1953-12-11

Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill):: On a point
of personal privilege, the other day the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) made a statement to which I took exception, having in mind certain professional information of which I was aware. In reply to my observations at a later stage, he referred to a statement he had obtained from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, a copy of which I have since obtained. My point of privilege is that in my humble opinion he referred inadequately to this statement, and I feel that in fairness to the house and myself the statement should be put on Hansard in full.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed by the house
that the statement of the hon. gentleman should be put on Hansard?


Mr. Knowles:: Would it not be better to
make it as an appendix, rather than including a document such as that in the pages of Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: The document consists of
about three and a half pages; the first page is not full.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house
that this statement be inserted in Hansard following the remarks of the hon. gentleman?


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think Your
Honour should make a considered decision in regard to this. There has been a great deal of comment in this house from time to time about the rule, which is very clearly established, against reading speeches. There are exceptions which I think should be borne in mind also; namely, in the case of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition. After all, we have traditions which are of some importance, and I am referring to long-established traditions.
For reasons that must be obvious to everyone, there are occasions on which it is
appropriate and very wise that a statement by the Prime Minister, for example, or statements by other members of the cabinet, such as the budget of the Minister of Finance, should be read, where they constitute an expression of government policy involving details that ought to be fully presented in prepared form. This can be done without any suggestion that it is a breach of the rules.
Our parliamentary traditions make it equally appropriate for the leader of the opposition, in any of our parliaments which conduct their affairs under the same historic rules, to read any statement where a basic exchange of ideas is called for. There has been objection, however, to the extending practice of reading prepared speeches..
This rule has been observed more by its breach than by its recognition. No tendency has been shown by hon. members on either side to curtail the use of fairly extensive notes. On the other hand, the danger that has been expressed in this house on earlier occasions is that if this should be extended too far a practice might be adopted which is not consistent with our parliamentary procedure, though consistent with a perfectly proper practice under another type of procedure in the congress of the United States, where there is a rule permitting the filing of statements.
I do not think it is proper for us to criticize in any way a practice that exists under another jurisdiction. We all realize, however, that they are two different systems and we should be very careful in this house not to take any step that would suggest by inference the acceptance of the proposition that statements may be put on record as a substitute for the statement of the member himself, who is expected to express his own opinion in regard to anything that has been said at this time or on an earlier occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition is quite right when he says that speeches should not be read in the house. If there was some leniency shown it was on the throne speech debate, and I am quite prepared to show some leniency again when the budget debate comes up. But as a rule speeches should not be read in the house because members are supposed to express their own opinion and not read from long

Privilege-Mr. Weaver previously prepared essays. With that 1 am in full agreement, but at the moment that is not the point.
Here is the point to be considered at the moment. This is a statement re the assistance given by the mines branch in developing treatments of Flin Flon complex sulphide ore and Flin Flon disseminated ore. The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver) made a speech the other day. As hon. members know, he is by profession a metallurgist. He discussed the very matters that are mentioned in this statement which was prepared by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. On the following day, or perhaps the same day, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) made reference to this statement and quoted from it. The hon. member for Churchill rises in his place today and says that in fairness to the house and to himself the statement, which he considers was referred to inadequately by the hon. member for Mackenzie, should be placed on Hansard. That is the point, and I think it is quite different from that which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has made. This statement cannot be put on Hansard unless there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Coldwell:: There is not.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think unanimous consent should be given to this. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) and I had a dispute with reference to some quotation the other evening. Am I permitted, in order to substantiate a statement I may make, to put a file or a book on the record of the house? I think we should stick to our time-honoured practice of not extending the record. While I sympathize with the idea behind this, I think probably the hon. gentleman could do it in a speech on mines and resources or something of that sort. I would not be prepared to give my consent to it, on the ground that I would be giving it without knowing what was in the document.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. gentleman should be allowed to continue with the statement. One of the engineers of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys prepared a report, of which only part was read to this house. In my opinion that gave a false impression as to the context of the entire report. The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver), who is a metallurgist, felt that his judgment and his statement had


been called in question, not by the report but by the excerpt of the report given to this house. I think in fairness to both gentlemen, the gentleman who wrote the report and the hon. member for Churchill, the report in its entirety should be on the record of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I still must ask the house if it gives unanimous consent to have this statement printed on Hansard. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members say "no". Therefore it cannot be put on Hansard.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: On a point of order, now that there is no-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order on a question of privilege. If the hon. member for Churchill wants to substantiate further his question of privilege he may do so.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


George Dyer Weaver: This report is a very fair report of the circumstances and I would have been glad to stand on it. However, since the house has not given me unanimous consent to place it on Hansard I shall make just a few remarks.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Mr. Mclvor:: Read the whole thing.


George Dyer Weaver: This is a statement re the assistance given by the mines branch in developing treatments of Flin Flon complex sulphide ore and Flin Flon disseminated ore, and it reads:
The following is quoted from mines branch report of investigations in 1921, No. 589, from investigation (test) No. 142 on "The Flin Flon complex sulphide ore", page 100:
"In June, 1920, application was made by the Mining Corporation of Canada, who hold the option on the property, (subsequently Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co. Limited) to the department of mines for assistance in solving the metallurgical problems in connection with the treatment of the sulphide ore. Later this was extended to cover the disseminated ore."
Investigations on the treatment of the sulphide ore were carried out in 1921 and a report issued. This was published in No. 589 mines branch report.
In 1922, investigations were carried out on the treatment of the disseminated ore and another report issued, making recommendations for four different flowsheets to be tested by pilot runs. This report was published in mines branch report of investigations in 1922, No. 608. In conclusion lines were proposed along which research should be continued. It is interesting to note that three of those lines of research proposed the removal of talc first in order to make the flotation of Flin Flon ore efficient. A reference to this will be made later on.
The results obtained by the mines branch investigations were very encouraging. As is stated in the report (No. 589, pages 112-113):

"A copper concentrate is obtained as high as 15 per cent copper with a recovery of 85 per cent of the copper values in the ore. There is no reason to doubt, as far as the copper is concerned, that these results could be obtained in practice, and it is reasonable to assume that better results would be obtained with experience, and manipulation after operations have progressed for some time.
The results also show that a separation has been made of the chalcopyrite from the sphalerite, pyrite, and gangue, and of the sphalerite from the pyrite and gangue. A zinc concentrate, 40 per cent zinc, with a recovery of 50 per cent zinc values, has been obtained."
Copper concentrates containing 22-6 per cent copper, with a recovery of over 86 per cent were obtained from disseminated ore. (Report No. 608, page 103).
It must be added here that at that time the mines branch had only laboratory equipment and no large scale equipment to make pilot runs in order to confirm laboratory findings. However, the most important point to note is that the mines branch investigations showed that the economic minerals could be separated into good grade concentrates.
It was in 1925 that Whitney interests of New York came into the picture. In "History of Development and Organization at Flin Flon mines, Manitoba," C.I.M., Trans., Vol. XXXIII, page 214, W. A. Green says:
"Results of small experimental tests which we (Whitney interests) had made on the ore prior to the examination of the property (in June, 1925) led us to believe that a satisfactory treatment might be obtained."
W. A. Green says further:
"Having assured ourselves of the presence of the ore and available power, our next step was to prove, by more extensive laboratory tests, the correctness of our belief that a successful method of treatment for the ore could be worked out. Accordingly, 300 tons of ore was shipped from Flin Flon to Denver, Colorado, to the research laboratories of Metals Exploration Company, a company belonging to the Whitney interests."
S. P. Lowe carried on this experimental work in Denver.
In "concentration and cyanidation at Flin Flon pilot mill" (C.I.M., Trans., Vol. XXXIII, page 222) S. P. Lowe says:
"Flotation testing of Flin Flon ore was started in the Denver laboratory of Complex Ore Recoveries Co. in March, 1926. There had been a considerable amount of flotation testing previously which had shown possibilities of success, and it was felt that, with the increased knowledge of flotation and the comparatively new reagents then available, flotation held out the best prospects for a successful treatment of this ore."
The pilot plant runs, treating two tons a day, were completed on July 1, 1926, and on August 1, 1926, it was decided to instal a 25-ton pilot flotation plant at Flin Flon.
S. P. Lowe says:
"This (pilot) mill was operated until March 10, 1928, treating ore from various parts of the mine. The pilot plant was started again in July, 1928, and operated until February, 1929, when it was permanently shut down."
It was found that before an efficient separation of the economic minerals was obtained, the removal of talc was a necessity. This was in line with the recommendations made by the mines branch in 1922.
The above paper gives complete details of the results obtained by the Flin Flon pilot plant and they can be compared with the results obtained by the mines branch in 1921 and 1922. Since during
Privilege-Mr. Weaver the operation of Flin Flon pilot plant, new reagents became available, these new reagents were introduced into flotation.
The 3,000 ton mill at Flin Flon went into operation probably some time in 1930. However, operating difficulties were encountered, and Mr. R. E. Phelan, then general manager of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, asked for a flotation engineer from the mines branch. Accordingly, Mr. A. K. Anderson was sent to the mine late in December, 1930, where Mr. Phelan explained the difficulties to Mr. Anderson.
The latter carried on research at the mill for about two months. At the completion of this research, Mr. Anderson returned and submitted his report. In his letter to Mr. John McLeish, director of mines branch, dated March 27, 1931, Mr. Phelan says in part:
"We all thought very highly of Mr. Anderson and he has brought out two things which may be very important; one is the use of sodium sulphide and the other, the use of an iron salt in the circuit."
On June 13, 1931, Mr. Phelan requested information from the mines branch in connection with the removal of some deleterious material, including talc, prior to flotation for valuable minerals. He was referred to mines branch reports of 1921 and 1922.
That is signed by the head of the mineral dressing section. I am quite satisfied to leave this on the record.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, further to that point of privilege, I wish to thank the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver) for having placed this on the record. Had I found the house in such good humour when I made my speech I would have asked permission to read the whole report yesterday.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the orders of the day the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) asked me four questions regarding the 26,000 .30 calibre rifles sent by Canada to France. First, he asked as to the make of these rifles. The rifles are Springfield .30 M1917, used by the United States army during the first world war.
Second and third, he asked when and from whom they were acquired. The rifles were purchased by Canada from the United States in the early days of the second world war for the use of veterans' guards and similar organizations. Fourth, he asked why the rifles are being disposed of. The rifles, of course, are not of the type used by the Canadian army, and they are being sent to France as part of our mutual aid program.



COMMUNISM


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for the adjournment of

Private Bills
the house under standing order No. 31 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 31 can be moved only after routine proceedings have been dealt with. It has to be done after routine proceedings have been dealt with and before orders of the day are called, and if the hon. member looks at standing orders 15 and 31, he will see that introduction of bills and the first reading of Senate bills must be called now.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 81, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill is based on the authority of the parliament of Canada to amend the British North America Act in respect of matters exclusively federal. The purpose of this bill is to increase the quorum of the House of Commons from a minimum of twenty members, which is now the case, to a minimum of thirty members, so as to maintain a proportion similar to that which existed in 1867, when the membership of the house was 181 as compared with today's, which is 265.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31, for the relief of James Alexander Stevenson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Vyvyan Holcombe Hervey.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Gilberte Drouyn Serres.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	34,	for	the	relief	of	Margaret
Alice May Plinn Cote.-Mr. Weir.
Bill	No.	35,	for	the	relief	of	Stanislas
Anthony Placzek.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Rose Enkin Carriere.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Lottie Levine Lubotsky, otherwise known as Lottie Levine Kuznicki.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	38,	for	the	relief	of	Solanges
Laperle Desjardins.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Jack Kaufman. -Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Selma Sara Schachter Lande.-Mr. Croll.

Bill No. 41, for the relief of Paul Joseph Simard.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of John McCullough Gasken.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Joseph Louis de Gonzague Giguere.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Jean Hunter Bercovitz.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Diane Lorraine Cleveland Morgan Stewart Patterson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Elsie Eleanor Bennett Kirkcaldy.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Bernice Margaret Vizzutti Charters.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Archibald Christopher Mottley.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Bessita Asaria Farchi Lotenberg, otherwise known as Bessita Asaria Farchi Lotey.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of George William Bonfield.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Marjorie Joan LeRiche Dunphy.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Geraldine Donovan Wilcox.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Norma Mary MacKenzie Benton.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Anna Smi-lovitch King.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Kathleen Dempsey Robertson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Joyce Delia Pierce Korenberg.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Alfonsas Jankus.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Michael Lansky. -Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Wilma Elizabeth Dalglish Rochon.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of John Cromkie Nicol.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Tyrus Raymond Markham.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Thelma Louise Heinz Finlay.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Dorothy Joan Glegg Statham.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Mary Laura Olive Coote Laflamme.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Sadie Denen-berg Rockman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Yukiko Takeuchi Zusko.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Joan Gooder-ham Wyman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Guy Favreau. -Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Elizabeth Stewart Hughes Koren.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Esther Wray Carpenter Batt.-Mr. Weir.

Bill No. 71, for the relief of Shirley Mary Davis Robertson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Carlo Castelli. -Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Eveline Shaheen Sauvageau.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of George William Swinwood.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Marguerite Frances Wiggins MacKay.-Mr. Weir.

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 79 (from the Senate), respecting the boundary between the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNITED STATES SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need for an immediate meeting of the Canada-United States joint economic and trade committee, the establishment of which was announced at the time of President Eisenhower's recent visit to this country, for the purpose of taking immediate action to avoid the trade crisis which now threatens the economy of this country as a result of this week's announcement from Washington that the United States government is now subsidizing its exports of wheat sold outside the international wheat agreement, in violation of article XVI of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
The subject matter, Mr. Speaker, is so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention and I therefore ask leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked leave to move adjournment of the house under standing order No. 31. He has introduced his motion at the proper time in accordance with the first paragraph of standing order No. 31, and he has also complied with the requirements of the second section of the same standing order.
He has handed to me a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed. I
Wheat
wish to quote from the third paragraph of standing order No. 31 to the effect that the Speaker when he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance reads it out and asks whether the member have leave of the house.
It is my task to give my opinion as to whether this matter which has been brought up by the hon. member is in order. I think it is. But is it of urgent public importance? Now, it has to do with:
. . . the need for an immediate meeting of the Canada-United States joint economic and trade committee, the establishment of which was announced at the time of President Eisenhower's recent visit to this country, for the purpose of taking immediate action to avoid the trade crisis which now threatens the economy of this country. . .
I must ask myself first of all whether this proposal, if we are going to debate it today, would be one that would bring about the results that are contemplated in the motion to adjourn, and if there is urgency of debate. The hon. member has it in mind to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of public importance. When he tells us what it is, he claims there is the need for a meeting of a committee established recently.


Major James William Coldwell: A meeting?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. The hon. gentleman wishes to have a meeting of this committee which was announced by the President of the United States when he was here recently. This is a committee which, so far as 1 think this house is aware-


Major James William Coldwell: A joint committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but there is no official information before this house that this committee does exist, except the announcement of its existence by the President. It is not that we want to doubt the word of the President of the United States. My difficulty at the moment is this. How can I consider how urgent and important it is to have a discussion of the need for having a committee meet, on a mere announcement of its creation a few weeks ago, if not more?


Major James William Coldwell: That is not the point.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the beginning of the point. Perhaps someone else in the house could provide me with some assistance as to the existence of that committee.


An hon. Member:: Is there such a board?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there such a board? If there is, is it contemplated that it will deal with these very matters that the hon. gentleman has referred to. In my judgment it is extremely doubtful that this question presents the kind of urgency of debate which

Wheat
is required by standing order 31. If the hon. gentleman wishes to enlighten me further, I shall be glad to hear from him.


Major James William Coldwell: The urgency, Mr. Speaker, is not the appointment of the committee but the announcement made by the United States this week with regard to the selling of subsidized wheat on the world market, something which is of extremely serious concern to Canada and particularly to the wheat growers of Canada. That is why I think there is urgency about it. If the house permits me to develop it, I will show that there is urgency.


Mr. Fulton:: The committee has not been established yet.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of what the hon. gentleman has said, I do not wish to deal further with the matter of urgency. I will simply ask the house if the hon. gentleman has leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31. Has the hon. gentleman leave to move the adjournment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: No. "If objection is taken, the Speaker," and I quote standing order 31, "requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places". Will the hon. gentlemen supporting the motion rise in their places? There are more than 20; therefore I will call upon the hon. member who has asked for leave to take the floor.


Major James William Coldwell: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the house. I think that as I proceed with my remarks I shall be able to show that it is a matter of considerable urgency. Those who have been following this situation will recollect that the United States announced that non-international wheat agreement exports of wheat would be subsidized by the United States, through the Commodity Credit Corporation, on November 19. On December 7-that is last Monday- the actual policy was made public and it went into effect on December 8, last Tuesday.
First of all I want to quote what I believe to be a cogent interpretation of the policy by someone with whom I frequently disagree on these matters but who, when he was in the press gallery, made a study of such questions. I refer to Mr. Grant Dexter of the Winnipeg Free Press. He said this on December 8:
In the past, the United States government, while empowered to subsidize all exports of wheat, in practice has subsidized only exports under the international wheat agreement. As all exporter

members of I.W.A. have quotas allocated to them, there has been, in fact, no price competition as between the exporting nations under this agreement.
Indeed the class II wheat which was sold outside the agreement until very recently has fetched a higher price than that under the wheat agreement.


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: The hon. member is not going to read an article by Grant Dexter, is he?


Major James William Coldwell: The so-called world price-[DOT] and I use the word "so-called" advisedly- was continually rather higher than the international wheat agreement price and therefore there was no competition.
The new announcement states that the United States department of agriculture has instructed the Commodity Credit Corporation to subsidize non-international wheat agreement exports exactly as the international wheat agreement exports have hitherto been subsidized. The United States new policy of subsidization will operate right across the board for all wheat. So far, of course, no headlong, indiscriminate dumping is contemplated, I believe. I again quote from Mr. Dexter's article:
But unless the Canadian and United States governments reach an understanding, there will be hereafter general as distinct from restricted competition. As non-I.W.A. exports are to be subsidized only to the level of the I.W.A. price it is assumed that the downward thrust would be arrested at the I.W.A. floor price which is $1.55 per bushel basis Fort William.
Again I was quoting from the same article in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 8.


Mr. Harkness:: Could I have that last statement again, that it would be arrested-?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Competition would be
arrested?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, at the point of $1.55. That is Mr. Dexter's statement, not mine.
The new United States policy-and it is a new policy-seems to me to be related to two facts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend if he has moved the adjournment of the house to discuss an article on wheat appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press?


Major James William Coldwell: No. I think the hon. gentleman will realize in a few moments that I have something much more important to discuss-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope so.


