1958-08-13

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Were George P. LeBlanc and Alex P. Boudreau dismissed from the Cape Breton Highlands national park effective June 10, 1958?
2.	How long had each of these employees been employed by the national park?
3.	What was the reason for dismissal in each case?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Stand.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, these questions have been on the order paper for a very long time. They require only factual information, and factual information which is desired before the minister's estimates come up. Surely the minister is now in a position to answer.
Question stands.


STAFF DISMISSALS, CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Were John A. MacLellan, Lester Fraser, Dave Fraser and George MacLean dismissed from the Cape Breton Highlands national park effective June 27, 1958?
2.	How long had each of these employees been employed by the national park?
3.	What was the reason for dismissal in each case?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to the first question is no. The men listed above are still working at the park.
The answer to the second question is as follows:	John A. MacLellan, continuously
employed from April 26, 1955; Lester Fraser, continuously employed from October, 1955; Dave Fraser, continuously employed from January 3, 1956; George MacLean, continuously employed from May 1, 1952.
Question No. 3 is not applicable.


&quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK, 1958&quot;
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Was a report prepared by officials in the Department of Trade and Commerce entitled "The Canadian Economic Outlook, 1958"?
2.	If so, how many copies, and to what ministers and government officials was it circulated?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that this report was of a confidential nature and the information requested concerning its distribution is also confidential.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Argue: 1.	What was the original cost of construction of the canals, locks and other facilities that comprise the main route system of canals along the St. Lawrence river and through the great lakes, giving the years in which such expenditures were made and listing the expenditures by project?
2.	What was the cost of modifications made from time to time to these facilities, giving the year in which such expenditures were made and listing the expenditures by project?
3.	What are the estimated total present and proposed expenditures by the Canadian government on the St. Lawrence seaway, listing the expenditures by project?
4.	What are the estimated total present and proposed expenditures by the United States government on the St. Lawrence seaway, listing the expenditures by project?


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The morning press contains a statement that a Toronto firm, Aura Shipping Company, last night claimed that it made a last minute offer of $3 million for the ships of Canadian National Steamships. "Transport Minister Hees said in Ottawa that he had never heard from, or of, this firm. He did not know of any letter which Mark Rashkis, president of Aura Leasing Company, said the firm had received from him." The questions I should like to ask are whether or not this firm did make an offer, what the offer was, and why it was rejected.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I expected that the hon. member would be asking this identical question, so I have a statement I am prepared to make about it.
In November of 1957 an individual signing on behalf of Aura Shipping Company, but

Inquiries of the Ministry using the letterhead of Aurora Leasing Corporation with a Toronto address, wrote to Canadian National Steamships expressing interest in the acquisition of these vessels. They were informed at that time that the ships were not then for sale. The same individual addressed a further letter to the Canadian National in May, again expressing interest. A copy of this letter was also sent to me and an acknowledgment was sent from my office. Subsequently a decision was reached to put these vessels up for sale, and when the Canadian National issued its public advertisement inviting tenders, a copy of this notice was specifically sent to Aurora Leasing Corporation, along with a number of other companies which had indicated interest in possible purchase.
Officials of the Canadian National informed me that in response to this invitation to tender no reply was ever received by Canadian National Steamships from either Aura Shipping Company or Aurora Leasing Corporation, nor did any official of the company come to discuss the matter with officials of Canadian National Steamships concerned with this matter.
However, on July 7 the same individual wrote me again, indicating interest in this matter if the government would be prepared to pay a subsidy for operation of the service. In my reply, dated July 23, I stated that it was not the policy of the government to subsidize vessels in this trade, but that if the company were interested in purchase they should contact Mr. Bromley, of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, in Montreal, as the disposal of the ships was being left in the hands of the company. There is no record of any attempt to get in touch with Canadian National Steamships subsequent to this.
As regards the reported offer of $3 million from this company, as of this morning a letter was received by my department from the Aurora company asking if the government would be prepared to consider such a sum, but containing no other details. My announcement of the sale of these vessels was made in this house yesterday morning, August 12. This further letter from the Aurora corporation was dated August 12, and the envelope containing it, which I have here with me, was stamped at 9.30 p.m. in Toronto. Hon. members may, I think, draw their own conclusions from this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question after all that applause, and it is this. Did the minister receive an offer of $5 million from this firm in Toronto?


