the Geneva treaty of two or three years ago. My understanding is that in 
cattle alone the reduction was very beneficial to us, but it is not for me to state the government's case. However, I do come back to this point. I am very anxious to be satisfied that this is desirable. Could we have instances showing where we are deriving definite benefit in respect of lowered tariffs by other countries?


James Sinclair: Perhaps I have misinformed the committee concerning the purpose. The purpose was not to encourage other countries to drop their tariff rates. It would be easy to drop the most-favoured-nation down to the British level. It was just applying our present tariff schedule on the goods where the British rate and the most-favoured-nation rate were the same, removing the hidden discounts.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It would cut both ways.


James Sinclair: Well, if we could agree, in return for some trade concession from some other country reducing their tariff on an item down to the British level, then of course it would cut both ways.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask
the parliamentary assistant whether that is not actually happening in certain cases? Is that not a feature of it?


James Sinclair: I am informed it has been very seldom done in recent years, lowering the most-favOured-nation rate down to the British rate. I do not think this will serve as any impetus to do that. All this amendment does is that in those cases today where the British rate and the most-favoured-nation rate are the same we can no longer give this extra discount on the British tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Application of ad valorem rate in tariff item.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: The section which this one replaces is a section apparently dealing with something entirely different. Will the parliamentary assistant explain the reference to the limitation to certain ports of entry?


James Sinclair: This is the section which, as I said, does differ in detail from the budget resolutions. The rest of the bill is identical with the budget. We had three clauses in the budget resolutions, which we have consolidated into two here. This section relates to the tariff provision regarding fresh fruits and vegetables .and the season of the year in which a country like ours does not produce. On fresh fruits and vegetables we have certain ad valorem tariffs on their

entry from Florida and California for example. Then comes the first period of the year when our hothouses begin the production of Canadian vegetables, and fruits too for that matter.
Then we give our agriculture a further protection now that we can produce it. In the old days there were provisions for ad valorem duties. At Geneva it was agreed to replace those ad valorem duties by specific rates of duty during certain periods of the year, and those periods are detailed in the schedule. We agreed at Geneva on the various periods.
Then the second time comes when our own full production comes in. Under the Geneva agreements there is authority to impose an additional specific duty during the period when the Canadian field production of these vegetables and fruits is available.
The reference to the ports of entry is a new one. Previously these added duties were applied nationally and now the minister is -given the right to apply them regionally. Obviously the Fraser valley would require protection against the importation of strawberries, tomatoes, carrots, beets and so on from California at a different time than Ontario would need protection. Under the section mentioned by the bon. member for Greenwood where reference is made to ports of entry the minister is given authority to specify the various regions where the increased duty to protect Canadian produce will be imposed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is this a new power?


James Sinclair: It is a new power to specify regions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that covered by any of the sections?


James Sinclair: The first section of the budget resolution gave the power to impose specific duties in the case of some vegetables only once. I suppose potatoes would be an example of that since there are no hothouse potatoes to my knowledge. The second clause provides for a split period. Then in the third clause authority is given to the minister to withdraw that national application from certain regions. That was a negative way of doing what we are now doing positively. Instead of applying it nationally and then withdrawing it, what we are doing in the bill is to give him the power to apply these specific duties to protect the Canadian farmer during his production period on a split period basis.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the parliamentary assistant read the resolution?
Customs Tariff


James Sinclair: It will be found on page 2175 of Hansard, or in the ways and means resolutions if the hon. member has those.


Mr. Adamson:: I should like to say one or two things on this section. I hope the device of naming the ports of entry will have the desired effect. The problem which faces the vegetable and market gardeners in my county, in the county of Peel and in other adjacent counties is that the Canadian crop is a late-maturing crop which comes onto the market weeks or even months later than the United States crop. Our growers have no objection to United States produce being imported before Canadian produce is on the market, but what actually happens in many cases is that just as the Canadian crop is coming onto the market a surplus has been built up in the United States which it is difficult to market or which because of its age commands a lower price, and that surplus is to all intents and purposes dumped on the Canadian market.
As the parliamentary assistant knows, it is during the first few days or weeks of a crop that you get your maximum price. When the Canadian crop is ready for marketing we find that the warehouses and even the refrigerator cars are filled with the undigested