Major James William Coldwell: -than the Winnipeg Free Press article, important though an article of

this description may be to the people who read it. I say that there are two tacts involved. The first is that since the United Kingdom left the international wheat agreement, the international wheat agreement covers only about 35 per cent of the international trade in wheat. I think that is approximately the correct figure. The second fact is that the Liverpool cash and futures market opened on December 1, and the London futures market, we were told, will open in January.
When we look at the wheat holdings in North America, particularly in the United States, we can see the importance of what is being done by our great neighbour to the south. The United States wheat holdings in all positions amount to about 1,700 million bushels. I think the latest figure I saw was 1,702 million bushels of wheat. Of this amount some 780 million bushels-I think 777 million is the latest figure I saw-of wheat are held by the United States government under its price support policy. The announcement to which I have referred, namely that the United States government is to sell its holdings under the Commodity Credit Corporation and to subsidize wheat not governed by the international wheat agreement, means that the United States government contemplates the sale of three-quarters of a billion bushels of wheat at prices that it will fetch on the world market. At least that is the interpretation that I would place upon the statement and on the policy.
If this is correct, and I believe it is, then this is indeed a very serious threat not only to the international wheat agreement, in connection with which the price of $2.05 was largely agreed to by the exporting nations because of the insistence of the United States, but it is also a threat-and I think this is the important thing to us-to Canada's export position in markets which hitherto we have regarded as peculiarly our own. That of course is largely the British market where, because of the quality of our products and so on, we have had a preferred position over the years, and in the case of flour some preference.
It seems to me that the Canadian government should take immediate steps in an attempt to safeguard our wheat economy from what may be, and what on the face of it looks as though it probably will be, disastrous competition brought about by the policy of the United States government. When we remember that the Liverpool grain exchange opened for business on December 1 and that in January the futures market will open in the great city of London, we can see first of
Wheat
all a reason why the members of the present British government, never wholly in favour of commodity agreements, hoped that the wheat-producing countries would enter into serious competition for the British market. I do not think there is any doubt but what they had that in mind when they were discussing the international wheat agreement and subsequently refused to sign it.
It also appears evident to me that the United States government, failing to force importing countries to accept a price of $2.05 per bushel under the wheat agreement, decided that it would take these steps first of all to reduce their wheat holdings, and second, since the international wheat agreement was not signed and thus was not satisfactory to them, to destroy the agreement and to monopolize the overseas market in this very important cereal as far as they could. Therefore I proposed the adjournment of the house for these reasons, not for the purpose of discussing the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thank goodness for that.


Major James William Coldwell: Although I quoted it as an introduction to what I have to say and because it related to a very important announcement from Washington that the United States government intends to subsidize its exports of wheat outside the international wheat agreement. I repeat that in my opinion this is a direct contravention of the letter, not to mention the spirit, of the Geneva trade agreement, GATT.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What clause of the Geneva trade agreement?


Major James William Coldwell: I will read it. It violates article XVI of the agreement which is quite clear and unambiguous in its language. Article XVI, as contained in the final act, reads as follows:
Article XVI Subsidies
If any contracting party grants or maintains any subsidy, including any form of income or price support, which operates directly or indirectly to increase exports of any product from, or to reduce imports of any product into, its territory, it shall notify the contracting parties in writing of the extent and nature of the subsidization, of the estimated effect of the subsidization on the quantity of the affected product or products imported into or exported from its territory and of the circumstances making the subsidization necessary. In any case in which it is determined that serious prejudice to the interests of any other contracting party is caused or threatened by any such subsidization, the contracting party granting the subsidy shall, upon request,-

Wheat
I hope the government will make this request if they have not already done so.
-discuss with the other contracting party or parties concerned, or with the contracting parties, the possibility of limiting the subsidization.
That is article XVI of the agreement, and I have looked through the whole agreement very carefully and can find nothing which would seem to modify that particular section. This move on the part of the United States makes it obvious that that country is now making a major effort to capture as much of the non-international wheat agreement market as possible without regard for the consequences that are bound to befall other wheat exporting nations, and primarily Canada. I say that this raises a very serious problem for Canada in view of the fact that we are estimated to have 550 million bushels of wheat for export outside the international wheat agreement and in addition to supplies for our domestic consumption. It places us in the position of either trying to compete with the United States, which could only lead to a cutthroat kind of competition, something which I think they and we should wish to avoid, or not being able to sell this great quantity of wheat ourselves in the overseas market.
Of equally grave importance is the fact that such unilateral policies cannot help but undermine the international wheat agreement which, despite its limitations, and I want to make this very clear to the house, in our opinion has been without qualification the most successful means yet devised to give fair treatment to importing and exporting nations alike. So I say that the gravity of the situation as it affects Canada is clear. It has been emphasized by spokesmen for farm organizations and, it is reported in the press, by officials of the Canadian wheat board, all of whom have expressed deep concern over this development in United States policy. A Canadian Press dispatch from Winnipeg dated December 9 reports that officials there state that the Canadian wheat board, which has had little competition in class II wheat sales, will receive "stiff opposition" from the United States.
On November 14, and this has to do with my reference to President Eisenhower in the motion I moved, President Eisenhower informed this parliament that a joint economic and trade committee, consisting of cabinet officers of our two countries, which had already been approved according to the President, would meet periodically to discuss economic and trade problems and the means for their equitable solution. We believe that the time has now come to make use of this joint committee in order to seek redress of

this unilateral action of the United States in contravening the Geneva agreements of 1947 and threatening the basic security of our great and very important wheat industry upon which so very much of the prosperity of this country depends.
We strongly urge therefore that the Canadian government lose no time in calling for a meeting of this joint committee. I do not want to prolong the debate because there is other business of the house to do, but this matter is very important and I should like to point out that already because of the failure to reach a satisfactory wheat agreement we have seen class II wheat fall quite substantially on the markets since July. I have in my hand at the moment a clipping from today's paper which gives the prices for class II wheat at Winnipeg yesterday to exporting countries outside the international wheat agreement. The quotations are as follows: No. 1 northern $1.88f; No. 2, $1.84f; No. 3, $1.80|; No. 4, $1.75f.
These are the four milling grades of wheat, and of course the farmer usually has very little of No. 1 northern wheat. This year a great deal of it will go as No. 2 wheat, although I hope more of it this year than usual may go as No. 1 northern. But these are the first four grades, and when you are considering the prices of this wheat you have to remember that you have to deduct 18, 19, 20 or 21 cents a bushel for freight to Fort William. Therefore if we take 20 cents as an average, the price the farmer will get on the farm will be $1.68 for No. 1 northern of which there is not a great quantity. If we take No. 4 wheat, take off the 20 cents, that sells at Winnipeg at $1.55. When we get down to $1.55, we find we are getting very close to the spot at which the raising of wheat for the average farmer, I will not say for the big farmer, is almost impossible financially and therefore uneconomic.
The costs of operation have gone up to such an extent, the prices of machinery have risen, the cost of oil and gasoline and other things which enter into the harvesting of this grain, particularly where you have harvesting by binders as still persists in some parts of western Canada, with the high price of binder twine, so if we are not careful we shall find the returns from wheat are reaching a point where the farmers will be unable to continue operation and make a decent living for themselves and their families. The reason I raise the matter at this time, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe before the house adjourns for the Christmas vacation an opportunity should be given to the minister, and perhaps some other members of the house, of expressing their views.

Certainly, I should like the minister to comment, not only on the editorial in the Free Press, but upon anything that I have said in support of my contention that this is a matter of urgency and national importance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am very glad to do so, Mr. Speaker. I said in the house that we had a tremendous problem in the marketing of wheat, and I spoke of the requisites that were needed. One of the requisites I mentioned was steadiness. I believe steadiness means adhering to a principle in marketing that we believe is consistent with the policies of the wheat board, and not starting wild rumours. Speaking in western Canada, I said that I was afraid that certain newspapers in the west were more anxious to justify their own theories about the marketing of wheat than they were to help in the marketing of Canadian surpluses. I suggest that the editorials in the Winnipeg Free Press are cases in point, and there is not too much concern on the part of the editor about the accuracy of the statements.
In so far as the present situation is concerned, there are two prices of wheat in the United States. One is the domestic price which is quoted every day on the Chicago grain exchange and all other grain exchanges, and the other is the international wheat agreement price. By agreement the international wheat agreement price is contained between the upper limit of $2.05 and the lower limit of $1.55. The present price is around $1.90. I might point out to the hon. member that certainly in the last twenty years no crop has ever realized as much as $1.90 per bushel for No. 1 northern wheat, Fort William. In view of the large stocks, I believe this price is a realistic one, and it is a price that I believe is profitable to our farmers. I hope it is a price that our customers are able to pay.
I take it the hon. member has no worry about wheat being sold by the United States under the international wheat agreement at the current price. It is a competitive price. It is not a maximum or minimum price, and in my opinion it is realistic under present-day conditions. It is a realistic price, and it is a price to which we subscribe. The hon. member's objection is that the United States Commodity Credit Corporation is undertaking to sell wheat at competitive world prices. Now, what is the competitive price in the world? In the non-agreement markets it is presently the same as in the agreement markets; that is almost inevitable when wheat sold under the agreement is selling at other than the maximum price. In any event, that is the case.
Wheat
Now, the hon. member suggests that the United States has been quite willing to turn over all the non-agreement markets to Canada. As a matter of fact, in all these markets we compete with the Argentine, with Turkey, to a certain extent with Sweden, France and of course Soviet Russia. These are not exclusive markets for anyone. I do not know why the United States should not be permitted' to compete in those markets as well. They also have always sold substantial quantities of wheat on the class II market. As a matter of fact this move by the United States was not made surreptitiously. Before it was undertaken the Commodity Credit Corporation asked our wheat board to meet with them in Chicago and discuss the whole situation thoroughly. A little while later two of President Eisenhower's advisers came to Ottawa to discuss the meeting of the economic committee, and this matter was discussed at that time. We could' offer no serious objection to the proposed arrangement.


Major James William Coldwell: The matter was discussed by the committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In general, yes.


Major James William Coldwell: And we made no objection to it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No particular objection. We would rather that they did not, but I have to put myself in the position of the head of the credit corporation. I do not know that I would be content to hold that volume of wheat off the market entirely. I suggest that there is no violation of GATT involved. Why is it any more a violation of GATT to sell non-agreement wheat, which is subsidized so far as the domestic market is concerned, than it is to sell agreement wheat? Certainly we would never complain under GATT that that is a violation.
If the move was made to take away markets, perhaps there would be a case, but the purpose of this move is not to take away markets but to be allowed to compete in markets at prevailing prices. I see nothing in this situation that is unfair or unjustifiable. I think that it is a step to be expected, and so far as the wheat board is concerned, it presents only another element of competition. It is not one that makes us particularly fearful. We are very fortunate, in fact. We have high protein wheat in Canada, whereas the wheat held by the corporation in the United States is for the most part soft wheat. These two kinds of wheat do not compete on exactly equal terms. The British market usually takes the high protein wheat to mix with their soft wheats which are grown in Britain and Australia. No one can say to what extent

Wheat
this will affect our position in the British market. I would' not expect our position to be seriously affected.
If our position is seriously affected, I am sure we will be entitled to ask for a readjustment in the international wheat agreement quotas. From my association with the United States over eighteen years, I feel quite satisfied that if we have a case for readjustment that case will get consideration in that country. I am glad that the matter has been raised. I think it is unfortunate that these rumours of disaster are put out. They upset the producers of wheat, and to no good purpose whatever. I can assure you that the wheat board will tell the world if our situation is deteriorating. I do not think it is. We knew about this situation in advance, and the wheat board was consulted. It is not a situation that causes any particular terror to anyone concerned with the selling of Canadian wheat.


Mr. Argue:: I wonder if I might ask a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Could the minister tell us if he has had any information from the United States government as to the amount of wheat they are prepared to put on the market at prices, we will say, down to $1.55?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What kind of a question is that? Why would they consult us? I do know how much wheat they have. I know they do not intend to put it on the market at $1.55. I hope the hon. member is not going to join this brigade that spreads terror in the minds of the wheat producers. We are selling wheat at a price we think is reasonable for the producer of wheat under these conditions of surplus. We think the buyers of wheat feel that it is a reasonable price. So far as I know, I do not expect any radical departure up or down from that price under these circumstances.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry, but the minister has not answered the question that I asked him in perfect good faith.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can tell my hon. friend that in the United States there is close to one billion bushels of wheat. Whether they are going to sell it at their domestic price, or at the price they are selling now, or at $1.55, I cannot tell him. I think he has to guess that for himself, if he wishes to indulge in guessing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has no information, then?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is all I wanted to know.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: The statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was, as usual, an optimistic one, and I hope that events will bear him out. However, I believe that this question is a little more serious than it would appear from the statement that has just been made. I also want to refer to the Winnipeg Free Press, and I want to assure the minister that my opinion of their marketing policies is pretty much the same as his. However, I am not going to quote an opinion from this paper, but what is supposed to be a fact. Incidentally this statement is dated December 7, 1953. It starts off by saying:
Governments of the world's major food exporting countries are keeping a close eye on foreign marketings of surplus United States' farm products.
There is no doubt at all that behind this move that has been started in the United States there is more than subsidizing a few million bushels of wheat. Farther down the item they say:
The Commodity Credit Corporation, meanwhile, holds almost $4,500 million worth of surplus produce and congress may be glad to see some of it unloaded abroad at low prices.
That I would assume to be based on fact. If it is, then there is greater danger to the whole concept of orderly marketing than has been indicated in the minister's reply. I believe that it could be the thin edge of the wedge that could spell the end of orderly marketing as we understand it.
In Manitoba the farmers are very much concerned about this whole question and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that a statement should have been made in this house earlier than this, setting out all the information that has been obtained. A statement has been made today. It does not answer all the questions. For example, there is the question of price intended for this wheat that is to be subsidized, which is still a matter of speculation. One paper says one thing and another another. According to the Globe and Mail, for example, the price will be $1.55. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says it will not be $1.55. Now, if someone is in a position to make an authoritative statement on it, it should be made.
This news came before the public just about the time that the farmers of Manitoba- that is the Farmers Union of Manitoba- were having their annual convention. It is a body which now represents approximately 35,000 farmers in that province. The statement got an immediate response from the president of the union who, since this appeared in the press, asked that there be a system of subsidized wheat in Canada.

That is not a new demand or request on the part of the farmers' union. They have asked repeatedly that Canada have a two-price system, a guaranteed domestic price, and then of course a world price according to whatever arrangements could be made under certain agreements. That is exactly where the danger is at the present moment. The minister feels that we are in no different position from the United States on this matter. But so far as the producer is concerned we are definitely in a different position. They have a two-price system in the United States; they have the higher guaranteed price to the producer, and then they sell their surplus in the world markets at whatever price they can arrange. Here in Canada we have not a two-price system so far as the guaranteed price is concerned.
I believe that if the United States continues on this trend, which I predict is going to be more pronounced very soon, the government should be prepared to consider a two-price system in Canada, and if necessary a subsidy for the wheat producer in order that we may hold our position.
I also believe there is another approach that might eventually be a more effective one. An effort must be made, and soon, to reduce the cost of production of grain, because if the situation arises where we are forced by circumstances to accept a lower price for grain on the world market, whether it be under an agreement or otherwise, then the farmer, at the present cost of production, is simply not going to be able to make ends meet. That is something that can be done without having to go into negotiations with other countries. This is a domestic situation. Steps must be taken to bring down the cost of production to the point where the farmer can produce grain and sell it on the markets of the world, whether under agreement or otherwise, and be able to have something as a margin for his labour.
There is another reason why a definite statement needs to be made as to why the request made by my leader should be seriously considered, as to the meeting of the joint committee, because statements come flying thick and fast from various sources, and the minister himself has said that some of the newspapers may be printing statements which are not correct. I am not in a position to say whether he is right or whether the newspapers are right; but here is one that also appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. It reads:
Both the United States of America and Canada are anxious to maintain the wheat prices at the present levels. "It is as much in the interests of
Wheat
the Americans as in Canada's interests that there be no wholesale 'dumping' of wheat on the market," a high ranking government spokesman said.
This statement is attributed to a high-ranking Canadian government spokesman. These statements come out and appear in the press across Canada, and are attributed to high-ranking government spokesmen. We are getting a little anxious to know who these high-ranking spokesmen are. If anything appears which is attributed to a spokesman for the government, then that person should be identified so that we can know whether he is speaking authoritatively or speaking with the blessing, shall we say, of the government, or just expressing his own opinion. If any confusion has been caused over this issue in the newspapers, I would suggest it is those high-ranking spokesmen for the government, who remain anonymous, who are causing the confusion.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Maybe that is one reason why they remain high-ranking.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I should like to point out to the minister, in view of his statement, that it is not hon. members here who may be anxious about the situation, who are causing anxiety and fear among the wheat growers. The situation in the world is naturally tense, with the surpluses which exist in almost every exporting country to the extent that they do today.
If there are 1,400 million bushels of wheat waiting for world markets the people of the world who have grown that wheat are looking for something to repay them for their work and their investment. They are naturally anxious to know what is going to happen. They are more fearful when the flow of wheat slows down and finally stops, as it has today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of this debate to spread false rumours?


George Hugh Castleden: I am very glad to have that remark. No; I hope this debate will clear up some of them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I doubt it very much.


George Hugh Castleden: I hope it will clear up some of the confusion in the minds of some of the people as to what the situation really is. They get a report from Washington, which is repeated here on authority, that quantities of class II wheat are to be sold on the world market outside the international wheat agreement at a subsidized price. Under U. S.

Wheat
arrangements the farmers in the United States continue to receive a guaranteed parity price. Is the U. S. going to sell the 770 million bushels or, as the minister himself said, almost a billion bushels surplus which they have under subsidy? If so, then the Canadian farmer will be anxious, and will want to know what is going to happen to him if the Americans start selling their wheat in the British market, at a subsidized price. If so, what is going to happen to our surplus of 550 million? The minister has assured us today that everything is all right and perhaps he can then make a statement that the wheat farmers are going to be able to make delivery of say ten bushels per acre by next July. That would give the farmers and the growers of this country some assurance. If he knows that, he should tell them.
If he does not know, then let us be realistic about the matter and tell them that with the surplus that exists today we cannot see any visible markets in the world that can take it. That would do a great deal to allay the fears that exist in the minds of the growers. A statement should be now made setting out exactly what the situation is with regard to the ability of the importing nations of the world to take our wheat.
I asked for this earlier in the session but got the usual brush-off. We are naturally concerned about the British market which has been the traditional market on which Canada has relied for years. If the United States with her wealth, this giant with whom we share this continent, steps in with government subsidies, what can stop them? What is there to stop them from putting the price below the Canadian cost of production and thus putting us completely out of the export situation? We would be left with surpluses which pile up and pile up and the future would be dark indeed.
I think the British market is too vital to the Canadian people to have it stolen. It would be a most unfortunate thing if through a government price system in the United States they were able to step into this market and put Canada out, so far as our wheat is concerned.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words in this regard but I do not want anything I say to be taken as criticism of the wheat board, in which I have great confidence, as I think it has saved our growers many millions of dollars over the past two or three years in spite of what has been said about it. Of course nothing that I shall say can be taken as criticism in any way of the minister because I think there is complete confidence all over western

Canada that he will do everything he possibly can to see to it, in co-operation with the wheat board, that our grain is marketed to the best possible advantage.
When an agency of the United States government has accumulated over 750 million bushels of wheat and is contemplating releasing all or part of it on the present market with the present supply of wheat in existence, it becomes more than a matter that should be handled solely by an agency of this government such as the wheat board. I am quite satisfied that the wheat board has done a wonderful job; I am quite satisfied that it will do all that possibly can be done; but when it is faced with a situation like this where an agency of a powerful government like the United States is proposing to liquidate grain which has accumulated over a period of years, it is being faced with a most difficult situation.
If there is any possibility of that happening, then I think certain things should be stated in this parliament as an indication of backing up the wheat board and the minister. That is why I welcome this opportunity to speak this afternoon.
When we signed the North Atlantic treaty, one of the things agreed upon very definitely with the United States government was that we would co-operate in the difficult days then facing us, in economic as well as military matters.


Major James William Coldwell: Article 2.


Walter Adam Tucker: This North Atlantic treaty is a treaty between governments and a treaty which binds governments. I am sure that if the attention of the United States government was brought to this matter it would bring it to the attention of their Commodity Credit Corporation if it was felt that action was contemplated which might react to the great disadvantage of a partner to that treaty. The preamble to the North Atlantic treaty states:
They seek to promote stability and well-being in the Nort'A Atlantic area.
Any action that may be taken by the Commodity Credit Corporation which might in any way break the prices of a basic commodity like wheat might have a bad effect upon the stability and well-being of the North Atlantic area. The effects of such action would not be restricted to wheat; they would widen out and affect other commodities and ultimately might lead to difficulties which while not quite as bad as we experienced in the early thirties might start a trend in that direction. This is a matter for governmental action and consideration.