George Harris Hees: I would repeat that no specific offer was ever made to the Canadian National by this company in response to the Canadian National invitation to tender which was sent to them. However, I understand that what this company contemplated in any case was not a genuine purchase, but rather an arrangement under which the company would purchase these vessels, the government would then lease them from the company, and would be required to underwrite the whole project financially, not only by agreeing to lease the vessels but also by agreeing to pay a substantial subsidy for their operation.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the minister has certainly come into the house well prepared.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You could take some lessons from him.


Lionel Chevrier: No. I do not think I need to take any lessons, particularly from the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that he fires people without giving them a hearing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Harltness:: I did not say a word, but I think the hon. member could still take some lessons.


Lionel Chevrier: The remark came from that direction, and the minister makes so much noise that I had reason to suppose he was the one who made it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Wrong as usual.


Lionel Chevrier: If the minister is so anxious to give information, would he be good enough to table the correspondence that took place between Canadian National Steamships and those tendering with reference to the sale of these ships?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the ethical procedure in this regard, whether all correspondence between a company such as the Canadian National and all those tendering should be made public. I will discuss the matter with Mr. Donald Gordon, and if they are willing and it is possible I shall be glad to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a further supplementary question. Would the minister tell the house whether the purchaser, whose name I understand was Flota Maritima Browning, includes any Canadian citizens, and whether directly or indirectly there is Canadian ownership in the purchaser's corporation.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether they are or are not.
[Mr. Hees.l



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether the interdepartmental committee has completed its study of the recent report of the United Nations dealing with the effects of atomic radiation? In view of the statement in the report that even a small increase in radiation is dangerous to the human race, can the Prime Minister say whether Canada is now pressing for the suspension of further nuclear tests?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his intention to ask these two questions. My information is that the interdepartmental committee has completed its study, and I hope that tomorrow the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be able to deal with this phase of the question.
As to the second part of the question may I say that following the report of the United Nations scientific committee which was set up by the general assembly in December of 1955, full consideration will be given to the suggestions therein. That committee was composed of scientific experts from 15 nations, including Canada, to consider the general question of the relationship of this hazard to an agreement on the cessation of nuclear tests. The viewpoint of the government has been frequently expressed, and that viewpoint is that a political agreement on the suspension of atomic tests would be desirable. In that connection I would like to point out that I dealt with this matter on April 16 last in the following words:
My hope is that the nations of the free world will announce in the immediate future their desire and willingness to discontinue nuclear tests, except for the application of known explosive techniques to peaceful purposes, provided that there is suitable international supervision.
I made that statement in the course of an address delivered to the Canadian Press in the city of Toronto, and it still represents the viewpoint of this government. We do not underestimate the difficulties of reaching an agreement on the cessation of tests. We must at all times bear in mind the very important considerations of western security; and if the U.S.S.R. desires and is willing to accept what has frequently been suggested as a sound basis and as a preliminary to the cessation of such tests, a necessary element as I see it, in order to secure agreement in this direction
Inquiries of the Ministry would be the recognition by the U.S.S.R. of the principle of international supervision.
Inspection will assure security and when security is assured action should certainly be taken in this connection. While the U.S.S.R. today says it is very much in favour of the cessation of tests, it must not be forgotten that the expression of this viewpoint by the U.S.S.R. was preceded by a succession of tests, and only after numerous such tests did the U.S.S.R. say that it was suspending tests.
I believe that the achievement of agreement on cessation of tests is necessary, and to that end we shall bend our every effort. At the same time we must be sure that through supervision and inspection on both sides the promise of cessation will be assuredly maintained.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Macdonald (Kings):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the government considering the establishment of a national historic park in Prince Edward Island and, if so, what progress has been made to this end?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would like to thank the hon. member for having sent me this question yesterday. The question of establishing Fort Amherst or Fort LaJoie as a national historic park has been considered by the historic sites and monuments board of Canada at different times since 1920. At its last meeting in May, 1958, the board, which advises me on all historic matters of national moment, considered favourably the establishment of a national historic park on the island.
As the matter of establishing such a park depends upon the province providing the land free of encumbrance to the federal government, I wrote on June 25, 1958, to Premier Matheson saying that if the province acquired a suitable tract of land and was prepared to turn it over to the federal government free of encumbrance, I would be prepared to recommend that this land be accepted in trust by the nation and developed as a national historic park.
As yet I have not had a reply from Premier Matheson to this letter.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT  COMPLAINTS OF PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to a minister who, I know, subscribes to the doctrine that every Canadian's home is his castle. Has the Minister of National Defence received any complaints with respect to inconvenience and annoyance occasioned Canadian citizens by the low flying of jet aircraft over towns or other populated areas?
Second, if information as to the place, date and time of such low flying is supplied the department, can the Royal Canadian Air Force identify the plane causing the annoyance and, if so, what action is taken to protect the quiet enjoyment of life which is the right of every Canadian citizen?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. From time to time complaints have been received, and provided there is sufficient information given an investigation is carried out to determine whether there has been any breach of the regulations. If there has been any breach of the regulations, disciplinary action is taken against the parties concerned.