I am speaking marketwise-United States surplus. Until that surplus is off the market the Canadian crop, which should command a premium price because of its freshness, actually commands a depressed price. In many cases I have seen fresh Canadian produce taken off the market when no purchaser could be found and dumped or destroyed.
My first suggestion is that the date of the imposition of the Canadian tariff against United States fruits and vegetables should be put forward sufficiently in the growing season to permit the surplus being used up before the Canadian vegetables and fruits come onto the market.
At the end of the season Canadian produce is available when the United States growing season is over. In the northern United States the growing season on certain types of vegetables is comparatively short. When vegetables from the Leamington area or other areas along the north shore of lake Erie are available the United States tariff is still imposed against them. At the end of our growing season we would normally expect to find a market in the United States but we find our products are still shut out. The result is that at the end of our season we have a great surplus of vegetables which in many cases have to be destroyed.
When the parliamentary assistant goes to Torquay I hope he will bring this matter to

Customs Tariff
the attention of the United States authorities so that our growers may have the market they are entitled to when their fresh produce ripens and is ready for sale. It is a most important thing because there is nothing more hazardous than the growing of vegetables or fruits. You have to depend on the weather and expenses are very great in growing and cultivating these intense crops. Unless you can get the cream of the market in the first couple of weeks in which your crop is marketable, you are likely to suffer a great loss on the year's operations. I want to bring that to the attention of the minister so that when these matters are discussed the point of view of the Canadian growers will be adequately safeguarded.


Gordon Graydon: I think the hon. member for York West should receive high marks for his clear and forceful enunciation of the position of the growers in his riding and others such as my own which are similarly affected. I should like to make one or two minor additions to what he said. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant may not know this. Not only is the question of timing important, but in the past the regulations have been so loosely applied in certain instances that when dumping duties have been imposed on fruit and vegetable importations from the United States their transportation has also constituted a problem. When dumping duties are put into force here somehow or other they do not always apply to the many carloads of vegetables which are then in transit. In other words, so long as the freight cars are moving from some place in the southern United States they can still move on and come in under the wire, if I may use that term, placed there by the regulations so far as timing is concerned.
For a long time the government has needed no extra powers; rather, it has failed to use at the proper time the powers it has. One point that should be particularly impressed upon the government it that they had better stick close to the recommendations of the organized growers. They know when these dumping duties ought to be applied. In some instances I am afraid it has been a matter of compromise. The growers have made certain recommendations, those in the trade have made other recommendations from their point of view, and too often the government has come in between the two and made compromises which, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for York West, have made it impossible for the growers to market at the most important and vital period of the marketing season.

Therefore I want to add my words to those so forcefully uttered by my colleague and neighbour, the hon. member for York West, who understands the problem just as we all do in that section of Ontario. After all, our fruit and vegetable growers, our gardeners and orchard men in that part of the province are engaged in a most important national business which, because the commodities they grow are perishable, requires special treatment. In the light of the representations that have been made both in and out of the house I hope that the government will see to it that in the imposition of dumping duties growers get a better and squarer deal than they have had on many occasions in the past.


Mr. Hatfield:: I should like to point out to
the parliamentary assistant that hundreds of cars of United States new potatoes are coming into Canada every week. They are being sold at $7 to $8 a hundred at a time when there is a surplus of good old potatoes in the maritime provinces and eastern Canada generally. Does this section allow the ad valorem duty to be placed on vegetables or any other commodity at any time?


James Sinclair: It is fresh fruits and vegetables and they are all listed in the schedules starting at page 9. The fruits and vegetables are listed, the tariff rates are listed, and the periods in which the extra specific duty can be levied to protect Canadian producers are listed.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Potatoes have a duty from
the 15th June to the 31st July of 374 cents. I should like to point out that potatoes are coming into Canada free of duty today. When we ship potatoes to the United States the duty is 75 cents a hundred. Why should we not have an ad valorem duty on potatoes at all times?