It seems to me that article 2 is one of the basic articles of this treaty upon which we are basing our whole defence of freedom in the western world. It must be admitted that unless the United States is ready to cooperate in an economic sense with her partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, there will not be the strength that there should be in this treaty intended to protect our freedoms and liberties. This treaty is the very foundation stone of the whole western world and it provides that the parties to the treaty should co-operate in an economic sense. Here is what the high contracting parties agreed to in article 2:
The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and wellbeing. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Surely if there is a field in which there should be economic collaboration, in which there should be an attempt to promote conditions of stability and well-being, this is one. This Commodity Credit Corporation has bought up hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat over a period of years. If any attempt is made to liquidate that wheat at a time like this it will have a devastating effect upon the price of one of our most important commodities available for export.
I have no doubt in the world that the minister has brought all these things to the attention of all concerned in Washington and I think he should have the unanimous support of this house in pointing out to the United States government and people that we expect them to live up to the terms of the North Atlantic treaty, not only to its letter but to its spirit. We expect them to co-operate in an economic way and to see that nothing is done by governmental agencies to break the prices of our basic products.
Not only that, they should be ready to cooperate in other fields with regard to the expanding of markets for one another's goods and there should be no attempt to interfere with exports to the United States. These things are much more important now than perhaps they were before we faced this present situation and before this great treaty, which is the foundation stone of the liberties of the western world, was signed. When that treaty was signed the United States government became bound by a solemn obligation to carry out some of the things I have just mentioned and to see to it that stability is promoted and that the economy
Wheat
of the different contracting parties, her partners in that organization, is not undermined in any way by action on the part of one of them.
My purpose in rising at this time was to indicate that I think this parliament should make it very plain to the United States government that we consider co-operation in the field of economic affairs as one of the foundation stones in preserving and building up the strength and unity and good will that must exist if we are to continue our present united front against the threat to our liberties from the Soviet union. I think this parliament should express itself in regard to any field of economic activity which might seem to infringe upon the obligations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I might make a suggestion, I think it would be wise if the hon. member would withdraw this motion. The meeting he proposes is under discussion and will be held within two months.


Major James William Coldwell: This is a motion to adjourn the house and I have no desire, since no other member wishes to speak, to force the adjournment of the house because there is a lot of business to deal with. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw the motion, because I think it has served its purpose and brought about a useful discussion.
Motion withdrawn.



COMMUNISM


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 31-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I draw the attention of the hon. member to standing order No. 31, section 6, which states:
The right to move the adjournment for the above purposes is subject to the following restrictions: (a) Not more than one such motion can be made at the same sitting;



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg)? My question is based on a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette by a newspaperman whose name reaches Hansard, so often I do not think there is any need to mention it.

Inquiries of the Ministry It is said that his name appears in Hansard perhaps more often than that of any other man in the press gallery. My question is this. Is the report correct that there will be legislation at this session of parliament respecting government annuities?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as the result of a question submitted to me by the municipality of East Kildonan. Is consideration being given to issuing December old age pension cheques in time for Christmas?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question. May I point out to the hon. member, and no doubt he will remember, that this question was asked at the last session of parliament and an extensive reply was given. I think the answer will be found on page 458 of Hansard of December 9, 1952.
To issue cheques at an earlier date than usual in the month of December would leave a gap of five or six weeks between the issue of the December cheque and the issue of the January cheque. I think this would place unnecessary hardship on those pensioners with limited means. There is the further mechanical and administrative difficulty with the issue of the family allowance cheques and the old age security cheques in that they are issued in and from the same regional offices, and we process the family allowance cheques in the first two weeks of the month and the old age security cheques during the last two weeks of the month. In respect of old age assistance cheques and blindness allowance cheques the provincial governments now follow the practice we have adopted.
We have given this matter consideration and we feel that in the interests of the pensioners themselves it would be better to maintain the present practice.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, on December 2, I asked the Minister of Labour what was the policy of his department regarding the employment of


veterans 60 years of age and over for special Christmas work in post offices, and I pointed out that some veterans had been refused such employment. In his reply he said that in co-operation with the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Pickersgill) he would look into the matter and find out what was happening in Vancouver. I understood he was trying to get the difficulty straightened out.
I now have further word from two different veterans to the effect that they have definitely been refused such work because they are 60 years of age or over. Is there not something the minister can do to get the situation straightened out quickly?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member brought this to the attention of the house on December 2 he very kindly gave me details of the applicant who had complained at that time, and immediately thereafter I conferred with my colleague, the Acting Postmaster General.
I can assure my hon. friend that we are both concerned about this matter. I for one have been through my department preaching that we have to give greater opportunity to older workers in this country. The Acting Postmaster General and I, through our respective channels, carried out an inquiry and we have been told that among those older workers who applied for work for Christmas at post offices in Vancouver several were refused on the ground that their physical capacity did not appear to fit them for the task.
Perhaps an official in Vancouver may have stated that we are not taking anybody over 60 years of age, but I can assure my hon. friend that it continues to be the policy of the government to help find work for older workers. I can also assure him that no age limit has been set by the post office or the commission in this regard. Furthermore, emphatic instructions have been given that while of course the physical condition of the applicant must always be a factor in heavy Christmas deliveries, nevertheless the number of years the applicant has lived must not by itself be the deciding factor.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? If I give him these two letters will he look into these two cases- because one concerns the same man who applied before. He asked about the matter and was told that instructions had been given by the minister that no one was to be employed over 60 years of age.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will be glad to look into it.



WAR SERVICE GRANTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Hugues Lapoinle (Minister of Veierans
Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Service Grants Act to extend the time limit for the availability of re-establishment credit: also to extend certain benefits of the act to additional beneficiaries; and further to provide for an extension of time whereby certain veterans may take advantage of the Veterans Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Mr. Lapoinle:: Mr. Chairman, the War
Service Grants Act, as hon. members know, is one that provided for the payment of war service gratuities to veterans of world war II and for the setting up of re-establishment credits on their behalf. It is now proposed to amend the War Service Grants Act in order, first, to extend the period of time during which veterans may use their reestablishment credits. The act as it exists now provides that re-establishment credit must be used within a period of ten years dating from January, 1945, or ten years from the date of the discharge of the veteran, whichever might be later. It is now proposed to extend this period by a further five years. As of June 30 of this year there remained over 185,000 active accounts in re-establishment credits, and the amount of credit unused amounted to $37,529,828. It is the desire of the department that these veterans who have not yet used their re-establishment credit or who have used only part of it should not be obliged to use it in the near future, since this would not be in the interest of their long-term rehabilitation. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, it is proposed to limit to January 1, 1957, the period within which the compensating or the return payment of reestablishment credit may be made for the purpose of establishing eligibility under the Veterans Land Act. It is also proposed to permit a veteran who still has re-establishment credits in his account to use those credits for the purpose of purchasing insurance under the Veterans Insurance Act, as long as the veteran does so within the period of time in which he may use his reestablishment credit but regardless of the fact that the time limit has expired under the Veterans Insurance Act.
As regards war service gratuity, it is proposed to set a time limit at December 31, 1954, after which applications for war service gratuities in respect of world war II may not be made. It will be recalled that these
War Service Grants Act gratuities, the amounts of which were based on the length of service of the veteran, after the passing of the act in 1944 were paid out automatically upon discharge; that is, during the procedure of discharge the veteran would make his application for war service gratuity and payment would follow. Hence the bulk of the veterans received their war service gratuities automatically. Those who had been discharged before 1944 had to make personal application. As of June 30, 1953, again there was still approximately $500,000 owed to about 8,500 veterans who had not yet applied for their war service gratuities. The department has been endeavouring for the last few years to contact each and every one of these veterans. We have explained that they had to have their applications in, but still about 8,500 have not made application. For the most part they are men who had an extremely short period of service previous to the passing of the act, and it was service mostly in Canada where the gratuity was half of what it was for service overseas. These amounts are therefore very small. It is proposed to terminate the payments at the date I mentioned and to take the means to advise each veteran to make his application for war service gratuity. Hon. members will realize what a small proportion $500,000 is to the total amount paid out, when I state that to date we have paid to world war II veterans war service gratuities to the amount of $470 million.
A further amendment which is proposed to the War Service Grants Act is to make the re-establishment credits payable to orphaned children of veterans. Up to now the reestablishment credit could be paid to the widow or to the dependent mother of a veteran. It is now proposed to make this credit available to the orphaned children or again to the children if they have been abandoned by the surviving mother.
Finally, it is also intended to relax the conditions under which a mother may use the re-establishment credit of a dead veteran. At the present time the act requires that the mother should have been wholly dependent on the deceased. We intend to recommend that this situation be changed and that the wording be "wholly or to a substantial extent dependent on the deceased" so as to permit us to look into some cases of hardship which have arisen.


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Chairman, we are indebted to the minister for his explanation with reference to this resolution. I am sure all the amendments which he has suggested meet with favour as far as the committee is concerned. There is to be an amendment to the
828	HOUSE OF
War Service Grants Act War Service Grants Act. All veterans who were on the veterans affairs committee in 1945 and 1946 will recall that the grants act was, of course, one of the most important acts which were before the veterans affairs committee. The committee members spent a great many hours studying this act. I think it speaks well for the care that was taken at that time that there has been no amendment of the grants act up to the present time. I think that is correct, is it not?


Mr. Lapointe:: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The fact that it is now ten years old would indicate, of course, that some changes must be made; and the changes which the minister has suggested this afternoon are very much needed, I am sure. As I said a moment ago, I think they will meet with great favour.
The minister mentioned re-establishment credits, and that they were now extending the time for five years. This in itself is a good move, particularly in the light of the fact that a good many of the veterans have not received their full re-establishment credit. I believe that some have not even applied for the re-establishment credit. Many others have received it only in part.
Then as to the war service gratuity, before 1944, as the minister explained, you had to make application. That is, if you were discharged before 1944 you had to make a personal application. The minister tells us that $500,000 is still due to some 8,500 veterans; and naturally the department and the government are anxious that every veteran should receive every cent to which he is entitled.
I also approve of the suggestion that they relax the conditions for the mother who is to receive the allowance of her son who had passed away and also that orphaned children are to get re-establishment credits.
I might say that these matters were all considered at the time the committee met some years ago. I am glad that they are now getting further consideration. It is hard to understand, however, just why it is that there are some 187,000 veterans still who have not received their re-establishment credit and that there is an amount of $37 million still due. I am sure the minister will give us further information about this matter when the bill is under consideration. I was wondering if it was because there were a good many soldiers from the United States and other countries who had enlisted and that these former soldiers of the Canadian army had not applied for any rehabilitation grant. I know that they are very limited with respect to the grants which they may


receive, but if I remember correctly a man from the United States who enlisted in the Canadian army can apply for consideration under the insurance act and can also use his rehabilitation grant or gratuity for purposes of superannuation.
I should like to know from the minister if there are quite a number from other countries who enlisted in the Canadian forces. When he gives this information later on I think it would be well for him to let us know how many deceased veterans there are whose rehabilitation grants have not been applied for and received and how many veterans there are in the United States who have not applied.
A good many Canadian soldiers after coming back from overseas took up residence in the United States and I assume that quite a number of native-born Canadians who went to the United States have made no application. I think it also would be well for us to know what attempt was made to see that information was given to all returned soldiers of the fact that they were entitled to certain gratuities and re-establishment credits.
I am not going to delay the committee to any extent this afternoon. There is a lot more information that we should have, but we are all very anxious to see the bill. I should like to suggest again that a bill of this kind might very well have been referred to a veterans affairs committee. I know the minister may be tired of hearing that a veterans affairs committee should be set up, but I still feel that a bill of this kind amending an act passed ten years ago could very well have been considered by a veterans affairs committee. I know that before such committees you have all the officials of the department present who can give you all the information you need. Thus you have a much more thorough understanding of a bill and you also have the advantage of having representatives of the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations present to give their opinions and express the views of veterans. I suggest again that this and other legislation relating to veterans should be sent to a veterans affairs committee.


Mr. Herridge:: As one who has had the pleasure of being a member of veterans affairs committees throughout the years I must say, like the hon. member for Royal, that we are very pleased that the government has given effect to several suggestions made to that committee on a number of occasions. I notice that the minister says that the time within which a veteran may apply for re-establishment credits is going to be extended for a period of five years. When the Canadian Legion made representations to the cabinet

on November 10 last it suggested that the time should be extended until 1960. I should like the minister to tell the house why the government has seen fit to restrict it to five years.


Hugues Lapointe: The act as it now stands terminates on the 1st of January, 1955. Therefore by extending it for five years we will be extending it until 1960, exactly what the Legion requested.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Excuse me; I was thinking in terms of the act expiring next year. That is very satisfactory indeed. That is the second occasion during this session that the government has given effect to representations by the Canadian Legion on somewhat minor matters. However, half a loaf is better than none, or a fraction of a loaf. I noted that the minister said that the time within which a veteran may repay his re-establishment credit received for some other purpose in order that he may take advantage of the Veterans Land Act expires on December 31, 1957. I am glad that the time has been extended for veterans who want to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act, but I would suggest to the minister that he should give consideration to an even longer extension.
It has been my experience, as I am sure it has been that of most members who are interested in this question and also the officials of the department, that there are quite a number of veterans who started out on one course and found they were not suited for that type of work. The percentage is not big, but a number started out on one course and found they were not suited for the thing they were tackling. They had accepted re-establishment credits and things of that sort and then wanted to change direction. A goodly number of these veterans have found that the best thing to do is take advantage of the provisions of the Veterans Land Act. That has been very noticeable in the last two or three years.
When the boys returned home immediately after the war, a good number of them, because of their experience with hard work, long hours and poor returns from agriculture during the depression on the prairies and in parts of British Columbia, rather turned up their noses at returning to the farm. I know that a good number of these men went into industry because of the high wages and shorter hours but they have now returned to their first love. There are certain advantages in living a farming life if you can find satisfactory markets. I know a number of men who have repaid their re-establishment credits and have taken advantage of the Veterans Land Act. I am very glad that
War Service Grants Act they have had the opportunity to do that, but I suggest that the minister give consideration to extending that time limit beyond the end of 1957.
1 was particularly pleased with the statement the minister made that he is going to be able to make provision for re-establishment credits to be paid on behalf of orphan children. Like the hon. member for Royal, I remember that matter being discussed on several occasions in the veterans affairs committee, and I am sure that this provision will be welcomed by all members of the house. At this point I want to say that I find the veterans affairs department somewhat different from most other departments of the government. One finds a certain human touch in the great majority of officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a human touch that is sometimes lacking in a department such as national revenue. One finds that these officials are interested in human beings. I know from my own experience that when local superintendents or district administrators find certain conditions existing they make suggestions as to small amendments or changes that might be made to the regulations to improve the administration and to serve the needs of the veterans to better advantage.
I think that spirit has been outstanding in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I think other members of the former special committee will bear me out in that respect. I am quite sure that some of these amendments were advocated by members of the veterans affairs committee during its various sittings, but I know that the government has also finally been persuaded to take action in that respect as the result of the experiences and recommendations of the officials in the field who have day to day contact with the veterans concerned. As I said before, we are quite pleased with this further improvement of veterans legislation and look forward to seeing the contents of the bill.


Mr. Quelch:: We in this group are also very glad to support the resolution. Like the hon. member for Royal, we would like to have seen this bill referred to the veterans committee because there are many things branching out from the resolution which could have been discussed by that committee and which will not be discussed in the house. We are glad that the time limit for the availability of the re-establishment credits has been extended by five years, and also that orphans are being brought in. I was wondering if the minister could tell the house what the situation is with regard to widows of veterans, in so far as their application for reestablishment credits is concerned. Have
830	HOUSE OF
War Service Grants Act many widows taken advantage of it, and in most cases have those widows been allowed to get the re-establishment credits? In other words, were they able to satisfy the department that they wanted to use the money for the type of thing for which it can be used?
We are glad also that the time limit on the application for veterans insurance has been covered by this act. I am wondering if any action has been taken by the department to deal with a complaint that was made by the Legion during the presentation of their brief last year. It will be recalled that the Legion pointed out that if a pensioner is insured under the Veterans Insurance Act, and dies, then the amount of the insurance paid to the widow is reduced by reason of the fact that she is in receipt of a pension. This does not seem fair, because if the man had insurance under any other insurance plan, his insurance would not be reduced. Why should the insurance be reduced merely because he is insured under the veterans insurance plan? I should imagine if that fact were widely known it would discourage many veterans from taking out insurance under this act, because certainly the income of his widow is going to be reduced by reason of that fact. Naturally, a man would be better off to take out insurance under some other plan, unless the difference between the two would not be great enough to make it worth while. Perhaps the minister could tell the house by what amount the insurance is reduced by reason of the fact a pensioner has taken out insurance under the act?


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be very pleased when we discuss the bill in committee to try to provide the information requested by hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question as to the form of this bill. Is this bill in a form similar to the one we were discussing yesterday, in that the one bill amends two different acts?


Hugues Lapointe: No, there is only one act. The bill amends sections of the War Service Grants Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the reference to the Veterans Insurance Act?


Hugues Lapointe: No; the War Service Grants Act provides, among other things, the type of thing for which the re-establishment credit may be used. One of the purposes for which the re-establishment credit may be used is the purchasing of insurance under the Veterans Insurance Act. It is the War Service Grants Act that is amended.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Royal brought up the question of giving more


publicity to the fact that there are millions of dollars still held in this rehabilitation fund. Could the minister tell us whether or not his department has taken steps to get this information out to the veterans?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, there have been steps taken. Some of the veterans have been communicated with personally, and some publicity has been given to that fact. I think just a few weeks ago there were some reports carried in the press conveying this information. It is proposed to keep on publicizing the matter during the coming year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That would be only in Canadian newspapers; what about veterans who are in the United States or some other country? What notice do they get?


Hugues Lapointe: It is rather difficult to communicate with veterans outside of Canada, except individually when we have their addresses. Of course, the veterans organizations are informed of these facts, particularly in the United Kingdom where they have facilities for finding out what developments are taking place in veterans legislation. It is difficult to inform those outside the country, except as I say where we have the addresses of the individuals and can communicate with them.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is there quite a proportion of the veterans who have not accepted their rehabilitation grants outside of the country, or are most of them in Canada?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not know exactly what the number is, but of the amount still appearing to the credit of veterans about 10 per cent would be payable to veterans who are living outside of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Why is there not a provision written into the act to enable the money to be paid to the children of the veteran without any restrictions? For example, I understand that if the mother had divorced the veteran before he died, then neither she nor the children could get these rehabilitation benefits. Originally the act restricted the benefits to the wife and the mother, and in the latter case only where the veteran had been in support of his mother. Why not make the provision such that these children could benefit without any restriction?
I know of a case where the mother quite properly divorced the father, and then the father died. He had not used his rehabilitation benefits, but the money is not available to help the children although, as it happens, they are in urgent need. Surely the intent should be that the children could get the benefit.


Hugues Lapointe: Without anticipating the bill, I may say that is the purpose of one of the amendments proposed by the bill. In my short statement I thought I had made it plain that we were extending the re-establishment credits to the orphaned children of the veteran.


Howard Charles Green: But they are not orphans if the mother is living. Can the children benefit if the mother is living?


Hugues Lapointe: When the hon. member sees the bill, I think he will find it will meet the situation he has in mind.