DOMINION RIFLE SHOOT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the creditable showing yesterday by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants at the Dominion Rifle Association shoot at Connaught ranges, when he posted 74 points out of a possible 75, would the minister consent to assign him as a bodyguard to accompany the hon. member for Essex East on his tour of the Middle East?


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member on his skill at rifle shooting; but if he accompanies the hon. member for Essex East to the Middle East he will have to go unarmed and without expense to the public. In those circumstances I think the two hon. members concerned had better arrange details.



AVAILABILITY OF NEW &quot;PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State but before I do so I should like, with your permission, to apologize to the house for misinforming hon. members about the Parliamentary Guide. It came to my notice after I made an observation on August 2 that in fact the Parliamentary Guide for the last parliament did come out. It came out at a time when I at least was otherwise occupied, and never came to my attention. What I wanted to ask the Secretary of State-and again I recognize that this is an unofficial publication but I understand it is subsidized- was whether he had any information with respect as to when the new Parliamentary Guide is going to be available.


Hon. Henri Courfemanche (Secreiary of State):: I shall inquire and let the hon. member know.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question which was directed to me by the hon. member for Niagara Falls on August 6.
No application for incorporation under part 1 of the Companies Act has been made to the Department of the Secretary of State. I would expect that if incorporation were to be obtained it would be by special act of the parliament of Canada, or perhaps of Ontario.



APPLICATION FOR INCREASED HANDLING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether he has yet received a report from the board of grain commissioners as a result of the application made by the elevator companies for increased handling charges? Is he able to assure the country that there will be no such increase this year?
I wonder if I might ask the minister a second question; whether the wheat board has yet been able to establish buying prices for grain this year and, if not, whether those prices will be established within the next few days.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In answer to the first part of the question, I have not yet received such a report from the board of grain commissioners. In answer to the second part,
I have been advised that the wheat board has established buying prices for the various grades of wheat it sells, and an announcement to this effect will be made very shortly.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. I wonder if the minister is able to say now whether those buying prices will be the same as last year or whether there would be some differences.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When the announcement is made and the prices are published a comparison can be made with the prices for last year, but I have not got the figures in my head now.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that the announcement has been made that over half the victory bonds have been turned in for conversion, is the minister able to supply us with any information with regard to the percentage of these turned-in bonds which were held by individuals?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no such figures are available as yet. It will probably be after the campaign is over before there will be time to complete such figures, but there are some indications already in the light of the returns that have been made. I indicated when this campaign was launched that according to the best estimates available- which cannot be absolutely precise having regard to the fact that many of the bonds are in bearer form, but having regard to the individual bonds, the number of pieces of paper outstanding-the best estimate of those qualified, I believe, to form a judgment in these matters was that there are two million individual holders of these outstanding Canada victory bonds. I am told that in the light of the recent returns that estimate has been confirmed.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister say two million individual bondholders or two million bonds held by individuals?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I said two million holders of the bonds. We
Inquiries of the Ministry are dealing with amounts here in the aggregate sum of $6,400 million. I said at the beginning, and I repeat for the information of the hon. member, that the original estimate which I gave publicly was that there are two million individuals, that is, not including corporations, provinces or municipalities, but two million individuals, holding Canada victory bonds, and I repeat also for the hon. gentleman's information that according to the information now being received that estimate is confirmed.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that he has information to the effect that approximately two million individuals hold bonds that would be open for conversion. What is the estimated value of those bonds?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I said that an estimate had been made by those who in my opinion are competent to do so; but as to the exact amount, I am not prepared to give a figure at this time.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister said he was not able to give the house any information with respect to the proportion of applications for conversion in the various categories. Are we to take it that so far only applications are being received and no new bonds are being issued?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. friend was aware that delivery of the new bonds begins in September. The actual new bonds are not handed to persons applying for conversion at the present time. The procedure is to take the old bonds in and delivery of the new bonds will be made later as the campaign proceeds. There has not been an attempt under the pressures of this campaign to take off exact figures as to the amounts in the four categories that those who are converting their bonds are taking. The emphasis at the present time is on pressing the conversion to a successful conclusion and the results thus far, I am happy to say, are extremely gratifying.
There will be an opportunity after the pressures of the campaign are over to reckon up precisely the amounts of the four categories that the converting bondholders are taking. There are 5,000 agencies that are reporting each day on the conversions that are being made. I think my hon. friend will appreciate that it would be a waste of manpower to attempt to catalogue those precisely every day, but I can tell him that the reports I have received are to the effect that a gratifyingly substantial proportion of the bondholders are selecting the 25-year maturity.