James Sinclair: As the hon. member has said, during most of the year potatoes are imported free, and for the remaining period there is a tariff of 371 cents. The United States imposes a tariff the year round. It is one of those things which can be discussed at Torquay. I suppose if they will not lower their tariff we could follow the old method of retaliation and raise our tariff.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You are not asking them to lower theirs. Why should we not have an ad valorem tariff against their potatoes? Why should we have to pay 75 cents on our potatoes entering the United States when their potatoes can come in here free except for a month and a half? Why should we not have the same duty as they have the year round?


James Sinclair: The change in tariff from an ad valorem to a specific duty on most vegetables has met with the approval of the growers across Canada. The problem of timing is a most important one. The hon. member for York West raised it. The matter of timing as to the period, if it is a split period, a hothouse period and a field period, or if it is only a field period, cannot be spelled out in the statutes because it depends entirely on the weather. I am informed that the growers and the Department of Agriculture work very closely together. There are other people who have to be considered, however, and I refer to consumers. It obviously would be very much in the interest of the growers to have a higher specific tariff imposed at a very early period, at a time perhaps when they could not supply Canadian demand. There is that factor, and it is probably responsible for the compromise which the hon. member mentioned.
As for the application of the dumping duty, this legislation in no way changes the authority of the government to apply such duties on these fruits and vegetables if it is established, that the produce is being dumped in Canada. This is a tariff arrangement for the ordinary everyday trade where there is an ad valorem duty for the period outside the designated weeks and then a specific duty spelled out in the schedule for the restricted period. Before this amendment we had a split period authorized for only cabbage, carrots and beets. That is now extended to cover green beans, cabbage, carrots, beets, cauliflower, celery and lettuce.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad the parliamentary assistant spoke of the interest of the consumer. This indicates very clearly what a difficult country Canada is for which to provide arrangements of this sort, and I think it is a good thing that this can apply to various ports across the country, which of course minimizes the difficulty for many consumers. Those of us who come from the prairie provinces, for example, where we have not these early supplies of vegetables and fruits, cannot get supplies from any source except Utah, Texas and other places south of the line, and we would be penalized if this were applied generally. I just rose to say that in listening to the moderate and well-stated representations of hon. gentlemen who come from districts where these things can be obtained, the interests of the people of the prairie provinces, who might be adversely affected if this were applied too generally across the country, should not be forgotten. I just wanted to remind the parliamentary assistant-from what he said I thought probably he might have had it in mind, but I felt it should be 55946-164
Customs Tariff
put on the record-that the interests of people in other parts of Canada have to be considered when this matter is being dealt with.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The parliamentary assistant has not answered my question as to why we have to pay a duty of 75 cents per hundred pounds on potatoes going into the United States while their potatoes come in here free of duty. Why should that be?


James Sinclair: There are many of these tariff problems between nations, where the tariff is not the same going both ways. I am told that we have permitted free entry of potatoes into Canada for many years, except for the production period.


Heber Harold Hatfield: We used to have an ad valorem duty, in which I believe. We should have the same duty they have on all goods.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to refer to the question of ports of entry. There is a difference, which may not be important, between the wording of the resolution and the wording of the bill. The resolution speaks of goods imported through ports in a specified region or part of Canada, and so on; the reference is to a region. In the section itself the wording is different. It says:
Provided that where, before the coming into operation of such an order, a person purchased goods for importation through a port specified in the order-
Can we have a word as to what these regions are, or what the ports are? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has pointed out how important that is.


James Sinclair: As far as the administration of this act is concerned, of course that is done at the border through these border ports; that is why the word "ports" is used to spell out the regions. Those regions are generally the maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia; and the ports in those areas are the ports in the regions. The actual instruction in the end will have to apply to ports, because the customs and excise officials at those ports are the people who actually have to enforce the law.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then does it really mean that there are just four groups of ports, in other words that the minister just deals with the maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia? I take it that under this he has authority to fix different times at different places, or to leave one out altogether?