Mr. Enfield:: I should like to take this opportunity to make one or two remarks on the resolution. I feel that members could do a great service in regard to these many veterans who have not as yet made application for gratuities, by publicizing the fact that application must be made by December 31, 1954. We all know that after that date we will be getting applications from veterans who have missed the date. By looking after this matter in their own ridings, hon. members could certainly obviate any difficulty of that nature.
I should like to join also with the hon. member for Royal in congratulating the minister on the manner in which the bill was originally drawn. As was pointed out, these are the first amendments, and as would appear from the debate, they are simple and straightforward indeed. The bill is well drawn not only in the technical but also in the moral sense, in that we all agree that the veterans charter, of which the War Service Grants Act is an integral part, is probably the best legislation for veterans rehabilitation to be found on the North American continent or anywhere in the world.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82, to amend the War Service Grants Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 28, to amend the National Parks Act-Mr. Lesage-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
National Parks Act
William Alfred Robinson: May I remind hon. members that when the committee rose yesterday we were discussing clause 3. Shall clause 3 carry?


Mr. Ashbourne:: Before the committee rises I should like to ask the minister whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding the matter of a national park for Newfoundland? I understand that negotiations have been going on between the provincial government and the federal government in this matter. Perhaps the minister is in a position to make an up-to-date statement before the committee rises.


Mr. Lesage:: As hon. members are aware, as a matter of policy the government does not establish a national park in any province unless the provincial government makes a grant of land free of all encumbrances and the land is, in the opinion of the government, suitable for a national park. Some consideration has been given to the establishment of a national park in Newfoundland, and the matter is still under consideration. Of course we have to deal with the government of Newfoundland, and up to date no definite understanding has been reached. I do not believe I could say any more at this time.


Mr. Shaw:: Paragraph (h) deals with the granting of leases or licences for public lands outside town sites for the purpose of schools, hospitals and churches. Are leases granted for any purposes other than those enumerated in paragraph (h), outside the town sites?


Jean Lesage: No. Leases will be granted for schools, hospitals and churches and for purposes of entertainment of persons visiting the parks. Up to now churches, hospitals and schools were established in town sites under lease. With this amendment they may be established anywhere in the parks under leases or licences.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I have one other question with respect to paragraph (i) which refers to granting permits for the grazing of horses and cattle. Are definite areas established under such permits, or does the permit cover the park area in general?


Jean Lesage: Well, I am sure the area would be defined in the permit.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I beg your pardon?


Jean Lesage: The area for which the permit is valid will be defined in the permit.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I have a question under paragraph (j) which relates to the remarks the minister made, as reported at the top of

National Parks Act
page 792 of Hansard of yesterday. In reference to the installation of a water supply in any of these national parks the minister said:
. . . and reasonable charges would be made for the water supplied.
I suppose that applies to any utility supplied in the national park. For example, would it apply to hydroelectric power?


Jean Lesage: Definitely; and if what the hon. member has in mind are the charges for power in Riding Mountain park, which he mentioned yesterday, I am pleased to tell him that as of April 1, 1954, there will be a reduction in the charges for power in Riding Mountain park. Representations have been made by the hon. member, the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, and also the hon. member for Dauphin. I had occasion to write to the other two hon. members in answer to their letters. I did not receive any letter from the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, and that is the reason I did not advise him of that decision, which is effective as of April 1, 1954.


Mr. Hansell:: Are the leases that are given for the erection of buildings and so forth held more or less in perpetuity? The other night the hon. member for Bow River indicated his displeasure at the high, sort of ranch-looking fence put around the chateau at lake Louise. It has caused some considerable comment and I might say disgust in many quarters. We who live out in Alberta, some of us not far from the Banff national park who can go there and get back in a day, have heard a tremendous amount of comment. When the hon. member for Bow River raised the question the other night, the minister interjected: "Well, that is private property."
How does it come about that anyone, an individual or a company, can own as their own private property any location situated in the middle of a national park? I can quite understand that where there is a town site and people lease a piece of property for 99 years, which is tantamount to buying it, and build a house on it, they have naturally the right to put a fence around it to keep not only people but animals away; but I cannot quite understand why a hotel can put a fence around its property without some permission from the minister. I wish he would explain that to us. I am interested in it because we hear these comments. We go up around these places ourselves occasionally.
It might be said that it is private property, and that people going over private property would ruin flowers, flower beds, grass and so forth. That is a pretty slim excuse. A great many tourists visit the park.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I remind the hon. member for Macleod that we are discussing clause 3 of Bill No. 28, and this paragraph deals with licences for schools, hospitals and churches; it does not deal with other types of licences.


Ernest George Hansell: I thought we were discussing clause 3, which provides for the granting of leases for places of entertainment. I cannot understand why I should be out of order in raising a question as to whether a person can lease a piece of property and do what he likes with it without the minister's permission. Are they given a lease and with that lease permission to go ahead and do what they want with it? Surely that is not the case.
I do not think that fence should have been built without the permission of the minister. I do not think there is any necessity for it. I think the problem could have been solved without building the fence. I was up there dozens of times before the fence was built and-


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member once more, but I fail to find in clause 3 any reference to a lease of property such as the hon. member is referring to.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want to pursue a matter that is not in order and I do not like to object to any of your rulings. Paragraph (g) provides for the granting of leases of lots in town sites for the purposes of residence, trade, schools, churches, hospitals and places of entertainment and of lots in other subdivisions for the purpose of residence during the period beginning April 1 and ending October 31. That is the very time this hotel is open. People are living in the hotel during that time. However, I shall stop my discussion on this matter if it does not meet with your approval, Mr. Chairman, and let the minister answer.


Jean Lesage: According to the act and the regulations, leases for lots in town sites and subdivisions can be issued by the minister for any term not exceeding 42 years. When we were either at the resolution stage or the second reading of the bill I answered a series of questions put by the hon. member for Macleod and explained that these leases for lots or licences were issued by the minister usually after calling for tenders and with certain guarantees.
That is what happened at lake Louise. The lease does not grant title to the property but it does grant exclusive possession of the land, that is possession to the exclusion of others. Therefore the Canadian Pacific hotel

company has exclusive possession of certain property on block F, according to a plan approved and confirmed by the surveyor general in 1909. The lease gives the company exclusive possession of that property which extends to a point within 16 feet of the shore of lake Louise.
Representations were made to the department last year by the company to the effect that there was trespassing on the property, that people were stamping on the flower beds and going into the hotel when they were not guests. The manager of the hotel asked the departmental officials if it would be in order to construct an ornamental fence surrounding the property, and that permission was given.
The fence leaves plenty of space for people who want to visit lake Louise to come in from the main road to the shore of the lake and around the lake. As I say, the property leased to the company starts only 16 feet from the lake shore. It should be understood that when a lease is granted, the people who hold that lease have exclusive possession.
The same provisions apply in connection with schools, churches, hospitals and places of entertainment. I am sure my hon. friend would not like to have hundreds of people walking through the corridors of a hospital simply because it was located on national park property. That is why we give exclusive possession. These leases are issued or granted after a good deal of consideration and after the procedure I explained yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. member for Macleod has been followed. Frankly I cannot see that we can adopt any other sensible policy under the circumstances.


Ernest George Hansell: I understand that when the
hotel wanted to erect a fence they got permission from the minister?


Jean Lesage: I did not say that they got
permission from the minister. I said that they advised the departmental officials who replied that they had no objection.


Ernest George Hansell: Was the type of fence
approved by the minister of the department? My argument is that this fence has spoiled everything. I agree that we cannot have hundreds of people walking through the halls of a hotel, but that could have been prevented without erecting a high board fence. I claim that a small simple fence with a few signs "For guests only" on the inside would have served the same purpose. This fence has completely spoiled the view, in .fact I think it has spoiled the view for guests inside the hotel. A simple fence about three or four feet high with a few signs around would have served the purpose. They could have 83276-53
National Parks Act
had a few commissionaires placed there; and even if we had to stand the expense of those commissionaires it would have solved the problem. As it is now, the thing is all messed up.
I want to know if the government approved this high board fence. I would like to ask further if the government will prevail upon the hotel authorities to take down that fence and put up one that will not obstruct the view. I believe that is a reasonable thing to ask.


Jean Lesage: When the manager of the
hotel wrote to the departmental officials he submitted a sketch of ornamental gateways which he proposed to construct at the rear of the hotel at two points facing lake Louise, and a plan of a peeled pole fence was also submitted. It is difficult for me to act as judge between the departmental officials and my hon. friend. I assure him that when I visit the park next summer I shall examine this fence and then I will be in position to give a personal opinion on it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I have one further question
with respect to the matter I brought up a few moments ago. When a permit is granted for the grazing of horses and cattle within a specified area in the park does that carry with it the right to prevent other persons entering upon that particular area? There have been complaints made to me that in certain sections of Banff national park a certain concern holding a lease for the grazing of horses have put up "no trespassing" signs, with the result that people are prevented from entering upon a very substantial area within the park. That is the way it was represented to me, although I am not certain of the facts; but does such a permit carry with it the right to bar other persons from that specific area?


Jean Lesage: It does not, and I will be glad if my hon. friend will give me details of the case he has in mind so we can go into this.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I will be glad to convey to the minister the information that has been sent to me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Section 3, paragraph (i), subparagraph (iii) reads as follows:
The cutting and removal of dead or diseased timber and such green timber as may be necessary for the protection and management of forests in a park.
It appears to me that the word "management" is an amendment to the former paragraph which did not exist under the old act. I would like to ask the minister this question. What does management mean? Does it mean that management did not exist before,

National Parks Act
and has the government competent foresters who understand the management of timber and are employed within the jurisdiction of the parks?


Jean Lesage: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have competent foresters and this is only to put the act in line with the situation that exists. There are foresters in the park who are experienced and who belong to the forestry branch of the department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would like to ask the minister a question. What is the significance of the words in the first subparagraph of section 3:
The granting of leases . . . beginning on the first day of April and ending on the 31st day of October.
Does that mean that this section is applicable only to people who take up summer residence in the parks? In other words it is not applicable, we will say, to cases like Banff national park where there are people all the year round?


Jean Lesage: This second part of paragraph (g) applies to lots in other subdivisions and not in town sites. So it does not apply to Banff town site.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It does not apply, then, to any lease granted for year-round residence? I just took Banff as an example. Does it apply only to summer residence?


Jean Lesage: Summer residence is covered by the same subsection. If my hon. friend would carefully read subsection (g) he will see there:
The granting of leases of lots in town sites for the purposes of residence, trade, schools, churches, hospitals and places of entertainment,
That is all the year round, and it continues: -and of lots in other subdivisions for the purposes of residence during the period beginning on the first day of April and ending on the 31st day of October.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point still remains. What about any residence which is on a year-round basis? I am thinking particularly of people who may have places where they build small cabins which are used in summer and also used for skiing in winter, and which would not be in a town site?


Jean Lesage: Winter occupation could be under licence, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no provision for that sort of thing as far as this section is concerned, and really no provision for it otherwise.


Jean Lesage: Subsection (h) gives the minister power to issue licences in general under the act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But a man may have a permit to build a cabin or a small house, and he has no lease or anything else. In other words he is in the position where a licence may be repealed at any moment.


Jean Lesage: No, he can have a licence up to 21 years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, a licence is the same thing as a lease?


Jean Lesage: The difference between a licence and a lease is that a lease grants exclusive possession while a licence does not. Somebody can pass over a property which is not in anyone's exclusive possession.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would urge the minister to look into that matter, because people who may be in that situation, or may subsequently get into that situation, are in little better position than they would be in the case of a licence. At the present time there are a certain number of these cases. In future there may be a much larger number of cases, particularly if these parks develop, as I trust and hope they will, into very large skiing resorts.


Victor Quelch: I want to ask the minister a question relating to lake Louise hotel. I am not referring to the fence we have heard criticized so much, although I think this is regrettable because the hotel had been up for many years without any fence being around the property, and then all of a sudden they decide to build a fence and it has caused a great deal of criticism. No doubt the reason given was that tourists were leaving a lot of wastepaper, etc., around the grounds, but I asked the superintendent of the park at Banff whether park officials had had any difficulty in that regard where there are public grounds and where tourists wander in crowds, and he said they had had no difficulty. There may be some reason in the case of the hotel but is it necessary to build a fence around the property?
I am wondering how far the lease goes. Does it go right down to the edge of the lake, because not only have they put a fence right around the property but they have also fenced the pathway down around the lake, and have put up a gate and a sign stating "Private Property-No Admittance". I was there in the fall and a lot of people were reluctant to use the walk around the lake because they were afraid they might be trespassing on private property. Surely it is not the intention of the government to fence people off from the lake entirely!


Jean Lesage: I already said, I believe, that according to my information that fence does not exclude the public from the lake shore.

There is a public walk along the entire lake frontage which is accessible by public roadway.


Victor Quelch: That is why the lease should be examined. I was up there in September and there was a gate from the fence down to the water's edge. That gate was open, it is true, but there was a large sign reading, "Private Property-No	Admittance". If
people took no notice of that sign they would be able to go along the lake shore but that sign should be removed and the gate and fence around the lake down to the water's edge should be removed and that pathway left open.


Jean Lesage: I thank the hon. member for the information he has given me, and I will certainly look into it immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now consider public and private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: The business under private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will revert to consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 28, to amend the National Parks Act-Mr. Lesage-Mr. Robinson (Sim-coe East) in the chair.
William Alfred Robinson: The house again in committee on Bill No. 28, to amend the National Parks Act; clause 3.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with these leases in town sites such as Banff, Jasper and so on. How long is it since the regulations governing the type of buildings which may be constructed and the other regulations have been revised? I ask this question particularly in view of the fact that I have had a considerable number of complaints from people who had secured lots or intended to secure lots and then found that the building regulations were such that they were not able to put up what you might call a reasonably priced cabin or summer residence.
There has been, I think, on the part of quite a number of people who are in the moderate income class a considerable demand for certain lands around Banff particularly and, I think to some extent, around Jasper, to be set aside where the building regulations would be less extreme than they are at the present time.
83276-53J
National Parks Act
There is no idea on the part of any of these people or on the part of anyone, I think, that there should be erected in the parks anything in the nature of shacks which would detract from the natural beauty of the parks. However, it is quite possible to construct, for considerably less than the amount the regulations have provided for, a cabin of a rustic nature which does not detract from the general appearance of things in the park. Such a cabin can be constructed for considerably less than the amount specified at the present time. I would suggest that the minister look into that matter and, if possible, make changes in the regulations which would accommodate the very people who should find it possible to construct summer homes in our national parks.


Mr. Churchill:: I wish to make a remark or two with regard to this section, subsection (j). I understand that the minister will be visiting the national parks during the-course of the next year. When he pays a visit to Riding Mountain national park T suggest that he look at the problem of accommodation for people who enter that park by bus. I will not say anything at length; with regard to this park, because the hon.. member for Brandon-Souris made some comment on it the other day. However, I should like to direct the minister's attention to a section of our populace which perhaps tends to be forgotten or neglected in connection with that particular national park. I refer to those who enter the park by bus.
A large number of people do enter that park by bus. Over the years no very suitable-accommodation has been provided for them. Their numbers run into hundreds. There is; a good bus service into Riding Mountain park from Dauphin, from Minnedosa, from Brandon and from the city of Winnipeg. Particularly on week ends and on holidays during the summer season hundreds of people come there by bus and of course have to leave in the same way. Those who travel to the park by motor car naturally are not faced with this problem.
On many occasions I have made the trip by bus. I am surprised that up to this point no arrangements of a satisfactory nature have been made for people who travel by that means of transportation. What has been done, certainly since the war, in the period that I am thinking of now, is this. The people who have to purchase their tickets for bus travel or to wait for a bus have to do so just at a garage. Those who operate that garage have given efficient service all these years, but they have not the necessary accommodation for those who are waiting. In bad weather people who are waiting for the

National Parks Act
bus to arrive have no place in which to take shelter. There is plenty of space in the park for a bus depot to be constructed.
This is a matter which should have received attention years ago. I hope the minister will take note of it and look into it when he is there. The people who enter our national parks by bus are deserving of the same treatment as those who have other means of transportation. We often think in terms of visitors from the United States and others who are coming in by motor car, but our own people who live sufficiently close to national parks to get there by bus should receive as good treatment as anyone else. In Riding Mountain national park I think that type of person has been forgotten.
It is not out of the way to suggest that the department consider arranging for a proper bus depot where people would have rest rooms; a place in which to take shelter when they are waiting for the bus to come in; a place in which to put their luggage, which they now have to place out in a lane; a place with suitable arrangements for those who are waiting for guests to arrive or who are speeding the parting guest after a holiday. I urge the minister to put that matter down in his notebook as one to observe when he reaches Riding Mountain national park.


Jean Lesage: I am quite ready to put it down in my notebook; but on the other hand I thought it was the practice for transportation companies to build their own depots. I have always thought that was the practice. In my province, anyway, the bus companies build their own depots. I have been through Jasper park and Banff park. In the first, the Canadian National Railways builds its own station. In Banff it is the Canadian Pacific Railway. I would find it quite odd if the C.P.R. were to ask us to build their depot, if you want to call it a depot, or their station in Banff. We would say, "That is your business; you had better build it yourself." I believe the bus companies should do the same in Riding Mountain national park. However, I will of course look into the matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It matters not to me who provides this type of accommodation. Perhaps the minister is quite correct in saying the bus people should do that. My point is that someone should look into the matter and see that it is done. After all, the buses are deriving a good revenue from taking people into this park. If they are not providing suitable accommodation, that matter should be drawn to their attention. How is it best to be done? I think certainly by the department which has authority over those national parks. At the present time it is a matter which is being neglected.

I did what I was able to do a few years ago in urging people to provide a direct bus line from the city of Winnipeg to Riding Mountain national park instead of a system under which it was necessary to make changes en route; and that effort turned out very successfully. I am now pressing this second point with regard to a suitable bus depot. After all, the department permits the buses to come in there and it permits the buses to stand on vacant ground, on the roadway or in the lane. Why not insist that they provide proper parking accommodation for their buses and, at the same time, a bus depot?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann for the second reading of Bill No. 29, to amend the Customs Act.
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was speaking on Bill No. 29. This measure is probably more important than appears on the surface because I would think that most likely it has been drafted very hastily, and I am not sure that it even conveys what the minister wished it to convey when he introduced it, or whether it will accomplish what he anticipates it is going to accomplish. In fact I think he said the other day that he did not know what it was going to accomplish, and I am not surprised because when you read it you realize how hastily it was drawn, and the rest of us have as much doubt as the minister. It looks like a gunshot prescription, knowing the patient is in trouble but not being quite sure what the reaction is going to be. I sometimes wonder why the minister needs to say so much and probably undo what he is trying to do.
I think the bill is intended to help manufacturers in his own particular district because, while many manufacturers in other parts of the country are affected, especially in the textile industry, I think they are more vociferous in the district the minister represents; and after all, charity begins at home. But I think a little more time might well have been spent in studying what repercussions and what benefits may be expected from such an amendment. I do not believe it should be confined entirely to manufactured goods. I think semi-finished goods

and raw products may need attention before very long; and while this is not a matter of high tariffs, protective policy, or even free trade-which has been forgotten by almost everyone-while it does not involve these major fiscal principles it is a matter of whether we are going to continue to be a dumping ground for United States products.
I am not surprised that the minister at last is alarmed. People in this country have been fearful for some time that this development and trend would become more conspicuous when defence requirements fell off. The government have been very fortunate. They have been able to flounder along so far as trade is concerned for the last number of years without any fiscal policy. I do not think the minister can tell us what the fiscal policy of his party is. It is just as uncertain as the effects of this amendment. But like Micawber the government is always waiting for something to turn up, and it has been turning up in the form of large demands for our raw products.
We have been a great accommodation to the United States of America. At times they think we are not producing uranium as fast as we should. At other times they propose to put embargoes on our lead and zinc, and at other times they propose to subsidize their wheat in competition with our wheat throughout the world. But we are very good neighbours, we love them, and we are a very handy and friendly people so far as they are concerned, especially in matters of trade. But when we consider normal trade we find that our great customers-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that the bill under consideration is not wide enough in scope to allow a general discussion of trade matters.