Customs Tariff


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. I am sure that the minister would like to reflect on his previous answer. Does he not realize that two million individuals would represent half the households in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it unnecessary to answer that question, which is obviously an argument rather than a request for information.



WAYS AND MEANS

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

[Stage Direction]
7. Resolved, that schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff item 554b, the enumeration of goods and the rates of duty set opposite that item, and by inserting therein the following item, enumeration of goods and rates of duty:
Tariff Item-554b (1) Woven fabrics composed wholly or in part of yarns of wool or hair, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; mostfavoured-nation tariff, 271 per cent; general tariff 40 per cent; and, per pound: British preferential tariff, 20 cents; most-favoured-nation tariff, 30 cents; general tariff 35 cents.
Provided, that the total duty leviable shall not be in excess of, per pound: British preferential tariff, 60 cents.
(2) Woven fabrics composed wholly or in part of yarns of wool or hair and weighing not less than twelve ounces per squared yard: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 271 per cent; general tariff 40 per cent; and, per pound: British preferential tariff, 15 cents; mostfavoured-nation tariff, 30 cents; general tariff, 35 cents.
Provided, that the total duty leviable shall not be in excess of, per pound: British preferential tariff, 55 cents.
Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose last evening I was making some observations on this resolution, and during them I indicated that we in this party would not be able to support it. The resolution, which is based on a report of the tariff board, brings up not only the whole question of the position of the woollen industry in Canada but has a bearing on our trade relations with the United Kingdom. We in this party are very conscious of the fact that on every conceivable occasion the government professes its devotion to anything that will increase trade between our country and the United Kingdom. This particular resolution will certainly not have that effect. Perhaps it does not go very far in increasing the protection against British woollens. Perhaps it is no wolf in sheep's clothing, but its implications both in respect of trade with the United Kingdom and in respect of protection generally are important. It is primarily because of these implications that we are opposed to the resolution.