James Sinclair: That is quite right. He has
that authority, but he exercises that as a

Customs Tariff
taxation authority only in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and the growers' organizations, as to at what time or in what regions these permissive periods shall extend. They are also in the schedule, and range from six or seven weeks to twenty-six weeks. The minister decides when they shall be applied, whether they shall be split, to what regions they shall apply, or whether they shall apply at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then what is the significance of the phrase at the end of the section:
-the number of weeks in the two periods shall not exceed the number specified in that sub-item.
In other words, once he makes a decision are his hands tied? From what has been said by the hon. member for York West it would seem there should be a great deal of flexibility.


James Sinclair: There is that flexibility. For example, the longest period is twenty-six weeks. That can be divided into four weeks for the hothouse period and twenty-two weeks for the field period, but the total of the two must not exceed the period specified in the schedule.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that by reason of international agreement?


James Sinclair: That is by reason of the Geneva agreement.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Do the Americans grant us that same countervailing clause? Have they a flexible tariff, too?


James Sinclair: The Americans have no
periods, I am told, because their nation is in production the year round. They are turning to the same type of specific duties that we now have, in place of the ad valorem duties. If it is of any interest I can put on Hansard a table showing United States rates of duty. It is not very long.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think that would be helpful, because I have had many complaints that our produce has to hurdle a very considerable tariff barrier going into the United States, whereas we try to be flexible and protect both the producer and the consumer.


James Sinclair: This table will serve two purposes. It will show what substantial reductions the Americans have made in the last two years as well. With the consent of the committee 'I would ask that this table of United States tariffs on similar fruits and vegetables might appear in the record.


The Chairman:: Has the hon. gentleman leave of the committee to have this table appear in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: The table is as follows:
United States Tariff
	United States	United States
Goods	rate prior to	rate since
	January 1, 1948	January 1, 1948
Onions, n.o.p. ,	.. 2\ cts. per lb.	lH cts. per lb.Mushrooms ...	.. 25 p.c. plus	25 p.c. plus 5 cts.8 cts. per lb.	per lb.Asparagus .. .	.. 50 p.c.	25 p.c.Green beans .,	.. 2 cts. per lb.	2 cts. per lb.Beets 	.. 10 p.c.	10 p.c.Brussels sprouts 50 p.c.	25 p.c.Watercress ..	.. 50 p.c.	25 p.c.Eggplant 	.. 1] cts. per lb.	1| cts. per lb.Cabbage 	.. 1] cts. per lb.	n ct. per lb.Carrots 	.. 25 p.c.	12| p.c.Cauliflower ..	. . 25 p.c.	12] p.c. June 5, to Aug. 5. 25 p.c. Aug. 6, to June 4.Celery 	.. 1 ct. per lb.	I ct. per lb.2 cts. per lb.	April 15 to July 31. 1 ct. per lb. Aug. 1, to April 14.Cucumber ...	.. 3 cts. per lb.	let. per lb. July 1, to Aug. 31. 3 cts. per lb. Sept. 1, to June 30.Lettuce 	.. 2 cts. per lb.	1	ct. per lb. June 1, to Oct. 31, 2	cts. per lb. Nov. 1, to May 31.Green peas ..	.. 2 cts. per lb.	1	ct. per lb. July 1, to Sept. 30. 2	cts. per lb. Oct. 1, to June 30.Radishes	.. 25 p.c.	12| p.c. July 1, to Aug. 31. 25 p.c. Sept. 1, to June 30.Rhubarb 	.. 50 p.c.	25 p.c.Spinach 	.. 3 cts. per lb.	1] cts. per lb.Tomatoes 	.. 1] cts. per lb.	1| cts. per lb.Turnips 	.. 12g cts. per 100	Vegetables,	lbs.	64 cts. per 100 lbs.n.o.p	.. 50 p.c.	25 p.c.Apples	.. 15 cts. per bushel	12] cts. per bushelApricots 	
Blueberries,	.. \ ct. per lb.	| ct. per lb.fresh 	
Blueberries,	.. 1 ct. per lb.	1 ct. per lb.frozen 	..171 p.c.	19 p.c.Cantaloups ..	.. 35 p.c.	25 p.c. Aug. 1, to Sept. 15. 35 p.c. Sept. 16, to July 31.Cherries 	.. 1 ct. per lb.	| ct. per lb.Cranberries ..	.. % ct. per lb.	n ct. per lb.Peaches	.. ] ct. per lb.	| ct. per lb. June 1, to Nov. 30. \ ct. per lb. Dec. 1, to May 31.Pears 	.. ] ct. per lb.	] ct. per lb.Plums 	.. J ct. per lb.	] ct. per lb.Prunes 	.. ] ct. per lb.	\ ct. per lb.Raspberries ..	.. 1 ct. per lb.	\ ct. per lb. July 1, to Aug. 31. n ct. per lb. Sept. 1, to June 30.Strawberries .	.. | ct. per lb.	\ ct. per lb. June 15, to Sept. 15. 1 cts. per lb. Sept. 16, to June 14Fruits, n.o.p.	.. 35 p.c.	17] p.c.