William Earl Rowe: With all due deference to your ruling, by which I must abide, I thought the bill had reference to trade. If it does not, then neither the minister nor myself knows what it means.


Mr. McCann:: Speak for yourself.


William Earl Rowe: That is what it really means, I think.


James Joseph McCann: Does it? It says imports.


William Earl Rowe: What are imports?


James Joseph McCann: Don't you know what they are?


William Earl Rowe: You should know. It is part of your work.


James Joseph McCann: I know what they are.
Customs Act


William Earl Rowe: You cannot trade if you do not import. I do not want to speak for the minister-


James Joseph McCann: No.


William Earl Rowe: -but he and I are in agreement. We agree that imports are a part of trade.


James Joseph McCann: A part of trade, yes; a half of it.


William Earl Rowe: Pardon?


James Joseph McCann: It is a half of it.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, it is a half. I notice that in the last six months Canada has bought from the United States $587 million more than we sold them. We had an adverse balance of trade with the world in the first eight months of 1953 of $206 million, and in the same eight months of 1952 we had a favourable trade balance with the world generally of $252 million. Therefore while imports are only part of it, they have been more than half so far as we are concerned. We are buying much more per capita from the United States than the United States is buying from us, even though we have fewer than 15 million people.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is a point I am entitled to make. This amendment is, I think, defined purposely to assist our textile manfacturers in marketing their products in Canada in competition with cheaper goods imported from the United States of America. I realize that it deals only with that one country, and I realize as well that our whole trade problem is seriously affected by the dumping of goods, whether they are offseason or otherwise. I do not know why the bill is confined merely to off-season goods. Section 1 reads in part as follows:
. . . where the market price of any manufactured goods in the country of export has, as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period, declined to levels that do not reflect in the opinion of the minister their normal price . . .
I do not know why it should be confined merely to the advance of the season or the marketing period. I hope amendments might be considered which are not confined to manufactured goods. I realize there are many other lines of goods in this country that are seriously affected.
We have regard for the Geneva arrangement. I believe the minister made the statement that the tariffs and trade agreements might be left as they are for at least another year until the larger countries knew where they were going, not only with regard to matters of trade policy but also matters of finance and payments. Evidently the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did not

Customs Act
know at that time where they were going, because previous to that those countries had pretty well fixed their fiscal policies. Since that time we have experienced all sorts of effects on our products, such as our dairy products, and now there is the rumoured effect of United States action on our coarse grains.
I submit that this amendment might be altered to make it better than it is. Even then I doubt if it would do as effective a job as the minister hopes it might. I do think we have great possibilities in Canada. However, when we have less than 15 million people, and when about a quarter of our so-called trade is dependent on exports, our home markets are very important. When there is any action that relates to our tariff policies in general, I think then the least we can do is appreciate that the dumping of goods which will create unemployment for our Canadian workmen is of vital concern to all in this house. Our standard of living in Canada is dependent so much more on trade than that of the great republic to the south of us, which only exports about 6 per cent of its national production.
I realize there are other products than those that are manufactured. I suppose that so long as the word "manufactured" is in this proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, you would probably question the relevancy of my remarks if I were to mention those other products. I shall, therefore, endeavour not to embarrass either of us in that regard. Today we see plants closing down, being dismantled, and labouring men thrown out of work in Ontario. In several centres textile plants are closed down entirely. I understand that in one city in Quebec there are between 1,200 and 1,500 men unemployed at the present time. I believe the minister would tell us if he cared to, but he says he does not want me to speak for him, that in his own riding some 300 workers have recently been let out.
Perhaps that fact had something to do with the hurried drafting of this bill. I would not say it was recklessly drafted, but it might have been worded better even if it had been recklessly drafted. In my opinion there are many loopholes, and as it is worded the bill will not serve the purpose intended.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I intend to support it for what it is worth. I am sorry that it is worded as it is. I should like to see the minister give some consideration to altering it now that he has had time to consider the matter. I am not going to detain the house any longer, except to suggest that in this country we need a careful review of our trade policies. I feel that our

country is facing a very critical period, yet we are more or less nonchalantly saying to larger countries like the United Kingdom and the United States that we are not making any changes; we are going to live according to our understanding at the Geneva conference for another year or more. I believe the trend in our trade is now so serious that our people are becoming alarmed. I think the people who are most alarmed are the great body of consumers who, after all, are the producers and workers in this country.
I hope this amendment may do something toward restoring employment, which is so seriously menaced by the lack of sound application of 'our dumping laws. I think it is due to the lack of a sound trade policy that we have so many men unemployed today, and have an unfavourable trade balance such as we have not experienced in any other eight-month period in Canada's history. It is startling, when we are talking about our great prosperity, to find that in this textile industry we have signs of increasing unemployment and mounting adverse balances of trade. Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a trade policy.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: In his
remarks last night the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) placed his finger on the underlying problem that is facing this house whenever it comes to examining legislation of this sort, and that is the dual role played by the vast majority of Canadian citizens, not of course excluding members of parliament. He mentioned that the same people are, at the same time, producers and consumers. It is a difficult problem for this parliament to hold the balance between the interests of individuals in their capacity as producers and in their capacity as consumers. It may be, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat has told us, that in one specific industry in this country there are many factories which are closing down or working on part-time operations because of the dumping of similar commodities from other parts of the world.
We have to take into consideration that this legislation will be appealed to not merely by the textile industry which, despite its black record as the leader of this group pointed out last night, may be in this serious condition. We can be quite sure that in the not too distant future there will be many applications from other sections of our economy for the protection of this legislation. If we can judge from the speeches made by the members of the official opposition, those applications will receive vigorous support in this house.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a simple way by which the government may ensure that it is holding a proper balance between the conflicting interests of the Canadian people as consumers and as producers, and that is to see that the interests of Canadian citizens as consumers are not sacrificed to the interests of certain Canadian citizens as producers. That is, whenever an application for protection under this legislation is received by the government from any industry, that industry should be required to open its books to inspection by the government in order that its real financial and economic position may be determined. Moreover, the results of that investigation should be tabled in this house for the examination of hon. members.
That is a reasonable request, because all the arguments that are usually advanced against the production of the books of account of industries, which usually boil down to the fact that it is not fair that the competitors of that industry should be given confidential information about the cost of operation, would fall to the ground in the case of any applications received by virtue of this legislation, since we can be sure that in any case where an application is made it will be made by the entire industry. It will not be one corporation, because they will all be affected by the existing conditions. It is only fair that the Canadian people should be informed of the precise financial position of any section of our economy that asks for protection under this legislation.
We have to remember, sir, that in effect what we are doing, when we grant this protection, is taking money from the pockets of the Canadian consumers by denying them cheap products from outside Canada. Before we do that we must be sure that the moneys we take from their pockets in this way go into the pockets of the general consumers of Canada and not into the pockets of a selected few. Therefore while, like the leader of this group, I am certainly prepared to support any legislation which will prevent the unfair dumping of goods on our markets and cause unemployment of Canadian workers, I would be dubious about supporting such legislation if I thought that at any time in the future it might be used to bolster the financial position and the profit position of certain industries in Canada, to the detriment of the consumers of this country.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not need me to support him with respect to this bill; he is
Customs Act
quite capable of taking care of himself. The bill is wise, and I will support it wholeheartedly.
I congratulate the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) on the splendid tribute he paid to hon. members on this side of the house. He said we were socialists, we were protectionists, we were reds. Then he said that we were pinks. I do not know what his conception of a pink is, but to me it is one of the most beautiful flowers that we have in our garden. It needs little cultivation. It flowers long and is beautiful, and the perfume is such that I hope he will get a lot of it behind him.


William Earl Rowe: If I may be permitted on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I feel I cannot let the hon. member for Fort William misunderstand what I said last night. I said that his party drew support from the pinks and the near reds. I did not say that he or any of the hon. members were reds, because I have such a high regard for the hon. member for Fort William in so many ways other than some of his activities in the house here that I certainly would not call him a red, nor would I want any of his associates to feel that I attributed that to him personally.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you; just a pink.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not
intend to delay the house very long, but there are certain remarks that I feel I should make in regard to this bill. It can be said that it proposes to give some additional protection to the industries of this country. That is on the basis, of course, of protecting them against dumping, which has been recognized as a proper thing to do even by people who believe in a great deal of freedom of trade.
But one of the things I should like to draw to the attention of the minister is the question as to what extent the present protection that is enjoyed by our industries is actually being used solely to protect and build up Canadian industries and give employment to Canadian employees, and to what extent it is being used to exploit the consumers and build up profits in the hands of certain manufacturing industries. This is a matter that must receive very careful consideration at the present time in connection with any bill to increase protection, particularly in some of these industries that are involved in this particular legislation.
Any of us who visit the United States know the difference in the price of electrical goods, cars, trucks and cement. Then there was the recent case of the rubber companies. One can only judge by what has happened in the administration of the Combines Investigation

Customs Act
Act. Under this act twelve rubber companies were found guilty of the infringement of certain provisions, and the judge involved said they had been guilty of cold-blooded, calculated violation of the law. The solicitor acting for the government estimated that they had taken from the consumers illegally over $1 million a year for 15 years.
It is not clear that that statement is actually substantiated by the facts; it may have been exaggerated. Nevertheless these people were found guilty of a combination under which prices were held up improperly. It is also clear that it would have been very hard for them to do that if it were not for the protective tariff. That was taken into consideration when the tariff was passed in the first place, and section 16 provided that if prices were being held up unduly the tariff would either be reduced or cancelled, or a special excise tax put on so they could not take advantage of the tariff to exploit the consumers improperly.
If this action on the part of the rubber companies has been going on for 15 years it indicates that there must be some lack of liaison in this matter between some of the branches of government. It does not help the consumers very much for these people to be brought before the courts and fined. If one group of companies have been doing it, perhaps others have been doing it. It seems to me that one of the objects should be to prevent this thing happening, instead of attempting to punish them after it has happened.
I do suggest that there should be some very close contact between the combines investigation branch and the administration of customs duties to make sure that this sort of thing is not going on. It is one of the things that I suggest should be given very careful study.
In this particular instance power is being given to the minister to decide what is the average price of goods which are imported: . . . weighted as to quantity, at which the like or similar goods were sold for consumption in the country of export during a reasonable period, not exceeding six months, immediately preceding the date of shipment of the goods to Canada.
One of the things I wonder about is how the minister is going to set these prices. Suppose somebody goes and buys some goods in the United States; dress goods, we will say. The suggestion is that there should be an arbitrary fixing of values for the minister. Then he is under obligation to calculate what the average price was in the United States during a period of time of up to six months. 
He cannot take the average price day by day; he must figure out what was likely sold on each of those days at those prices. I think that is a very big job the minister is going to have on his hands if he is going to administer this act. I do not see how he is going to be able to do it.
While we on this side have great confidence in the minister and this government, this legislation could be used to strangle trade, in the hands of a minister who wanted to strangle trade. We are passing this law and putting it on our statute books, and at some time it may be in the hands of a minister who did not belong to a party which believed in promoting trade. It might be in the hands of a minister who believed in strangling trade.
Let me point out how it could be used. If someone went down and bought a quantity of goods at a certain price and then brought them into this country they might be subject to this special duty. Then an investigation would be made and it would take some time to find out what the prices were during the previous six months and how much had likely been sold during that period at those respective prices. At the same time a ruling would be given.
In the meantime this person either would have to keep his goods and refrain from selling them, and the ruling could be held up for a considerable period; or he could go ahead and sell them and take a chance. Then if a ruling was handed down that a substantial duty was payable by way of dumping duty the person might find he had incurred a tremendous loss on this particular transaction. If that sort of thing were going to be held over people buying for importation into Canada they would be afraid to buy goods to which this law might be applied.
In other words a minister who wanted to strangle trade could absolutely strangle it by using this bill in a ruthless way. That is something I think should be brought forward at this time, particularly when we are complaining to the United States that they should stop this uncertainty in regard to goods imported into their country.
We have heard of cases where people have come up here and bought goods such as stoves, have taken them down there and then later on the department has ruled that they belonged in another classification altogether and the person has had such a heavy duty imposed that he had a tremendous loss. The result is that the word goes around that it is unsafe to buy anything in Canada because you do not know what duty you are subsequently going to have to pay.

We have said that is not consistent with the agreement we have had with the United States and that they should, if they really intend to show they mean business in promoting trade, cease this business of having trade subject to uncertainties and rulings which can be made by the minister, which means you cannot ascertain ahead of time just what you are going to have to pay in duty.
We have been making representations like that to the United States government, that our exports into that country should not be subject to these rulings which in effect are strangling our exports to the United States. I presume we are pressing very strongly that they should cease to put discriminatory tariffs against our dairy goods. There is a suggestion now that they will put on tariffs against our oats and I believe against our rye.
People are talking about the necessity of protecting the industries of eastern and central Canada. We are interested in them, too. But as I pointed out to hon. members if we get a trade war started, if we start putting on tariffs, then without question other countries will feel justified in putting on tariffs against our exports. The whole thing will pile up worse than it ever did before. Surely if we ever had an example of the inability of Canada to promote employment in Canada by the use of tariffs we experienced it in the unfortunate days of the early thirties.
If we interfere with exports of our primary products from this country, then no matter how much you put on in the way of tariffs to protect the industries of this country, the people are not going to have the purchasing power they should have. That is one of the things that should never be lost sight of. It is one of those things that may look like an innocent step, but it can be used as an excuse by people promoting similar ideas in the United States to stick by the interferences they have already introduced in regard to imports into the United States, and to introduce more.
They are smarter at that sort of thing, at interfering with imports and protecting their own industries, than we can ever expect to be. If we start engaging in competition like that and justifying them in maintaining their present interferences and extending them we will be embarking upon a course of which we do not know the ultimate end.
The position in which I feel myself to be in regard to this situation is that in the first place I certainly want to take into consideration the situation that is alleged to exist due to this so-called dumping in regard to some 83276-54
Customs Act
of the industries in the central part of Canada. When we are in difficulties we expect to get consideration from other parts of Canada. If we are going to be fair we have to look at the request of the central part of Canada. So when it is said that this is a case of really stopping dumping one is inclined to feel that he should fall in line with it as such.
There is one difficulty, one implication in this thing and one possibility if it gets into the hands of a minister who wants to strangle trade. We are passing this law, and it will be the law of our country for years to come. It gives an excuse to other countries to do the same sort of thing. If it is in the hands of an administration that is inclined to strangle trade, they could use similar regulations to interfere with trade apart from the ordinary ad valorem tariff.
When we consider that there is a problem like this, should we not stop and wonder if we are not starting the same course that we started in the early thirties when as a result of the United States, Canada and other countries raising their tariffs, we prevented manufacturing being carried on in other countries of Europe, we created unemployment there, they refused to take our products and the time came when we could not sell our wheat and great home markets were lost to the central part of Canada.
One reason I have felt that the Liberal party has had such support from the people of Canada is that it has shown itself to be the party that believes in expanding trade. The people as a whole believe that the expansion of trade is the basis of preserving liberties in the world at large, that anything which tends to curtail trade is a retrograde step. This policy was laid down in the speech from the throne in the following succinct sentence:
My ministers are convinced that nations can best achieve economic strength and security through more liberal trade and overseas investment policies and they are continuing their efforts to bring about the progressive reduction of trade restrictions.
I believe that is a true statement of fundamental economic wisdom. That is the reason, I think, the Liberal party has been kept in power steadily ever since 1935. The people of Canada came to the conclusion that restriction of trade was a mistake, that while you can justify it in certain individual cases the ultimate result is bad for the economy as a whole because other people do the same sort of thing.
Most people felt that, as we are facing a difficult period when there is going to be great pressure on the government to protect home industries due to competition from

Customs Act
other countries-competition which will come from Japan and from West Germany, where they have longer working hours-if we did start a form of protection it could result in the same thing happening that happened in the thirties, when ultimately every country suffered because each country tried to protect its own industries.
Facing as we do a situation like that, the people of Canada felt that it would be very wise to keep in office a government that really believed in increasing trade and doing away with barriers to trade. On this question it has been suggested that the Liberal party has not worked in favour of lowering tariff barriers. I wish to give a few figures because I know the attempt is made from time to time to give the impression that the Liberal party has not lived up to its policy of lowering tariff barriers and barriers to trade since it came into office in 1935.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if the hon. member
would permit a question. I find the hon. member's statements very interesting, so interesting it makes me wonder whether he would let us know if he is supporting or opposing this bill.


Walter Adam Tucker: I shall come to that in good
time. I sometimes wonder when I hear it professed in western Canada that the Progressive Conservative party believes in lowering tariffs, but I no longer believe that when I hear speeches such as the one I heard last night by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). I certainly believe the Conservative party of all parties does not know where it stands on this question.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been asking myself
whether this is the time to discuss the policies of the various parties on matters of trade. I do not want to curtail the debate unduly, but I think I should issue a warning that on this bill, no matter how wide the scope may be, I do not think members should go into the merits or demerits of various policies held by various groups over the years or their attitude now on trade.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, we heard quite a speech from the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe in regard to the fact that our party was a party that consistently raised tariffs instead of lowering them. I just want to give a few facts and figures, and it will not take me more than a minute, that will dispose of that suggestion by the hon. member.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Don't give a few; give them all.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have a table here, and I have taken the year 1935, which was the year the Liberals came into office. The total imports

at that time amounted to, and I will give them in round figures, $550 million. In 1939 it was $751 million, in 1945, $1,585 million, and in 1952, $4,030 million. In other words there was a rise in imports.


An hon. Member:: What about exports?


Walter Adam Tucker: We do not charge customs duty on exports, and I am dealing with the customs duty charged. The average rate of duty charged on all imports-and I am dealing with the percentage of all imports, because certain goods like farm implements which were subject to duty when the Liberals came into office in 1935 have been put on the free list-in 1935 was 15'3 per cent, in 1939 13-8 per cent, in 1945 10 per cent, and in 1952 9-8 per cent. In other words a reduction of more than one-third of the average rate of duty on imports has been effected by the Liberal party since it came into office in 1935.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question? It seems to me it would be interesting not merely to know what these averages are, but if we could have details of tariff changes. These averages may mean much and may mean absolutely nothing because it depends how many of these items have been on the free list all along.