The report of the tariff board on reference No. 125 on which the resolution is based, gives a great deal of information, statistical and otherwise, about the Canadian woollen industry before it makes the recommendation it does. Anyone reading that report must, I think, be struck by the fact that the members of the board seemed pretty uncertain and not too confident in respect of the recommendations they were mailing.
In their report they indicate, and present a good deal of evidence to support the indication, that for a good many years now the woollen industry in this country has been declining. There are many figures which bear out that statement. In 1946 there were 100 woollen mills in Canada. By 1950 that number had been reduced to 85 and in 1957 it was down to 54. In 1946 there were 9,900 Canadians employed in this industry and by 1957 that number had been reduced to 5,729. As a whole the operations of the industry are unprofitable in spite, I think one should add, of the efforts of the industry to operate efficiently. There is indeed a declining market. That is shown by the fact that in 1948 47 million yards of woollen fabrics were sold in Canada and in 1956 that figure had gone down to 37.9 million, and the per capita consumption of wool cloth had gone down from 3.78 yards in 1948 to 2.36 yards in 1956.
All this, of course, is primarily due to a lessening demand for wool fabrics in favour of other materials, a demand which has nothing to do with imports at all. It is quite true that over recent years there have been increased imports of woollen fabrics into Canada, but that increase in imports-and I mentioned this last night-has not come from the United Kingdom, which is the only country affected by this change of duty, but from other countries which are not affected by it at the present time; particularly Italy and to some extent Japan.
Despite the increase in imports of woollen goods and woollen fabrics since 1954, the United Kingdom has supplied a decreasing proportion of our needs. In 1954 some 92 per cent of our imports came from the United Kingdom. In the first half of 1957 only 75 per cent came from the United Kingdom. As I have already indicated, Italy has been the big gainer with regard to the increase in imports, and Italy is not affected by this change. Italy has gone from 232,000 pounds in 1954 to 1.4 million pounds in 1956.
We have been informed by the minister that, because that is a bound item under GATT, steps are being taken to preserve the existing margin of preference by renegotiating the most-favoured-nation duties with Italy and, I suppose, other countries.

As the minister pointed out last night, when you go into that kind of negotiation you have to give concessions as well as get them. We do not know what concessions will be required from Canada.
Italian competition, which is increasing in importance in this country, I suppose arises to a large extent from the skilful use of Italian material and the lower cost of operation as compared with Canada, as well as from the styling of Italian fabrics in the low-price field. All these things have had an important influence in extending the market in Canada for Italian goods. If that extension is to be interfered with by negotiation under GATT, and presumably that will have to be done if the margin is to be preserved, the Italians have it within their power to ask for concessions or to retaliate against us.
There at once comes to mind, and I have no doubt there will be other members on our side who will emphasize this, the fact that Italy is an important market for Canadian products, especially fish products. We would certainly not want to support any action which would prejudice that market.
The trend, then, in the Canadian woollen industry, as I have indicated, has been downward in recent years. In 1956, although there had been a good year in the previous year, 1955, there was a drop of 2 million yards in the woollen fabrics shipped from Canadian mills, even though the total demand in that year had increased. I repeat that it is not the inefficiency of the Canadian woollen industry which is responsible. Indeed, the Canadian industry has already improved its efficiency since 1954, and there is a higher amount of cloth now shipped from the mills per worker. Certainly the reason is not excessively high wages in the Canadian industry. Of course the wages here are higher than the wages in Italy and higher than the wages in some other countries, but the woollen industry has one of the lowest paid groups of workers in Canadian manufacturing. If you compare the average weekly earnings for workers in the woollen industry in 1956 with the average for all manufacturing industries in Canada, you find the wool figure is $46.4 and the average for all manufacturing is $62.3.
It was in the face of this situation that the tariff board went into this question and made its findings. The industry, before the tariff board, claimed that because of its higher labour costs-they do not seem to have been excessively high-it required assistance to compete on equitable terms with its competitors. The tariff board, in examining the question, admitted the higher costs in Canada, but the tariff board went on to say:
57071-3-218
Customs Tariff
It is the opinion of the board that disparity in costs cannot be the sole or necessarily even an important factor in determining levels of tariff protection.
Then the tariff board examined the question-and this is of very great importance to us-upon which I have already touched, as to whether further assistance to the woollen industry in the way of increased protection would damage Canada's overseas markets. In this connection we must recall, and I think I mentioned this figure last night, that when we do something which will make it more difficult to export to this country these British woollens, we interfere with the export of the largest single commodity coming from the United Kingdom to Canada. About $35 million worth of wool was exported to this country from the United Kingdom in 1957. The tariff board had this to say on this point, and I quote from its findings:
The board appreciates the concern of these parties that the granting of additional protection to Canadian industries would impair the United Kingdom ability to earn dollars which would in turn reduce Canada's markets for her export products.
I must say in fairness, however, that the board went on to say:
Such cloths-
Those represented by United Kingdom sales to Canada.
-are only a small proportion of total exports of wool cloth from the United Kingdom.
This may be true, but they represent $35 million worth of exports from the United Kingdom. Then the board went on to say this:
The board considers that on balance it should be possible without undue harm to Canada's export trade to offer to the remaining core of Canada's wool cloth industry a better chance of survival.
That is all it was proposing to do in the recommendations which it made and which were accepted by the government, merely to offer the industry a better chance of survival. The board did not suggest in its report that the changes which were recommended would save the Canadian woollen industry. It went on to point out, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River mentioned last night, that the maintenance of this industry in a healthy state, indeed its very survival, remains essentially a matter of high policy for the government, and it would not certainly be determined by any recommendations made by the tariff board which are embodied in this resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he would indicate what he would propose in order to meet the needs of the situation?