Mr. Slaniield:: Could the parliamentary
assistant tell us the total value of fruits and vegetables imported into Canada from the United States last year, and the total value of our exports to the United States?


James Sinclair: I can give the figures for imports, but I cannot give the exports. Those come under trade and commerce and my officials do not have the figures, but they can be obtained. I can give that information under this or the next section.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: I can get the information later.


George Alexander Drew: I wonder if we could have a positive assurance that the measure of protection suggested by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton will be given.


James Sinclair: I am not in a position to give an assurance as far as potatoes are concerned. Hon. members will realize that the question of potatoes is a very difficult matter in the United States today because of their potato policy. All I can do is to say I will draw to the attention of the minister and government the expression of opinion that the Canadian duty should be the same as that in the United States.


Major James William Coldwell: In that connection, did we not grant the request of the United States last year to restrict our exports to that country; or what happened?


James Sinclair: In reply to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I may say that is a matter of export trade and does not come within this item, but I am informed we had an agreement with the United States that if their potato production fell below 335 million bushels, then we would export potatoes under the tariff item at 37 J cents. Quite shortly it was obvious to us that their production would never fall below that. It is over 400 million bushels now, so we have rescinded that agreement, and do export potatoes when we can, where we can, into the United States.


Major James William Coldwell: Potatoes have difficulty getting into the United States because of the tariff?


James Sinclair: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the tariff?


James Sinclair: It is 75 cents a hundred pounds on ordinary potatoes and 37J cents on seed potatoes.


Major James William Coldwell: Seventy-five cents on edible potatoes is almost a prohibitive tariff.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: Does riot the United States grant us a quota on potatoes under which so many can go in free?
55946-164i
Customs Tariff


James Sinclair: We are getting a little out of the field on which we have the data here. Most of this is an export matter under the Department of Trade and Commerce. So far as vegetables are concerned, it is going to be a matter of adding the vegetable imports for the various categories of vegetables, and it may take a little time.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: I do not want that figure now, but does not the United States give us an export quota for potatoes in return for the fact that we take fruits and vegetables from the United States?


James Sinclair: I will have to make an inquiry of the Department of Trade and Commerce and give that information to the hon. member.


Major James William Coldwell: Is this not one of the things that should be straightened out? We are giving concessions all the time to the United States. Today in the maritime provinces potatoes are selling for about 40 cents a bushel, owing to the fact they cannot find an export market. The maritimes have grown potatoes, to some degree at least, for export to the United States. It seems to me that the tariff mentioned by the parliamentary assistant is, in effect, a prohibitive tariff. It is something, I think, that should be pressed upon the United States when the time comes, because a large percentage of our population in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick depend upon the potato crop and the export of potatoes.


James Sinclair: I quite agree with what the hon. member says. On the other hand any congressman could make exactly the same argument as has been made by the member for York West on behalf of the potato growers of his area. If we remember that potatoes have been given away in the United States, and that farmers have been paid to allow potatoes to rot in their fields, it is not the easiest background in which to ask for a concession for our potatoes.