Walter Adam Tucker: The best way to go about that is to take an average of all imports, and that is what I have done. If the average rate has come down by one-third from 15 per cent to less than 10 per cent, how can it be said that the Liberals have raised the tariffs since coming into office?
I will now give the average rate charged on dutiable imports. In 1935 it was 27-4 per cent, in 1939 it was 24-2 per cent, in 1945 it was 21-1 per cent and in 1952 it was 18-2 per cent. Again, Mr. Speaker, there is a reduction of one-third of the rate of duty charged on dutiable imports.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I point out that these figures are absolutely meaningless unless you give the details. These averages mean absolutely nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but if he is replying to a speech made earlier I must apologize for having allowed that speech to be made if it was not in order. I am in a difficult position. If I interpose too early then I do not allow an hon. member a chance to make his arguments. If I interpose too late then when other hon. members speak they claim the right to reply to those who have spoken out of order. There must be a limit somewhere, and I think it has now been reached. I will

not allow any other speeches which are not relevant to the amending bill now before the house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, when we
adjourned for the dinner recess I was about to indicate to the house, in partial answer to the question of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), where these figures came from so he could see that they were as close an indication of the situation as one could get without going into a tremendous amount of detail. Those figures I gave with regard to the trade of Canada, the relative rate of duty on all imports and also on dutiable imports is taken from volume I of Trade of Canada for the year ended December 31, 1952. It is a publication of the bureau of statistics.
The actual percentages I gave take the amount of customs duty paid on imports as indicating the fraction of the value of the imports, and indicate that that is the percentage of the duty paid. In other words it is a weighted figure. For example, the figure I gave with regard to 1935, namely that the average rate of duty on all imports was 15-3 per cent, indicated that the customs duty paid was 15-3 per cent of the value of the imports of that year. The average rate of duty on dutiable imports was 27 [DOT] 4 per cent, which indicated that the rate of duty paid was 27 [DOT] 4 per cent of the value of the goods imported. That went down, as I have already pointed out, to 9-8 per cent, being the average rate of duty charged on all imports in 1952, and 18-2 per cent, being the average amount charged on dutiable imports in that year. As I pointed out, that indicated that there had been a reduction, since the Liberals came into office, of about 33 J per cent, whether you take it on the basis of all imports or on the basis of dutiable imports.
The only thing I wish to say in conclusion is that if the government feel they must proceed with this bill. I urge them to consider putting it into effect for one year only. I suggest they do that for three or four reasons. One of them is this. I greatly doubt whether a law like this should be made a permanent law of our country. We might be prepared to pass it when we knew exactly the attitude of the government of the day toward interfering with trade, and the attitude of the minister in charge of its administration. However, if we pass it as a permanent law 83276-541
Customs Act
we may find a government in office which would have at their disposal a law with which they could cripple trade in a most devastating way. I therefore suggest that this house do no more than pass a law like this to have effect during a period of one year at a time, if it must be passed.
There is another reason why I make this suggestion. This is more or less a new departure. In effect it is authorizing the minister to impose a tax that he decides is proper under the authority of the law. It is going to be an extremely difficult tax to impose. I suggest that parliament should keep a tax like this under close control and have it in such a position that what has been done under this law should be reviewed as a matter of course if it is decided to keep it in force for another year. In other words the actual operations under a statute like this should be subject to review by parliament every year, just in the same way as we review the effect of other taxes when we consider the financial situation in the budget debate and on the various budget resolutions.
Then I also suggest this procedure for another reason. I do not suggest it would be so necessary with a minister of the experience of our present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) with his known ability to resist pressure, but I do suggest that it would be most helpful to a new minister who did not have his experience. The idea that would be impressed upon people who might be bringing great pressure to bear on the department and on the minister to take drastic action at times under this section was that anything done would have to be reviewed by parliament. It might assist the minister in resisting pressure to take too drastic action at any time if the people asking for it realized that, when the act came up for renewal, they might not get it renewed at all.
Therefore when we are passing a law like this I think it should be effective only for one year to begin with. We certainly should not decide on it as part of our permanent law until we are absolutely sure that it is possible to administer it, that it is not going to do more harm than good, and that it is capable of enforcement without interfering too much with the trade of the country.
I therefore urge that the minister give consideration to this act having effect for only one year from the date of enactment. If it turns out that it is useful and helpful, there will be no difficulty in getting it renewed; but certainly it will mean that this new departure will not have been written irretrievably into the law of the land. Surely the onus should be on those who want this change to be made. They should be willing

Customs Act
to have it tried for one year, and the onus should be on them to come back and ask for its renewal rather than on those who doubt the wisdom of its having to come and try to get it repealed. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when the time comes to put this bill through committee, it be restricted in its operation to one year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with a great deal of interest and a good deal of sympathy to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). As I listened to him I was wondering just where he fitted into the colour scheme which the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) used last evening.


George James McIlraith: The colour is in the hon.
member's glasses.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I decided I would not try to fix the colours, but that I would leave the hon. gentleman to do it himself. It seemed to me, however, extremely interesting to find that he was an independent, free-trade, protectionist Liberal. I think that is the position in which he finds himself.
I was touched this afternoon when, after referring to the danger of trade being strangled, he said that of course it never could be strangled in the good days of this government; but then after dinner apparently caution was stronger again, because I note that he now wishes it to be limited to one year and that he speaks of the possibility of it crippling trade in a devastating way.
There may be more truth in that statement than perhaps immediately meets the eye, because it may be that this clause could so upset, delay and slow up everything that it might cripple trade in a way which perhaps even the minister does not intend. However, that is something we can consider later.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Rosthern on doing his best to meet the various difficulties with which he is confronted and which he finds in his own makeup. It reminded me a little bit of the story of the chameleon who was put on a tartan; the poor little fellow burst.
This question of dumping is undoubtedly a matter of the very first importance, and it has been a matter of importance for a long time, although that fact does not seem to have been as clear to the government as it should have been. Churchill, we are told, was in the habit of sending around memoranda endorsed "Action this day". The minister could not do that, and I do not know what stamp the minister uses, but so far as this matter is concerned what we find is that it has not been a case of "action this day" but "action in 21 months." Let us be quite
[Mr. Tucker.)
clear what it is with which we are dealing. We are dealing not with tariffs but with dumping. We are dealing with a situation which arises almost wholly by reason of business action in the United States, and this has nothing to do with our relations with Great Britain at the present time.
In the New English dictionary we find this definition of dumping:
Dump. To import, or throw on the market, in large quantities and at low prices; specifically to offer for sale (surplus goods), especially abroad, at less than the ordinary trade prices.
It is rather interesting to note that the first quoted use of the word is to be found in the Congressional Record of 1884. In other words it was an American invention, and it is the present American use of the invention in which we are interested tonight.
Why has it come up after all these months of silence? I think the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) probably indicated one very good reason, namely that the shoe is beginning to pinch very near home.


James Joseph McCann: Nothing could be further from the truth.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I accept the minister's statement, of course, and yet I think he would be less than human if he did not sympathize with the people in his own constituency who, I understand, have actually been put out of employment. I am sure the minister does not suggest that he does not sympathize with them. I am sure what he means is that there are other reasons, and I am sure there are other reasons. I think, for example, that the speeches made not only this side but on the other side of the house within the last couple of weeks have also had their influence. There is no doubt about that. I am sure the minister and I need not have any falling out about that.
I would also think that the barrage to which the government has been subjected and which culminated to some extent in the recent visit by the textile union workers of America, who were received by the minister and some of his colleagues some two or three weeks ago-I am sure that had something to do with it also. Why would it not?
I should like to refer to the Globe and Mail of November 18, 1953, page 9, where there is a report of the meeting of the union with certain members of the cabinet. The head of the deputation, Mr. Daoust, accused the government of being evasive and of having failed to call a conference of government, management and labour representatives as the union had requested two years ago. That is 24 months ago and I said 21. I was conservative.

The ministers who assisted the Minister of National Revenue were not able to help him as much, I am sure, as they would have liked to. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was there and he was in one of his plain-spoken moods. He said in a very outright fashion:
I don't know how peacetime demand can be expected to take up the productive capacity needed in war.
That was a statement of fact, I should think, but I am sure it did not help the Minister of National Revenue very much at that moment. But I hope, as a true statement always helps in a situation, or should, that in the end it will help him. We come then to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). He was there and he is always very sympathetic to anyone who is in trouble, although he is not always able to do as much about it as he would like. He said:
Under the law, customs appraisers are authorized to set an arbitrary valuation on imported goods when it is considered that the invoice price is less than what the manufacturer is charging in his own country. It is understood here that tariff experts are now trying to devise a new basis for the use of customs men in making their appraisals. This task is one of the most technical in a highly technical field of law.
I do not think we can disagree with what the minister said there. It is a difficult task.


An hon. Member:: What are you quoting from?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is one of Canada's national newspapers, the Globe and Mail, which appears in the city of Toronto.


Mr. Hees:: Very impartial.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sure that is the way they would wish to be described, and I always like to oblige people when I can. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) also had something to say, but in general I think he agreed with the Minister of Finance so I will not take the time to quote him.
I think we should go back to the last time 21 months ago-it is hard to realize it-when this matter was up in the house and when some very interesting things happened. On March 11, 1952, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), my next door neighbour, who has the advantage of knowing a good deal about tariffs from his own business, described the difficulty here, and I should like to read from what he said. It is very clear, and I shall point out later on that the minister really paid him a compliment-I hope I can satisfy the house as to this-21 months later by really adopting what the hon. member for Broadview had said on March 11, 1952.
Customs Act
When I say "adopting" I mean that he used the same kind of argument, so close that I hope I shall be able to satisfy the house that if the hon. member for Broadview really wanted to claim the child he could do so, but I doubt if he will. At page 337 of Hansard for March 11, 1952, the hon. member for Broadview said:
As there are a number of textile mills in my riding, I should like to add my voice in asking the government to take steps to alleviate what amounts to a real depression in the textile industry. The main cause of this depression is legalized dumping of American textiles. I shall explain what I mean. Mills in the United States supply a market fifteen to twenty times the size of the Canadian market. They make very large runs in order to take full advantage of mass production methods. As they cannot forecast exactly the yardage of a particular pattern or material that will sell, they make sure to over-run, rather than incur the high cost of setting up their machines a second time. The yardage in excess of what the United States market can absorb, at regular prices, must be disposed of. If it is sold at bargain prices on the United States market, it will slow down the absorption of new lines. It is therefore desirable to dispose of this excess yardage in outside markets; the closest of these being Canada.
In order to get around our anti-dumping laws, the United States mills make one small sale at a price far below the price at which the goods are regularly sold on the United States market. The goods are then disposed of in the Canadian market, at an artificially low price, which is usually well below the cost of production of the Canadian mills. The over-runs, which may be small in terms of the United States market, usually represent a large percentage of the Canadian market. It is this flooding of the Canadian market with dumped United States textiles that has caused Canadian textile workers to be laid off in very large numbers.
Bear in mind that this was March 11, 1952.
These unemployed textile workers cannot be re-employed until the mills which formerly employed them are once again able to compete on fair and even terms with the United States mills. That time will not come until the government makes sure that the prices of the United States textiles entering Canada are the regular prices at which the goods were sold on the United States market, and not a fire-sale price, offered to clear out over-runs.
That was the statement made by the hon. member for Broadview. It seems very clear to me, and I think everyone will recognize that it was true. Then the next day we had a series of statements from the minister, and I find them very difficult to reconcile. The only way I can reconcile them is to suggest that on that particular day the minister was suffering from a split personality. I never could understand what that is, but at any rate I suggest that might explain what I am now going to read. This was on the day following, March 12, 1952, and at page 357 of Hansard for that date the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, my sole purpose in taking part in this debate at this time is to attempt to clear up.

Customs Act
some of the misunderstanding, ignorance and criticism with reference to the administrative side of the Department of National Revenue.
Those were harsh words, and I am sure the hon. member for Broadview must have been cut to the quick that those words were used about what he had said. I continue the quotation:
During the debate the matter of the textile industry has entered largely into the discussion. Last night in this house the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), as reported at page 337 of Hansard, said that he was glad that I was here and in the house, that he had some particular thing he wanted to discuss; and then he went on to say that as there were a number of textile mills in his own riding he would like to add his voice in asking the government to take steps to alleviate what amounted to a real depression in the textile industry. He said that the main cause of this depression is legalized dumping of American textiles.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a severe accusation to make. I do not think it can be verified by the facts that there has been any legalized dumping in this country at all.
Now, that quotation is found on pages 357 and 358 of Hansard for March 12, 1952. Then on page 359 there was a good deal of discussion about some hairsplitting decision concerning fair market value which was made by the Department of Justice, and to which I shall not refer at the moment. I am sure it will come up later.
Then on page 360, that is two pages from where I have been reading, the minister seemed to change his mind completely because in the course of a further reference to this matter he made this statement:
I admit frankly that I do not know what the solution of the problem is.
Now, that was a very frank and modest statement. I really commend the minister for that statement on account of its frankness and modesty. Indeed, when I thought of the frankness and modesty of it, Mr. Speaker, that set me thinking about those fine qualities which we would like to find in all the members of the cabinet. I began to ask myself, could we expect frankness and modesty in other members of the cabinet? I am sure you will agree it is not irrelevant to pursue this line of thought for a moment or two, because there is nothing of more interest to the people of Canada than the fine qualities their ministers have.
I was reminded of one or two things which interested me. One of them was a remark made in this house by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who, I understand, is now in Israel. At any rate he is not here tonight. I am not going to say anything derogatory about him; I am only going to praise him. I am going to read from something he said in this house on March 20, 1951. We were in the midst of a debate on
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
the sale of wheat to Britain, and there had been a great deal of discussion about the three right hon. members of the cabinet, to wit, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture produced this very interesting statement, which interested me at the time and the more I read it the more it interested me. I think it is not fair to keep it from the house. This is a remark which will not surprise hon. members opposite, and they will agree with it fully. It is for that reason I am going to read it to them:
... so far as the party itself is concerned I think that the party, led as it is, is one of the strongest parties we have ever had in Canada under any name.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am just coming to the point about the minister's qualities. I thought you had agreed with me that this was relevant. It is very brief. He said:
I also think that it would be weakened if any one of the three men who are being discussed so much in connection with this debate were to drop out of the party. ... As long as the three of us remain where we are, I think it will be fairly generally agreed across the country that we have an exceedingly good government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I felt sure I would find full agreement with that statement. The only other statement that was of interest to me, and this is a real matter of modesty, concerns the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). It was a surprise to me to find what an extraordinarily modest person the new Secretary of State is. I have known about his good qualities, which I highly respect, but I was surprised to find the very humble-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the quotation concerning the Secretary of State which the hon. member is about to make is as irrelevant as the previous one, I do not think I should allow it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How could you tell, Mr. Speaker, whether or not it is more relevant until I read it?


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the hon. member that I can tell because he prefaced his remarks by saying that his only other quotation concerning the wisdom or modesty of the government is one made by the Secretary of State. For the last few minutes the hon. member has been trying to tack some declarations by other cabinet ministers to the one to which he referred by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), concerning the fact that the minister confessed that he did not know the solution of a problem. I

think in pursuing that course the hon. member is getting away from the subject matter of this amending bill. I think he agrees with me, too.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, it is very rarely that I venture to disagree with you. Perhaps I had better leave the Secretary of State for the moment.
I was just saying-and I hope this will be entirely relevant-that this occurred about 21 months ago, but I think we have to give the minister credit for the fact that in 21 months he has caught up with the hon. member for Broadview. I should like to quote from the statement the minister made in order to illustrate what I said a few minutes ago about the similarity between the statement made by the hon. member for Broadview a year and a half ago and what the minister said in this house last Monday.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for taking this time. I shall not detain the house now as I cannot find that quotation. Following closely what the hon. member for Broadview had said, the minister outlined the desirability of trying to come to the rescue of the trade-I am sorry, I have that quotation now. On page 673 of Hansard for December 7, 1953, the minister said:
A number of cases have recently been brought to the attention of the government where the application of section 35 of the Customs Act has permitted the importation of manufactured goods into Canada at values which, strictly speaking the same as those prevailing for the moment in the domestic market of the country of export, are nevertheless abnormally low. The flow of imports resulting from these conditions does not reflect the true competitive position of the Canadian industry concerned. In the textile industry, for example, as the season abroad advances or as inventories of some items accumulate, certain lines are closed out and placed on the market at prices substantially less than those previously effective. The importation of such goods into Canada at abnormally low prices may cause injury to Canadian industry which is not in any real sense related to its relative efficiency or productivity.
The government believes that this situation needs to be corrected, and to this end is proposing an amendment to the Customs Act.
I have complained because there has been all this delay in coming to deal with this matter and in finding an answer, and what I am still afraid of is that we have not got an answer yet. I cannot see that the section as outlined by the minister is going to give us the protection we want. We can go into that more fully when we get into committee, but that is the first impression that one gets.
Last night the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) laid down the three qualifications of legislation. It should be clear, realistic and simple. Again I am not going to labour the point, but I do think that when we come to the details of this legislation we
Customs Act
shall find that it is awfully difficult to believe that it is either clear, realistic or simple when we come to know what is involved.
I want to put on the record some remarks from the Financial Post which I imagine a good many hon. members have read. They seem to me to be very close on the target, and to raise questions which are important and relevant. I am reading from the Financial Post of December 12:
United States dumping in Canada, especially in products like textiles, is and always will be a very real and acute problem. Geography and similarity of taste make that inevitable.
Then, after indicating the same kind of practices that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) indicated and what the minister also indicated, and what I read, the article goes on:
Against this perfectly normal business practice, it is obvious that tariffs are a very crude and ineffective defence, and previous anti-dumping legislation usually became totally futile because that segment of the United States distributive trade which specializes in "surpluses" establishes a United States domestic "price".
That I think we are agreed on, and that is what we are planning to do. I continue:
Now Ottawa when it wishes can fix valuations on the basis of the weighted average price prevailing in the country of export in the previous six months.
And that is not going to be nearly as simple as it sounds.
We suspect that in fact the new procedure is going to be one of fiddle and fumble.
In brief the new Ottawa manoeuvre puts a nasty chore on its officials-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Can the hon. member inform the house what is meant in the article by the phrase "the new Ottawa manoeuvre", because if by "Ottawa manoeuvre" is meant what is being done in the house, the article is reflecting upon the proceedings of the house, and it is not in order to read it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am reading these comments to show the difficulties which outside observers think they see in the legislation, and which it seems to me it is our purpose and aim to try to overcome. It is in the desire to make clear just what our difficulties are that I am reading this. It seems to me it would be foolish for us to ignore this, because the considerations which are raised are very practical.


Mr. Speaker:: With all respect, may I submit to the hon. member that he is quite entitled to read editorials and excerpts from newspapers provided that in doing so he does not infringe upon any points of order. If he were to read long quotations, for instance, he would be transgressing the rule which says that an hon. member should make his own speech in this house and express his own

Customs Act
opinions and not those of others. If he reads editorials that reflect upon the proceedings of this house, I do not have to quote the number of the citation but it is well known that such a citation exists, which says that an hon. member cannot put on the record opinions expressed outside reflecting upon the proceedings in the house. This is a very well known rule, and I am sure it is only by inadvertence that the hon. member is now transgressing it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With deference may I suggest that what I have read does not reflect upon the proceedings in this house; it merely suggests that the government may be submitting to this house something which is not quite full of wisdom. With deference it seems to me that is what I am bringing out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The citation says "reflecting or commenting upon".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I add one thing. It is quite possible, of course, that this will not become law, anyway, in which case the criticism would really not lie at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest that the hon. member continue while I find the citation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is one other reference I wish to read; it has to do with the consumer. The consumer has been mentioned with sympathy, and there is danger that we may forget him. The consumer of course is served, so far as goods from outside the country are concerned, by importers; and when we are considering the effects of the legislation it is important to see just what effect it is going to have on the entry of goods which should be allowed to come in.
I was struck with one thing in the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) that the legislation should be passed for only one year. If we can judge from some of the comments being made it seems to me quite likely that the law would just be getting fairly under way in a year, if these lengthy inquiries are to be made; but that is a matter which we shall be discussing later on in the evening.
I do want, however, to make this point now. It is perfectly clear, at any rate it is perfectly arguable, that the importer may be left in such a state of uncertainty for months that he will not know where he is. Do you wish to read me another lecture, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member
wishes to be well informed as to the purport of the rule, because I am sure he does not want to violate any of the rules. I was

referring to citation 265 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which says:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
He should also read citation 264, particularly the last paragraph, which says:
Bourinot, page 335, refers to these objections when he says a member may read extracts from documents, books or other printed publications as part of his speech, provided in so doing he does not infringe upon any point of order.
Then citation 265 says that an hon. member must not read anything which emanates from a person outside the house referring to or commenting on anything said in the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I defer to your ruling,
Mr. Speaker, of course. I did not realize that a slight comment of this kind would be objected to, but at any rate you very kindly allowed me to say very much what I wanted to say, so I will not try your patience any further.