Customs Tariff


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I do not happen to be part of the government at the moment. Last night we asked the minister if he would indicate why the government was producing this resolution. What had it in mind? What was the basis of its policy? What determined it in accepting this resolution? If he had taken us into his confidence at that time perhaps we would have been in a better position to deal with government policy at this moment.


Mr, Fleming (Eglinion):: If you have a policy you have not declared it yet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is certainly no policy, and we are against it. I am proceeding to indicate why, and before I finish perhaps I might even-though it is going to be very difficult, I know-convince the Minister of Finance that in putting forward this particular recommendation as government policy, all he is doing is getting the worst of both worlds.
The tariff board obviously debated with itself as to the wisdom of granting the kind of assistance which would preserve this industry. On page 42 of the report it had this to say:
Whether or not the Canadian taxpayer should further assist, by increased tariff protection, the domestic wool cloth industry is debatable-
Then the board went on to raise three considerations upon which the assistance might be justified. I thought perhaps the minister, if he had bothered to speak on this matter last night, might have indicated whether these considerations weighed with the government in accepting and putting forward the policy it is putting forward. The first consideration was national security. The board said that such a decision is a matter for consideration on strategic grounds and not one upon which this board is expected to offer an opinion, much less give advice. Nor does it presume to do so. Mr. Chairman, it would be very difficult indeed to justify the action which is being proposed on any grounds of national security.
Then the second consideration put forward by the board, also on page 42 of its report, was economic grounds. The board had this to say:
It is difficult to see, on the basis of economic criteria alone, that Canada should keep in being, or permit or encourage to grow, an industry which appears to have little hope of competing profitably with its own competitors abroad or of maintaining its place relative to other domestic industries offering greater opportunities for growth and success.
This is a very important statement by the board on this industry. Then the third consideration put forward by the board that

perhaps justified increased protection was the social factor. Having refused to pass on the national security factor and having found no justification for increased protection on economic grounds, the board did go on to say, however, that the industry has, and I quote from page 43 of this report-
-a social significance which, while it may lack substantial economic grounding, is not something that may be dismissed, even in these spacious times, as of no consequence to the nation.
Then further at the same page:
It is an aspect of an economic problem in respect of which only "high policy", in the most literal sense of the phrase, can be expected to come to judgment.
In the light of these factors, or in the light of these considerations, what will the action recommended by the government do to meet them? Certainly this action will not, quoting again from the report of the board, "put the industry on easy street". It will not, according to the board, "keep the industry in being, as a going concern, for an indefinite period in the future". It will not grant, according to the board again, "the protection it (the industry) sought and argued for at public hearings". The protection recommended will give the industry a