Major James William Coldwell: I am thinking of the time when the United States raises this question of discount on the British tariff. They are constantly pressing us for concessions. In the Geneva agreement we did agree to a considerable number of concessions under the non-discrimination clauses, which I think at the outset, whatever the situation may be now, did injure our trade relationship with Britain. It seems to me that if we are going to have the kind of arrangement that is visualized by this bill and by other bills that have been introduced, it should be reciprocal and not one-sided; that is the point I am making.

Customs Tariff


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to correct something the parliamentary assistant said.
I do not believe a congressman in the United States could make the same sort of argument as I have made, because there is a difference in climatic conditions. If perishable foodstuffs go to waste in the United States it is not because of a glut of imports from Canada, it is due to a lack of markets; it is entirely an internal condition. On the other hand if, as happens year after year, at the beginning of the marketing season, our goods go to waste it is because of the glut of American goods that has come in and filled up the pipe line of storage and freight cars.
As a matter of fact, several growers have complained to me that a hundred or so freight cars are waiting on the Toronto market. With this surplus United States produce overhanging the market just as the Canadian grower is trying to market fresh vegetables, a difficult problem presents itself. It is not one of protecting the consumers, because the consumer is protected. It is the problem of preventing this surplus United States produce from overhanging our market just at a time when our crop is coming on the market to be sold.


James Sinclair: I want to apologize to the hon. *gentleman. I inferred that, were he going to speak on the same problem, the American congressman who had potato growers as his constituents could speak on their behalf just as the hon. member spoke on behalf of the growers in his district. The congressman could point to the fact that the United States would be giving a tariff concession on potatoes when they had these millions of bushels that were given away in the United States.


Mr. Blackmore:: I believe the parliamentary assistant has struck a note which should be expanded just a little. It is well for us to bear in mind that the United States is able to produce a large percentage of her requirements. The result is that hardly any export from Canada seeking admission to the United States will fail to find plenty of people in the United States with the same commodity to sell. Unless Canada watches her moves with care, then we are going to get the worst of the deal with the United States on every commodity every year.
I should like to support the member for York West in the most unequivocal terms. I should like to see the principle applied most rigidly all across Canada. At the same time, I should like to support the idea advanced by the member for Rosetown-Biggar. I do not see any reason why the consumer in Canada should be penalized for the privilege of using Canadian goods. In a general way, I think we in Canada can produce goods just about
[Mr. Coldwell.f
as cheaply as the United States, in so far as garden products are concerned. There will be exceptions, of course, but I do not think the Canadian consumer should be penalized. I know I would like to see our government officials have that in mind.
While I am on my feet, I think I should say a word about the reduction of imperial preferences which have been going on under steady pressure from the United States for about a quarter of a century. I believe the Canadian people are weak-kneed and ill-advised and lacking in vision when they yield to this pressure. By and large we are never going to compete successfully with the United States in the bargaining concerning our products, because of the tremendous productive potential of the United States, plus their vast home market which would be such an advantage in helping her to produce and sell.
On the other hand we are going to be able to co-operate with the other members of the British commonwealth in establishing a commonwealth economy which will have some chance of being able to look the United States in the face on equal terms if we help to develop that commonwealth economy by wisely devised and wisely applied imperial preferences. I wish to raise my voice definitely against any further reduction of imperial preferences. Just as soon as we can manage it I would say we ought to begin to increase those imperial preferences in order to encourage the development of a great empire or commonwealth economy which will have some chance of successfully competing in a world in which such giants as the United States and Russia are playing around.