An hon. Member:: You are a privileged
person.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: An hon. member suggests that I am a privileged person. There are no privileged people here. Mr. Speaker treats us all the same.
I have said all I can usefully say on this. You, sir, may feel I have said a little more than I can usefully say, but you have not pressed that point. I think I will give way to others, and then later on I shall have a happy time when we get into committee.
We have a very faint hope that there may be some value in this. We are in favour of stopping unfair dumping and we must vote for this, good, bad or indifferent. We hope it may be better than we expect. I would just leave it at that and hope that when we get into committee I shall not try your patience as I seem to have done this evening.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two comments on this bill. In the first place, I think it is born of panic to cover a panicky condition in a trade that could itself have remedied the situation that has reached a climax. I speak now on behalf of another group of industrialists or producers who have done their best for many years to eliminate the conditions which apparently have caught up to the textile industry.
I refer to the fruit and vegetable growers of British Columbia. They have organized

themselves to produce at the lowest price, to supply the market at the lowest price and at the same time stay in business. Year after year they have come to Ottawa seeking some protection against dumping, some assistance against unfair competition, and every year they have been told the same thing, that there is little or nothing that can be done.
I am referring to the unfair competition of peaches, apricots, prunes, berries and all those things which are brought into this country at prices away below the cost of production. This year shiploads of processed cherries were brought in from Italy to compete with our own British Columbia cherries. We have asked for protection but have got nowhere.
I ask the minister to consider putting in this bill a clause which would protect fruits, vegetables and canned goods. I mention canned goods because the situation there is even worse than in the case of soft fruits and vegetables. We meet competition in canned goods from South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and other countries under conditions which to my mind are nothing less than dumping. The situation is getting gradually worse.
Last year in British Columbia we consumed approximately $5 million worth of soft fruits and vegetables, and I was startled to learn that over $3 million of that total was imported from the United States. The earlier marketing of their products enables them to ship fruits and vegetables to our markets, and we feel that some protection should be given. Time and time again we have asked the department to invoke the dumping laws, but the answer has been that they have not sufficient staff to check on prices in the United States. I know they have not sufficient staff to send a man to every packing house in California, Texas and Arizona to find out what is the actual cost of production. The customs officials at the borders are helpless. They have no idea what it costs to produce a ton of tomatoes or a ton of prunes. Therefore by default and through lack of knowledge these things are being dumped in our country.
I suggest to the minister that he consider right now adding a provision to the bill to prevent the dumping by other countries of canned goods, fruits and vegetables. If the minister will assure me that the bill will cover canned goods, fruits and vegetables I will be satisfied. But I will not be satisfied if they are not covered.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house were pleased last Monday when the
Customs Act
minister indicated that the government intended to take some action to try to stop the legalized dumping of American textiles in this country, which has been going on since 1948.
As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) said earlier, this matter was explained quite clearly to the minister nearly two years ago. At that time the minister said most emphatically that no dumping was going on, and he refused to have the matter investigated. But during the last two years this dumping of American textiles has gone along merrily, with the American exporters and importers using Canada as a happy dumping ground, and laughing up their sleeves at us and particularly at the Canadian government.
As I say, during the past two years the government have done nothing but persist in sitting on their Liberal posteriors. We now see them beginning to shake themselves into some action because of pressure brought to bear on two members of the government by employees in textile plants in their particular constituencies.
The trouble all started in 1948 when this government switched from the definition of fair market value which had prevailed up to that time, to a new definition.


Mr. Abbott:: The definition which had been put in by Mr. Bennett.


George Harris Hees: Whoever put it in put in a very good definition, because it was a definition that worked.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was a cost of production definition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It was used by his successors for many years.


George Harris Hees: Prior to 1948 the definition of fair market value, which appeared in section 36 of the old Customs Act, was as follows:
In no case shall fair market value for import purposes be less than the actual cost of production of similar goods at the date of shipment to Canada, plus a reasonable advance for selling cost and profit.
That definition of fair market value is the only possible workable definition for import purposes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that definition made it impossible for dumping to take place in Canada up to that time.
Then in 1948, in order to comply with the GATT agreements-agreements which the United States exporters incidentally have not observed, either in spirit or in detail-we changed our definition of fair market value to something which bore no resemblance to

Customs Act
lair market value. And then, of all things, we allowed this definition to be formulated for us by the Department of Justice. A statement outlining this definition was made by the minister on March 12, 1952, as reported on page 359 of Hansard, as follows:
-a "fair market value" may bear no necessary relationship to production cost.
Anyone who has ever engaged in business, whether it be buying, selling, manufacturing or any other kind of effort, knows there is only one workable definition of market value, that is manufacturing cost, plus selling cost, plus administrative cost, plus a reasonable profit. No manufacturer or seller of goods has operated on any other basis than what he considered to be a reasonable profit. To accept the definition of the Department of Justice, that fair market value bore no relationship to manufacturing cost, was to me an utterly foolish and impractical thing. It has resulted in a very large volume of fire sale goods from the United States being dumped in this country during the past five years.
That definition has allowed the Americans to dispose of two types of distress merchandise: first of all, as the member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) described earlier, the kind which is the result of an over-run, as it was described to the minister some two years ago. United States mills deliberately over-run under industrial mass production methods, because they cannot bear the cost of a second set-up to make good the commitment to those they have contracted to supply.
In order that these excess goods do not clog the intake of new lines for the next selling season, they have to be disposed of in some market outside the country of origin, and the nearest, handiest dumping ground is Canada. Of course the United States mills have been aided by our government, which has simply allowed them to bring in goods on an invoice made out for one small sale at a fire sale price. What was taken as a fair market value had no relationship to the cost of production, and the goods arrived in Canada and competed with goods produced by our Canadian mills and by our Canadian workmen.
The other kind of distress merchandise has resulted from deliberate over-runs due to the fact that large mills relied for their efficiency on continuity of production, running twelve months of the year. If ten months' production would satisfy the total intake which the United States market could absorb, these mills were willing to keep on producing for the other two months at or below the cost of production, rather than see the efficiency of their machines and factories impaired.

I have talked about this matter, Mr. Speaker, to a number of United States businessmen, and asked them about the dumping operations. They freely admit this dumping. They laugh about it. They say, "We produce the goods and your government makes it easy for us to send the goods into Canada. There is nothing illegal about it. They have made it legal." It was from them that I acquired the term "legalized dumping", because that is exactly what they call it; and they laugh uproariously and say, "Of course, it is dumping. Your government invites us to do it, and we are protecting our American workmen. We do not care very much whether your Canadian workmen have jobs or not."
I do not like, and no member of my party, and I am sure no member of this house likes, to see any workman out of a job, but if it is necessary to have workmen out of jobs I would rather see them in Chicago, Atlanta or Milwaukee than in Montreal, Galt or Toronto. I say Canada first. The Americans say America first, and for the past five years we have let them get away with it, and our workers have suffered as a consequence.


An hon. Member:: Back to the Bennett program.


George Harris Hees: As regards the government's proposed legislation, it is now their intention to stop the dumping of United States textiles and other goods in this country by a formula whereby they are going to set a fair market value on the weighted average of sales in the United States market over the past six months.
That sounds like a very good solution when you hear it first. There is something very nice and workable about the phrase "a weighted average". But, Mr. Speaker, from a practical point of view, it is absolutely and completely unworkable. To start with, there are several classes of customers to whom producers in the United States sell. There are manufacturers who have to sell to other manufacturers. There are retailers, and there are jobbers. These classifications are further broken down into large accounts, medium accounts and small accounts. They all have different prices at which they buy from the original manufacturer.
Then there are further quantity discounts, and there are year-end rebates which a customer receives at the end of the year when he shows that he has bought a certain quantity of goods. When you add to these variations the many sizes, styles and patterns which can be brought into the picture, I think it is obvious that if you take all the various

types of sales that can be made, and the various qualities, sizes and so on, it is going to be a tremendous job in any one line to try to work out a weighted average over a six months period.
I think it would take several months to work out any weighted price, and an importer must know what the laid-down cost is immediately these goods land in Canada, for he buys these goods for immediate sale, especially in the case of style goods. If he waits until these investigations have been made, the selling season will be over and the goods will be of no use to him whatsoever.
If this kind of regulation is put into effect, it is going to make it impossible for an importer to import any goods unless they are simply staple products, in which case it doesn't matter how long they are held before sale. These types of goods are few in number.
I would urge the minister and his department to give this matter further study. I commend him for at long last having decided to take steps to curtail this dumping. It is a step in the right direction. My only quarrel with him is that I believe he is adopting the wrong method. I think it is a method that is unworkable, though, I am sure, well-meaning. It will cause great harm and delay, and block a large proportion of imports into this country.
That is not the purpose of this kind of legislation. Its sole purpose is to stop dumping. Legislation, to do that, must contain a workable definition of fair market value, which is the cost of production, plus selling costs, and administration costs, and plus a reasonable profit. If that definition of fair market value is returned to, then dumping can be effectively stopped, and it will not affect the other imports which we want to bring into this country at fair prices. I am sure that is the desire of all members in this house.
I know the members of my party are interested in defending the workers of this country against the breaches of the spirit of GATT which are being perpetrated at the present time by United States exporters. For that reason we are in favour of legislation to stop this dumping. I would again urge the minister to have another look at the method by which he proposes to do this, and before legislation is actually put into operation I hope he will give serious consideration to the points I have mentioned tonight.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, before this measure is put to the house there are a couple of questions to which I think we must address ourselves. I think we must consider, first, whether a case has been made
Customs Act
out for the legislation which is now before us and, second, whether it will have the effect which the government or the minister in charge believes it will have.
First of all I think it should be made clear that this measure means protection. Some of the speakers have gone to great pains to try to show that this is not a change in our tariff structure. Strictly speaking and perhaps technically speaking they may be right, but the practical effect of a measure such as this means higher customs duties. I do not believe that statement can be denied. We can put the situation into plain ordinary figures that are easy to read. For example, if we are now importing goods to the value of one dollar on which the customs duty is at the rate of 25 per cent, the government will have a rate of 25 cents on the dollar. But if the interpretation under this legislation is that that particular article should be valued at $2, that procedure automatically brings the customs duty to 50 cents instead of 25 cents. Therefore the practical effect of this legislation is exactly the same as an increase in tariff rates.
It was refreshing last night to hear the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) who made no bones about where he stands and of course, if he spoke for his party, just where his party stands. He was for protection and, as far as I could interpret his speech, the more the better. At least he spoke in plain ordinary language that anyone could understand. But as the debate has gone along there has been a tendency to try to prove that this is not a change in our tariff structure. It does increase customs duties and to that extent it does restrict trade. But the question we must decide, it seems to me, is whether such a change is justified at this time. I have not heard the minister or anyone else on the government side or on any side of the house up to this point place the case for this change, in figures, before the house.
We are told that this matter has been brought to a head-and undoubtedly that is true-by the present conditions in the textile industry. Yet neither the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) nor anyone else I have heard so far has placed before the house figures which would prove that the textile industry is in such a position today that it requires this legislation. I realize that they made representations; but that was not the first time industries have made representations. The latest figures I can see, so far as investigations are concerned, are the reports handed down by the committee on prices which sat for I believe

Customs Act
two years and reported in 1948-I was a member of it for a period of time-and also the royal commission on prices which continued the work of that committee and reported, I believe, in 1949. According to those reports it would appear to me that the textile industry-if that industry is to be used as the excuse, as the foot in the door for a protectionist policy-has not exactly gone through the hardest times in the last few years.
I shall quote briefly from some of the reports. There is a great deal more available to anyone who is interested. For example, at page 3949 of the report it is pointed out that Courtaulds (Canada) Limited jumped their profits from $489,000 in 1946 to $1,434,000 in 1947. This went on year by year until 1950 or 1951. Further down on the page we find that Canadian Celanese Limited in 1946 made a net profit of $1,959,000 and by 1947 had jumped that profit to $3,025,000. When one of the representatives of the company was a witness before the committee and was questioned as to the possibility of reducing prices to the consumer owing to the very substantial margin of profit they were making at that time, he said they were not willing even to consider doing it. I quote now from page 3949 of the committee's report:
Mr. Palmer, of Canadian Celanese Limited, admitted that for the months of January, February, and March, 1948, the profits of that company were substantially higher than for the same period in 1947. In spite of that, the witness said that company increased its prices on April 1, 1948.
After admitting that their prices were much higher for the first three months of 1948 as compared with the previous, year, on April 1 of that year they did not reduce their prices but rather increased them. The report continues:
Asked whether in view of the very high profit of the company it would not be possible to reduce its prices Mr. Palmer definitely stated that there will be no reduction.
That was the attitude taken by those companies at that time when they were being investigated. They took the attitude that controls had been lifted, that this was a free-enterprise economy and that, to put it in different words, it was no one's business what kind of profits they made or what prices they charged. That is all very fine if they want to follow through with that sort of free-enterprise philosophy. But the moment they find that they have priced themselves out of the market, the moment they find that they have raised their prices to such a point that the volume of sales has fallen off and
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
that as a result their production is becoming curtailed, what do they do? They rush to the government and ask for a measure of protection. That procedure is hardly following through on their free-enterprise philosophy.
Referring now to the report of the commission which carried on the work of the committee substantially from the point where it was left off by the committee, we find the return on the capital of a group of these textile companies, as reported at page 255 of the report which I believe was made in 1949. We find that the 1942-45 average return on capital was 10 per cent, but that in 1946 it was jumped to 12-8 per cent, and that in 1947 that was again jumped to 22-3 per cent, or in other words it was more than twice as much as the average in the period 1942-45. Yet no move whatever was made to reduce prices.
May I just incidentally mention that after listening to all these statements made today about this dumping-one of the hon. members, coining a phrase, called it the happy dumping ground for the American companies -I am at a loss to know just where these goods are that have been dumped in Canada. I am sure there are many housewives who, now that they are doing their Christmas shopping, would be happy to find out where all those dumped cheap goods are, or where all those textiles are that are being sold in Canada at sacrifice prices. When we go out to buy a shirt, a pair of pajamas or a pair of socks, we find that the price is higher than it was before.
Where are all these things disappearing that are being dumped in Canada? Are we going to accept the government's word that there is a case for this amendment? I am not saying there is not, but I say no one has made out that case or has proven in this house that the textile industry is suffering owing to what is termed "dumping". They may be suffering as to volume of sales because of their own greedy policy of raising prices at a time when they were making enormous profits. By doing that they priced themselves out of the market, and are today reaping the benefit of their own policy.
Going further into this report of the royal commission, at page 256 we find this statement:
It seems evident that some of the work clothing manufacturers have received very high profits in 1947 and that part of the increased profits during 1947 might well have been passed along to the consumer.
But they were not passed on to the consumer. At page 261 of the same report they

refer to women's clothing and we find the following with respect to the return on shareholders' equity:
In the women's clothing, this return ranges from 9-9 per cent to 23-1 per cent, while in the children's clothing group, it goes from 13-0 per cent to 72-9 per cent.
These are not my words based on street corner gossip. These are words in the report of a royal commission set up by the government to investigate prices, and among the things they investigated were the prices charged and the profits made by the textile industry. So the house will not think I am picking on any particular companies, may I say that at page 262 of the report we find a group index which shows the position of these companies in various years. Taking 1945 as 100, we find that by 1946 their profits were 109-1, by 1947 187-5, and by April, 1948, when the report ends, 190-9.
All of this to me at least indicates that they were hardly in the position where they did not know where the next meal was coming from. Either a case can be made for this industry or it cannot. I for one wish to be openminded about the matter. I should like to hear someone make a case for the industry. We have heard a lot about dumping and various other things in this debate, but as far as I am concerned no one has made a case so far for the textile industry.
There is only one more thing I wish to say. In my opinion if any industry comes to the government asking for a measure of protection, which after all means taking money out of the consumer's pocket because it denies the consumer the lower price which he might otherwise get, it should be in a position to prove its case. In the second place, the government should protect the interests of the consumer and be prepared to exercise some control over the prices to be charged. It appears to me that we are in danger of having open-end arrangements where industries can benefit from protection and yet be uncontrolled and unrestricted as to the extent to which they can exploit the public. Apparently the textile industry is being used as a test case, and so far the government has not made a case for such protection for the industry.
So far as we are concerned, we are primarily interested in seeing that any benefits that may flow from such protection of the industry are passed on to the employees. There again we have no assurance from the government up to now that the employees in these industries are going to receive benefits commensurate with the benefits to the
Customs Act
companies themselves. We would like to be assured on these matters before this measure is put to a vote.


Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that I have the opportunity of following the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), because before I have finished my remarks I hope to be able to analyse and explain to the house and to the people of the Dominion of Canada why I and others from my riding have worked so hard to have this type of legislation put on the statute books.
Inasmuch as the hon. member for Dauphin is a member of the C.C.F. party, he amazes me tremendously. There has been no effort on the part of the government to enact any legislation whatever to give relief to the textile industry until it became a case of employment for labour. Every year during the past four years I have been in the house I have said at some time that the most important job of any government is to supply an opportunity for the people of the country to find jobs. If we have full employment we have good times, and when the hon. member for Dauphin suggests that we are introducing this legislation in order to give the textile manufacturers a chance to make more money I say that he is not familiar with the conditions at all. This legislation is being put in force in order to give the labourers of this country an opportunity to earn a living, and that is always the policy of the Liberal party.
I was also very pleased that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) spoke. I like him to say that we are doing the right thing in the wrong way. His party has accused us of doing the right thing in the wrong way in the case of every piece of legislation we have put through in the past four years. I think the best instance of that which I can give is the Emergency Powers Act which was passed in the session of 1951. That was necessary. It had to be done. We had to do something about it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing Bill No. 29.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just explaining that I was commending the hon. member for Broadview for saying that we were doing the wrong thing in the right way, and I was trying to convince him and the people of Canada that this legislation would work out to the benefit of all workers in the textile industry, the same as the emergency powers bill worked out.

Customs Act


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, I think the hon. member said "doing the right thing in the wrong way", not "the wrong thing in the right way".


Henry Alfred Hosking: If I said "the wrong thing in the right way" I will say that it is the "right thing in the wrong way".


An hon. Member:: You are saying the wrong thing anyway.