-measure of assistance that will permit it to continue to fight for its existence, at least until such time as there may be enunciated, by the proper authority, a carefully considered decision in high policy regarding the future of the Canadian wool cloth industry.
In other words this is a kind of stop-gap recommendation on the part of the government, something tentative until something else can be worked out. The policy that is recommended in this resolution will not save the Canadian industry. If it will not save the Canadian industry, what will it do? As I said last night, it prejudices our trade relations with the United Kingdom on the very eve of a commonwealth economic conference about which my hon. friends talked so much as being such a hopeful development in commonwealth economic relations. Surely it is a depressing prelude to the conference to take action of this kind, which will do little or nothing to save the Canadian industry but which will offend and anger the United Kingdom on the eve of this commonwealth conference.	,	.
I gave some examples last night, some observations by the high commissioner of the United Kingdom in Canada and by two leaders of the British woollen industry, which show that this particular action has distressed, disappointed and irritated them on the other side. Coming as it does after all the fervent declarations we have heard from the other side of the house about the desire of this

government to increase trade with the United Kingdom and to divert our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom, psychologically this action must have, and indeed it has, come as a shock to our friends overseas. The reaction in the United Kingdom shows the nature of that shock to be one of surprise and anger.
That is what I mean, Mr. Chairman, when I say that whatever policy we might have adopted if we had been in power, we certainly would not have adopted a policy which is designed to get the worst of both worlds. Because of that consideration, Mr. Chairman, we shall have to vote against this particular resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in the C.C.F., Mr. Chairman, feel that it is a mistake at this time for the Canadian government to move in the direction of higher tariffs, either generally or in relation to British woollens. We believe that at this time in the world's history the expansion of trade is becoming more and more important to the free world, and that everything we do in Canada and in other nations within the free world should be directed not against an increase in trade but rather toward a large expansion of it.
At various times the Prime Minister himself and other prominent men in the western world have referred to the growing Soviet trade offensive. They have said that in their judgment the economic offensive now being launched by the Soviet union and also by China is a greater threat to the western world at this time than the threat of aggression or the use of atomic weapons. If the future of western civilization is going to be tied so closely to our success or failure in bringing about an expansion in trade, surely it is not sensible, logical or in the interests of democratic society that we in Canada at this time should be moving in the direction of trade barriers.
Another reason that this increase is ill timed is the imminence of the commonwealth trade conference. If the government had sincerely felt that this move should be made; if they had felt that there should be a general increase in tariffs against goods from commonwealth countries, surely in the interests of good relations with other commonwealth countries these moves should not have been taken until after the commonwealth conference. From reading the press we know that the reaction in the United Kingdom to this very proposal has been most adverse. We know that prominent industrialists and leaders in the United Kingdom are alarmed at this apparent new trend in Canadian policy. If the government had deliberately set
Customs Tariff
out to impede and block-yes, even to wreck- the coming commonwealth trade conference and the chance of its being successful, it could have done nothing to bring about this result more certainly than what it is doing now.
In the light of the wishy-washy, weak-kneed report of the tariff board, I do not know why the government acted at all. The tariff board weighed both sides very carefully in considering what should be done. Then apparently one small grain of sand tilted their judgment on the side of recommending these tariff increases. With such a pale and innocuous recommendation, the government acted. All that fact suggests to me is that the government will give extremely rapid and sympathetic consideration whenever there is a suggestion that trade barriers be increased. However, I see little or no indication that the government is prepared to act in the opposite direction and reduce trade barriers.
In the history of this nation the Conservative party has been known as a high tariff party. As soon as the Conservative party obtain the reins of office they use their power to increase tariffs and provide impediments to trade. In the light of the government's many promises with regard to its intention to do everything possible to expand world trade and to expand commonwealth trade, Canadians generally all hoped that the government would be moving in the direction of reducing trade barriers, even in the light of its history; but apparently the forces within the Conservative party who believe that protectionist measures should be increased are in the saddle, and they have moved in this direction. Many Canadians also felt that since the Prime Minister himself as a private member of this house, both inside and outside of this house has for many, many years expressed his support of a reduction in tariffs and the freeing of commonwealth trade, this government would not be acting as it is now acting.
I have said that the report of the tariff board on the woollen industry was on both sides of the matter. It did not seem to take a very strong stand either way, though it did seem to recognize some of the very great difficulties now faced by the industry. On page 43 of the report I find the following statement under the heading, "Social Significance of the Industry":
But-the wool cloth industry is here. It has a social significance which, while it may lack substantial economic grounding, is not something that may be dismissed, even in these spacious times, as of no consequence to the nation. This aspect of the situation is one which, upon humanitarian grounds alone, cannot be written off as plants or equipment can be written off; it is an aspect of an economic problem in respect of which only '"high policy", in the most literal sense of the phrase,