Mr. Clark:: I am sorry I was not in the chamber earlier, but I was with a group of other farmers. I should like to mention a few things that I believe have been mentioned this afternoon. One is the method of protecting the vegetable growers. The method that is at present used is not perhaps 100 per cent efficient. The method that was used in wartime and which was recommended, I believe, by the tariff board many years ago, was a permit system which allowed the United States products in when we were short, but it embargoed them when we had a quantity sufficient to supply the market. I think every fruit and vegetable grower in Canada would like to see that particular system implemented in a deal with the United States. The fact of turning to it under the rigours of war I think should be to the government proof that it is the most efficient way of handling that particular problem.
In the time that I have been in the chamber this afternoon, the hon. member for

Rosetown-Biggar mentioned the consumer and also the protection of the grower. The key to the protection of the grower is the time when these duties are applied. There is one question I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant, and I hope he will answer it when I finish. It is this: Are these duties at the disposal of the grower when requested? That is a matter of importance to the industry.
I should like to point out to the members of the committee that when an application is made for these duties to be applied, there is one loophole which hon. members perhaps do not know about. It is that all cars that are rolling are allowed in free of that duty. Let us say that the duty was put on on April 1. Any cars that have been bought by the produce dealers in this country-perhaps from California, Arizona or Texas-are allowed in without payment of that duty. To get them here sometimes takes a period of ten days. Then to dispose of this produce, or certain products, perhaps takes ten days; as to other products, it perhaps takes a shorter period of time. All these things must be considered having regard to the proper time of application. If the Department of National Revenue, which has the administration of these duties, will accept the recommendation of the growers-and I hope the parliamentary assistant will agree to this-[DOT] who most of the time know what cars are rolling and how long it will take to dispose of those products before the Canadian product comes on the market, I think the difficulty will be taken care of.
The hon. member for York West said that the growers are in serious difficulty. I will admit that under the embargoes by the Minister of Finance during the shortage of United States dollars, they certainly were in fine shape; but during the last ten years the fruit and vegetable grower of this country has made wonderful progress; and financially, I think he is in as good shape as any other particular group of farmers in this country.
I might also mention the fact that in that last Geneva agreement-which was made some time ago, of course, and is just being implemented now-we received many cuts in the United States tariff. Some of their duties are now much lower than the duties on United States produce coming to Canada. Many of these duties have been cut. I might mention some of them. For instance, asparagus was cut from 50 per cent to 25 per cent; brussels sprouts, from 50 per cent to 25 per cent; cabbage, from one and a half cents to three-quarters of a cent; carrots, from 25 per cent to 12J per cent; cauliflower from 25 per cent to 12i per cent. All along
Customs Tariff
the line we have received substantial cuts which have been helpful to the fruit and vegetable industry. The reason why the fruit and vegetable grower fought to maintain an extremely high tariff in this country was the fact that the United States tariff was so high that he was unable to get into those markets.
I live within 25 miles of the city of Detroit. Detroit, with its surrounding suburbs, has a population of perhaps two million people. There are perhaps more people in that particular city than there are in all the cities of the province of Ontario put together. That market has been denied to us. But through this last Geneva agreement and the one previously negotiated we have received concessions which have been helpful to the grower not only in the district which I represent but in many other districts in Canada.
The fruit and vegetable industrjy is a tremendous one, returning a large amount of revenue to the Canadian farmers, perhaps to the extent of $150 million or $160 million. I know that there are concentrated areas like southwestern Ontario, the Niagara peninsula and the Okanagan valley; but fruit and vegetables are grown clean across Canada. It is therefore difficult to prepare an estimate of the revenue to the farmers from that particular industry.
I believe the Canadian officials here have asked for further cuts on many other products. One of those mentioned has been potatoes. That matter is on the list, I believe, for discussion at Torquay. In the agreement which we hope will be made there, I trust that we shall receive more concessions which will result in more benefits to the Canadian grower. With the proper application of the duties we have, I think the growers will receive reasonable protection; but that protection hinges on the automatic application of the duties when applied for by the grower. I hope that the parliamentary assistant will rise in his place and say that if the growers are reasonable in their application, to protect the consumers, it should go on automatically for the protection of the grower. I might say that I was with a group of other farmers this afternoon and I did not hear all of the discussion.
Another point that was mentioned by the hon. member for Greenwood was regional applications. To protect the consumer in different areas like the western provinces, the maritimes, Ontario and Quebec, that regional application was put into effect quite some years ago. I know that when I first came into the house in 1935 there were no