Henry Alfred Hosking: There is one thing with which I do not agree. This legislation is certainly not going to be a cure-all. It will provide a small benefit for the textile workers and also the storekeepers and the people who handle textile goods in the Dominion of Canada.
Following the plan of the hon. member for Dauphin, I should like to analyse the situation and explain why I have worked so hard to see that this legislation was brought in. One of the dress manufacturers in my town came to me a couple of years ago and suggested that with the Canadian dollar coming back to normal their business was being hurt, and we should do something about it. I said I sympathized with him, but I asked him whether he did not think it was time that the people in this country who buy goods got some of the advantages of our dollar coming back to par. Because they have got this benefit, I think it is opportune that I should suggest that the government deserves a little of the credit for bringing our dollar back to par.
I listened to this man very attentively, and I said, "If you can make out a case that I believe is logical and fair I will be only too glad to take you down to the Minister of National Revenue and to our good' friend, his assistant from Kitchener, and I am certain we will have a good hearing". We did not go, but last spring he came down to see me. He said, "Look, Henry, if you do not do something about this all our small shopkeepers right across the country are going to be hurt, and it is time you did something about it". I said, "Tell me the story, and if you have a story that we can take to the minister and the department, I am sure the minister will listen".
This was his story. A dress goods manufacturer in the United States manufactures several lines of dresses. Some of them sell and some of them do not. The ones that do not sell will be out of style next year, and so will be absolutely valueless. This manufacturer invites in the big buyers. There are only certain storekeepers in this country who can afford to have buyers in the United States, stores like Eaton's, Simpson's and

Hudson's Bay. Those concerns can afford to have buyers in this country, in the United States and even in England. Practically any steamship crossing the ocean will have a berth on it for buyers from Eaton's and Simpson's. These buyers are in a position to buy those articles that will go out of style. These styles do not catch the fancy of the ladies in the United States, so these buyers pick them up and you will see them listed in the seasonal catalogues and the daily papers published by these stores.
Those articles are brought into this country because they are not saleable in the United States. They could not be sold at the price over there, so the articles are brought into this country. They are sold by the manufacturer in the United States because he knows that if he does not get $1 instead of $10 at that time, he will not get a cent in two or three months' time. In the United States the season opens in March, and in Canada it opens in April. There is a month in which the manufacturer can try out the styles and see which ones are going to sell. Our market has been flooded with this inferior type of goods.
What has this done to the storekeepers who have no buyers in the United States, who are not able to go across and buy these grab-bag articles which can be put on sale to attract the public? They are in competition with this type of thing. I was told that unless we did something about this all the little shops alcng the main street of Guelph would be closed up. I told this gentleman that if he was prepared to come down to Ottawa with that story I was quite convinced that something would be done. I wish to thank the minister for the thought and the time that he has put into this measure.
In case someone thinks I am saying this measure will bring prosperity to the textile workers, let me say that I do not think that is the case. The same conditions apply in the case of knitted goods, hats and all those industries making seasonal goods. They are all affected in the same way as the case I cited about the dresses.
Let me tell my good friends in the C.C.F. party that there has been too much animosity created between labour and the manufacturer in this country. I come from the north country and I know of the damage that has been done in that part of the country by the gold strike. I know about the damage to the mines, the miners and the places where they live. Anyone who creates bad feeling between labour and management is doing a great disservice to this country. The thing we have to remember is that this measure will be of some help. I wish it could be more.

The only way we can get back into the textile business is for everybody to co-operate. The manufacturers have to be efficient. They have to have the best machines to do the best job. Labour has to work hard because we are in competition with people all over the world who are willing to work hard, and who have to work hard to get their daily bread. We have a fight on our hands in this textile industry, and although this legislation will help some it is not going to be a cure-all. There is no substitute for hard work. We have to have hard work on the part of management and on the part of labour if we are going to have jobs which will enable us to have the things we have enjoyed in the past.
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de
Grace): I think perhaps it is encouraging to many of us to see the government giving some help to the textile industry, even though the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) does it rather in the way of arriving on a white horse, with his shoulder to the wheel, his ear to the ground and his finger on the pulse of the national economy; and that is a little bit difficult to do. I think it is almost as difficult as what he is proposing in his amendment to the act.
Perhaps I would have a little more trust and confidence in the ease with which the minister would carry this out if I did not recall a remark he made last week. At that time the minister said it was practically impossible to give a definition of what shall constitute machinery and apparatus used in the production of goods. After all, if the government does not know what machinery and apparatus is, how on earth are they going to be in a position to deal with all the problems and difficulties so adequately outlined earlier tonight by the member for Broadview (Mr. Hees)?
There is one other thing I might add. Earlier tonight someone to my left asked whether or not a case could be made out for the textile industry. I think it would be difficult not to make out a case for the textile industry. I think it would be difficult not to make out a case for any industry which is based on three simple statistics. It is an industry which employs approximately 100,000 people, an industry which produces some 700 million yards of fabric in the course of a year, an industry which has spent some $420 million in the last seven years in modernizing plant and equipment. I think those three figures give some little indication of the importance of this industry. Any person who tries to strike the ground from underneath that industry, from underneath the group of men
Customs Act
who have built it up, the group of men who have used the profits from their business to make a contribution to the Canadian economy, is certainly doing a disservice to this country. Anyone who criticizes that industry and says it has no place in Canada, that no case can be made for it, is doing a disservice to our whole economy and to the system under which we operate.
I would just close by saying that even though the horse may be somewhat spavined, it is good to have some measure of protection for our textile industry in Canada, inadequate though it may be.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: I
have listened with considerable interest to the debate on this particular question. I have been somewhat hesitant about discussing the matter, largely because I do not know too much about the textile business. I feel this bill should be renamed the bill to protect the textile industry. I am not unsympathetic toward the industry, but I have found that there are two things that sell goods in this country. One is price and the other is quality.
I feel that the matter of price is being taken care of in this particular bill, and that it is of assistance to our textile manufacturers. I should like to say a word about the matter of quality. I was hoping that one or two of the ladies might have something to say about that, because generally speaking we find that the textiles we receive in the western part of Canada are not of the same quali.ty as the ones we get from the United States. They are not nearly so colour fast as the ones we get from the United States. The matter of design of course is something with which I shall not deal. In fact I do not intend to deal with the textile industry any further.
I was hoping that this bill would have something to say regarding agriculture. I happen to be from an agricultural area. There are a few pertinent facts that one must recognize. We have quite a potato industry in my particular area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder
whether the hon. member would confine himself to the terms of the bill under discussion.


Frederick George Hahn: Did I misinterpret an earlier
statement when I thought we were talking about imports and exports? Imports consist of one-half of our business, and I am discussing the importation of potatoes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but I
cannot allow the discussion of the importation of potatoes on a bill which mentions only manufactured goods.

Customs Act


Frederick George Hahn: This had to do with processed potatoes as well as any other vegetable product, canned or otherwise, which is manufactured.
In relation to that particular question I should like to suggest that the dumping duty could and must be materially changed to look after our agriculturists as well as every other individual. We find, as I mentioned earlier-and I have to go back to potatoes to give an explicit illustration of it-


An hon. Member:: Processed.


Frederick George Hahn: Yes, processed. Early potato
growers in the Ladner area are the ones with whom I am particularly concerned at the moment, and this might apply to all potato growers across the dominion. We find-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member to refrain from discussing potatoes on a bill which deals with manufactured goods.


Ernest George Hansell: May I speak on that point
of order? We in this group happen to be at this end of the chamber, and consequently in the process of discussion, generally speaking, we are the last ones to take part in an all-round debate. Not so long ago an hon. member, who has been in the house for some years, discussed agriculture in British Columbia. He referred to fruits and the imports and exports in the fruit-growing industry of British Columbia. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander also. What one member discusses should be open to discussion by another hon. member.
Perhaps you were not in the chair at the time, and I have sympathy with you as to just exactly where you should draw the line as to what is relevant and what is not. But I do suggest that if a debate on a certain subject matter, relative or not, is pursued by one hon. member, then others should be given the same opportunity; otherwise there is a certain unfairness to the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I beg to differ with the hon. member. With all due deference, if one hon. member wanders away from the subject, that is no excuse for another hon. member to carry on in the same fashion. The rule of relevancy is a very important one. In the debate on the second reading of this amending bill a fair amount of latitude has been allowed.
It is true that other subjects were mentioned. We have heard a suggestion that this amendment be made applicable to vegetables and fruits, and I am quite prepared on this occasion to hear the hon. member's argument along the same line. I merely wish to point

out to the hon. member for Macleod that because an hon. member has been out of order it does not necessarily follow that the Chair should allow another hon. member also to be out of order. That is the one observation that I should like to pass on to the hon. member.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regard to this matter of potatoes, I have the following suggestion to make that I should like the minister to take note of. In the Ladner area we grow early potatoes. In June of this year we had occasion to import California potatoes into British Columbia. The freight rate from California to Vancouver is $1.31 a hundredweight. California potato growers told us they grew those potatoes at $2 a hundredweight. However, they were selling them on the market at $1.10 a sack, which raised the price in British Columbia to $2.41 a hundredweight. In order for our growers to compete with them they would of necessity have to sell their potatoes at $2.41. They did sell them for less just to get rid of them; otherwise they would have been left with a large surplus and would not know what to do with them.
During the same period, because the Manitoba market was firmer, they had occasion to send 23 carloads from British Columbia to Manitoba. California also sent some potatoes to Manitoba. It is an interesting fact that the freight rate from Vancouver to Manitoba is $1.64 a hundredweight; the freight rate from California to Manitoba is $1.65 a hundredweight. It can easily be seen that the Californians would have been well advised to send their potatoes to Manitoba and allow the British Columbia potato growers to keep their own market for themselves.
If this dumping act that is proposed for manufacturers were applied to the potato growers we would find that the British Columbia potato growers would be much happier men than they are today. I am hoping the minister will see fit to have this act applied to both fruits and vegetables, because this situation is true not only of potatoes in British Columbia but it is also true of fresh fruits such as apricots and peaches, and the soft fruits such as strawberries and raspberries as well as general market garden production.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 1-Value for duty where market price has declined.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there anything the minister wishes to say? Will he trace for us the history of dumping since it began? It would be desirable to know just the main features, particularly during the years just before 1948, as I understand there was a change. Will he give us an outline?


James Joseph McCann: I think I can give you a complete history of dumping. The first provision for the collection of special or dumping duty was inserted in the Customs Tariff, section 19, effective on the 8th day of June, 1904, going back 50 years.
Briefly, the minister of customs or any officer of customs authorized to collect customs duty, when satisfied that the export price of any imported dutiable article of a class or kind made or produced in Canada was less than the fair market value thereof as determined under the Customs Act, was to collect a special duty of customs equal to the difference between such fair market value and such selling price. The special duty was not to exceed one-half of the customs duty otherwise established except in the case of certain primary iron or steel products on which the special duty was not to exceed 15 per cent ad valorem.
It is specially noted that this special duty was collectable only on dutiable goods, the only exemption being certain wire rods, which were free of duty and on which the special duty was not to exceed 15 per cent ad valorem.
The governor in council was authorized to impose special duty on goods shipped on consignment if satisfied that the goods were so shipped to evade special duty.
The minister of customs was authorized to make regulations for enforcement of the provision and had authority to make regulations for the temporary exemption of any article or class of articles if not made in Canada in substantial quantities and offered for sale to all purchasers on equal terms, and to exempt from special duty articles on which the ordinary duty was equal to or greater than 50 per cent ad valorem, or where the difference between the fair market value and the selling price of the goods only amounted to a small percentage of the fair market value. Goods subject to excise duty in Canada were not subject to special duty.
In the tariff of 1907, introduced on the 30th November, 1906, section 6 provided for the collection of special or dumping duty in addition to the duties otherwise established, and provided that such special duty be levied, collected and paid although the goods were not otherwise dutiable. It was also provided that such special duty should not exceed 15 per cent ad valorem and should
Customs Act
not apply to goods on which the duties otherwise established were equal to 50 per cent ad valorem, goods subject to excise duty, sugar refined in the United Kingdom and certain binder twine. Those were the exceptions.
It was also provided that excise duties in the country of export were to be disregarded in estimating the market value for the purpose of such duty when the goods were entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff.
The minister of customs still had power to make regulations similar to the provisions in the previous act. Note that the exemption of goods carrying duties equal to 50 per cent ad valorem were removed from the powers of the minister and were made statutory. That was in 1907.
By regulation, an exemption allowance of 5 per cent was provided for iron and steel and 7J per cent for other goods. In addition, advances in market value between date of purchase and shipment were disregarded.
From 1914 to 1929 various changes were made in the application of exemption allowances, and in 1929 they were finally withdrawn.
In 1930 a further change was made defining fair market value and raising the maximum special duty from 15 per cent to 50 per cent. Freight allowances similarly allowed in the country of export were disregarded for special duty purposes and an exemption was made for goods of a class subject to duty under the Excise Act. In the case of importations from Australia, the maximum was fixed at 15 per cent ad valorem, under the Australian trade agreement. It was also provided that excise duties and excise taxes should be disregarded in estimating the market value for the purposes of special duties when the goods were entitled to entry under any tariff more favourable than the general tariff, and that customs duties of the United Kingdom were to be disregarded in estimating the fair market value of wines for special duty when entitled to entry under any tariff more favourable than the general tariff.
In this amendment, authority of the governor in council to impose a special duty if satisfied that such special duty was being evaded by shipping goods on consignment was vested in the minister, and also to collect special duty in cases where a person imported goods for further manufacture or assembly or for resale, and subsequently sold them at prices below the duty paid value, plus freight and other charges.

Customs Act
In 1933, the governor in council was authorized to fix the rate of exchange for depreciated currencies.
Effective May 2, 1936, section 6 was again amended to provide that articles could be exempted from special or dumping duty when it was established that, although of a class or kind made in Canada, they were not offered for sale through the ordinary agencies of wholesale or retail distribution or were not offered to all purchasers under like conditions having regard to the customs and usages of trade. That was in 1936. It was effective May 2, so it would be under a Liberal government. The governor in council was also authorized to determine the percentage of Canadian production necessary to classify goods as of a class or kind made in Canada, and this was fixed at 10 per cent.
In 1937 the governor in council was authorized to fix the rate of exchange for appreciated currencies and was also authorized to order that import, excise or other duties and taxes imposed in any country may be disregarded in estimating the market value for special duty purposes.
By order in council, 19th December, 1941, under authority of the War Measures Act the imposition of special or dumping duty was suspended for the time being, except in respect to fresh fruit and vegetables. This suspension expired with the expiry of the War Measures Act on April 1, 1947.
In 1948, effective 19th May, the then existing section 6 was repealed and re-enacted, as revised, to conform to the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The new enactment, still in effect, provides that the basis for dumping duty shall be the fair market value or the value for duty of the goods as determined under the Customs Act, and the amount of special duty shall be the difference between the value for duty and the selling price to the purchaser in Canada. The value for duty provisions of the Customs Act were also amended to conform to GATT. That is what obtains at the present time.
The mandatory imposition of special duty within the provisions of the section, or authorized regulations thereunder, is continued in respect to all imported goods of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, whether free or dutiable, and with the limitation of 50 per cent ad valorem. It will be noted that when you add the dumping duty it cannot go up more than 50 per cent.
The authority of the governor in council to fix a rate of exchange for appreciated or depreciated currencies and the liability to dumping duty was withdrawn. This was in line with the amendment of section 55 of the Customs Act which provided for currency

values as declared by the Bank of Canada; and in the absence of such declaration the values may be determined by the minister as effectively reflecting the value of currencies in commercial transactions.
The new section provides that duties and taxes imposed in any country of export shall be disregarded in estimating the value for special duty purposes. This superseded the prior statutory authority for disregarding excise duties or excise taxes in respect to goods entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff, intermediate tariff or any tariff more favourable than the general tariff, and also superseded the statutory authority for disregarding customs duties of the United Kingdom in respect to wines when entitled to entry under the intermediate tariff or any tariff more favourable than the general tariff, when bottled in bond in the United Kingdom and imported direct therefrom. Also superseded was the authority of the governor in council to order disregard of import, excise or other duties and taxes, in whole or in part, in respect to goods of any kind imported from any specified country.
The new section continued ministerial authority to impose dumping duty in respect to goods shipped on consignment to evade this additional duty, and subsequently sold in Canada at prices representing less than the value for duty plus all charges after shipment, including sales, distribution and advertising costs and the cost of processing, assembling or further manufacture in Canada.
The exemption from special duty of goods subject to excise duty in Canada, which has been in effect since the dumping duty section was first instituted in 1904, is continued.
The requirement that goods shall not be deemed to be of a class or kind produced in Canada unless made in substantial quantities, and the authority for the governor in council to declare the quantities to be considered as substantial, is continued. The order in council requiring 10 per cent of Canadian consumption is still in effect.
The new statute also continued authority for deeming goods as of a class or kind not produced in Canada and exempt from special duty, where similar goods of Canadian production are not offered for sale to the ordinary agencies of distribution or offered to all purchasers on equal terms under like conditions having regard to the custom and usage of trade.
A new provision was introduced in 1948 exempting goods or classes of goods declared exempt by any order or regulation made by the governor in council. Under this authority, the following goods were temporarily declared exempt. It goes on and gives a list,

and amongst these are motor vehicles, except those adapted for passenger use with seating capacity for more than ten persons, effective May 19, 1948, and withdrawn May 31, 1951. Then there is linoleum, oilcloth, confectionery, sanitary earthenware, lawn mowers, white Portland cement, etc.
The regulations providing for the following exemptions have been continued: Bona fide samples, advances in the market value after purchase, cash discounts, freight allowances, deferred quantity allowances and job lots, seconds, etc.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister tell us,
not perhaps in full detail but in general, the amounts of anti-dumping duties that have been collected and chiefly from what countries? I just wish to have a general idea of what the history has been.


James Joseph McCann: There is no segregation and
I cannot give you the figures for different countries, but for the past five years the dumping duties on importations into Canada have been, in round figures, in 1948, $1,343,000; in 1949,	$1,673,000; in 1950,
$1,735,000; in 1951, $1,547,000; and in 1952, $1,373,000.
I think the hon. member will see from these figures that very close scrutiny has been given to invoices as they came along, and if we believed that the values were abnormally below normal the dumping duty was applied. That has been applied not only to the United States but in some instances to Great Britain, Japan, Czechoslovakia and these other countries, so there is general application and the amount of duties collected in these years has run to $8 or $9 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the years the minister has referred to were the years we had a seller's market. I am interested in the previous years when the amounts are very much larger. Did I understand the minister to say it was $8 or $9 million in some years?


James Joseph McCann: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would like to go back to the years when we were suffering, and learn what the anti-dumping duties were then. I would like the minister to give us some indication, perhaps on Monday, for I would certainly like to have something giving us the background in years when we were not so prosperous.


James Joseph McCann: There is no year in which the duties amounted to $9 million. The figures
Customs Act
I have given are the figures for the past five years in aggregate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I misunderstood the minister on that point. It was no doubt the total I heard. But I would like to have the figures going back for some time, and I would like to have an idea of whether this has always been largely a United States problem. Perhaps the minister could give us these figures on Monday.
The next thing I would like to have is an explanation of just exactly what happened in 1948 when changes were made from the arrangements we had before that. I would like to know just what the considerations were. A justice department existed before then, and I would like to know what conditions at that time apparently caused the Department of Justice to invalidate what had been in effect for years, if I have understood the situation correctly.


James Joseph McCann: Of course, Mr. Chairman, dumping was not in operation before the years of the war and we cannot give figures for those years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But we were not at war in 1948.


James Joseph McCann: I have given you the figures for 1948, and we were at war up to the end of 1945.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am afraid I have not made my question clear. I think there was a change made in the year 1948, and I would like the minister to tell us what circumstances caused that change.


James Joseph McCann: Change in what?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The basis on which the value of imported goods was arrived at. The minister told us in his speech 18 months ago there was a change.


James Joseph McCann: I am informed by my officers that probably the reason for the change was to conform with our obligations to GATT.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can we have some further explanation? I do not understand to what provision of GATT the minister is referring. I would like information on that.


James Joseph McCann: The answer is that it was under article 7 of GATT, which requires us to apply actual values.
Section stands.
Progress reported.	...^
860	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Procedure HOUSE OF COMMONS



PERSONNEL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Mr. Weir:: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to ask the house to revert to motions in order that I may propose the names of those to constitute the committee having to do with the revision of the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Gilbert Weir: That Messrs. Applewhaite, Boisvert, Brooks, Brown (Essex West), Churchill, Fleming, Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), Harris, Hunter, Knowles, Lapointe, Lefrancois, Maclnnis, MacNaught, Mcllraith, Quelch, Stuart (Charlotte), Tucker and Weir shall constitute the special committee of this house on procedure appointed November 27.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 14, 1953