Customs Tariff
regional applications, and many hon. members from western Canada did object to the maritimes having an application that applied to all of Canada. Therefore it was broken up, and quite often the growers asked for Ontario and Quebec, and then perhaps the maritimes; and the British Columbia growers might ask for the western provinces. That was done to protect the consumer. Because these methods are used to take care of his interest, he should be willing to help the producers of fruits and vegetables in this country, because it is a tremendous industry.
I will say that since these changes have been made in the United States tariff we from our district have been shipping many more products across the line. There are other problems. I believe the hon. member for Middlesex East mentioned two problems some time ago, one onions and the other celery. He said that a certain number of carloads were left after the 42 weeks period had elapsed. I may be wrong in this, but on reading his statement I thought he gave the impression that we had very little duty. We do have only the 10 per cent I believe for the short 12 weeks in the year, but we have a cent a pound, which is a dollar a bag, during the other weeks of the year. I might point out to the hon. member that in January in my district alone we had 600 cars of onions. When the tariff was taken off there were only about 25 left.
The hon. member also mentioned celery. I talked to him personally about this. He had purchased some United States celery and the price was very high, around $5 or $6 a case, and the quality was not too good. At that same time Canadian growers were unable to sell their celery at $2.25 a case. That was storage celery which had been in storage for many months. We have some excellent storage warehouses in this country to take care of products like celery, but we have many other storage houses which are not so good. I think the difference in the price must indicate a difference in quality rather than that a Canadian would buy United States celery at $5 a case in preference to Canadian celery at $2.25 a case if it were of the same quality.
Perhaps I have taken too long on this subject, but I do hope that the parliamentary assistant will tell the committee that on the recommendations of the organization the tariff, which they have, and which does not apply in many weeks of the year, will go on automatically at their request.


James Sinclair: I think I should make answer to the hon. member. He has been very helpful to the committee in giving a practical

illustration of the benefit of those reductions in United States tariffs which were put on the record a little earlier.
As far as the recommendation of the growers is concerned, we discussed that a little earlier. There will be the fear that if it were left entirely to the growers they might set a date too early when there would still be a shortage in the country and the consumer would be injured. The actual discretion is in the hands of the Minister of National Revenue, who consults with the Department of Agriculture and the growers, and who is also aware of the actual supply condition in the country. It is a date which is acceptable to both the growers and the consumers which is formally decided on.
I thank the hon. member very much for bringing forward as he has done the very helpful effect of the Geneva agreement so far as the vegetable growers of his district are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Construction of act.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to know the need for section 7.


James Sinclair: As a consequence of the detailed classes in clause 5 we have some 435 items in which there has been a slight difference in numbering and a slight difference in designation. However, both the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act and the Customs Tariff Amendment Act which refer to these items refer to them by the old designation and the old numbering; and since we are not amending these two acts at this time, we are making the provisions of the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act and the Customs Tariff Act apply to the old numbering, not to the numbering which will be changed in some items by this act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what I thought you meant.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
On schedule B.
James Sinclair: I have a slight amendment to make which I shall ask the Minister of Public Works to move.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I move that tariff items 206a (1) as contained in resolution 2 of March 28, 1950, be amended to read as follows:
206a (1) Sera and antisera, toxoids, viruses, toxins and antitoxins; virus and bacterial vaccines; bacteriophage and bacterial lysates; blood plasma or

serum oi human origin or fractions thereof; aller-genics, liver extracts, pituitary extracts, epinephrine and its solutions, insulin, with or without zinc, globin or protamine; all of the foregoing when imported for parenteral administration in the diagnosis or treatment of diseases of men.


James Sinclair: May I explain this amendment. We had a discussion on penicillin some time ago. To make quite sure that there is no doubt as to the items which do come in free the Department of National Health and Welfare have asked us to spell out very clearly every possible one of this group of drugs which are used for injection under the skin. There is no change in this item, except that it has been expanded to cover every one of these unpronounceable names which the Minister of Public Works has moved.
Customs Tariff


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Schedule C agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up Bill No. 177, to amend the Income Tax Act; Bill No. 180, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act; Bill No. 209, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939. Then we will take up the estimates of agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 18, 1950