Customs Tariff
can be expected to come to judgment. The industry is, by and large, a small town industry. Very often, even today, it is the industrial backbone of semi-rural communities. It is currently giving employment to several thousand Canadians and affording the means of sustenance to their families. Partly because of its long association with scores of localities, it is part of the warp and woof of Canadian life. Often, in its own area, it provides the only openings for skilled or semi-skilled labour.
That is an enunciation of the importance to the Canadian economy, in particular to certain sections of the economy, of the wool cloth industry as it now exists. But did the tariff board do anything? Did they recommend anything to maintain the position of the industry and keep it healthy? It admits that it has not, because on page 44 one finds the further statement that the board is not prepared even to recommend tariff treatment that might within reason be expected to keep the industry in being and as a going concern for an indefinite period in the future. So with all the bad things which flow from what the government is now doing, those who work in the woollen industry cannot from the words of the tariff board take very much encouragement from what is being done, because the tariff board says in effect that little or nothing should be done to save this industry.
As our nation progresses and as we improve our technology through the years certain industries are bound to be adversely affected; certain industries are bound, if nothing else is done, to become depressed industries. The textile industry is certainly not the only industry in Canada which is being affected in this way; we know that this applies to the coal industry and to the gold mining industry. With fixed prices their costs go up, and the gold mining industry is having greater and greater difficulties.
We in the C.C.F. have great sympathy, not for the companies, not with respect to their profit and loss statements and not with respect to the return on investment, but we have sympathy for the people who work in those industries. We feel, as was said in a previous debate, that when the government undertakes to institute policies ostensibly to help an industry, as it has done for example in the gold mining subsidy, consideration should be given to whether or not such help will result in an improvement in the position of the workers in that industry, and will not be pocketed by the company so that the workers from that point have to negotiate with the company to try to get, if they can, a fraction of the aid given.
I would like to see a full national inquiry into the textile industry, into the coal industry, into the gold industry and into the other depressed industries in this nation. I
IMr. Argue.]
would certainly include agriculture, particularly on the prairies, as a depressed industry.


An hon. Member:: The pulp and paper
industry?


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but we are not at present dealing with matters concerning general conditions in the gold industry, the pulp and paper industry or any other industry. We are at present discussing a resolution with respect to the textile industry, and I would ask the hon. member to please confine his remarks to that resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I had been saying that I felt a full scale inquiry should be made into our depressed industries, and I had in mind in the first instance the textile industry, which is the industry we are discussing by way of this item. I have mentioned certain other industries, but I agree that any extensive statement or reference to other industries would be out of order under this item.
What I was endeavouring to say was that I would not wish to see one policy adopted for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for adopted for other industries which are also depressed. The objective I would have in recommending such an inquiry would be to enunciate a policy based on whether, after full investigation, it was felt that the industry should be maintained at its present level or that it should be expanded or contracted; but that in any movement of Canadian resources into or out of such industry there should be full consideration of the effects in order to make certain that there should be the minimum of hardship suffered as a result of any changes made.
I believe that if adequate plans were made it would be possible for workers, when their transfer became necessary to some other industry, to effect that transfer without any loss of their property or standard of living. What happens now is that they are sacrificed by the industry which is in difficulty, and there is resultant human hardship. Even if the tariff is increased by the government it is not likely, as stated in the report, to result in any real alleviation of such hardship. In the past the C.C.F. has moved motions in this house asking for inquiries to be made in somewhat the same way I am now proposing in order to see whether or not some type of insurance could be set up to be used by people engaged in industries obviously depressed, and where the maintaining of such industries at their present levels was questionable.
The C.C.F. has given a good deal of thought to the whole question of the textile industry on many occasions in the past, and while I do not want to bore the committee unduly

by referring in any great detail to our policy, I would nevertheless like to quote from a statement on C.C.F. policy on the textile industry adopted in this city on March 20, 1957, as follows:
The C.C.F. urges that vigorous government action be taken to rehabilitate the textile industry and to relieve distress, not only among textile workers but in communities hard hit by the textile slump of recent years. In particular the C.C.F. asks the government to:
1.	Endeavour to fill defence and other government orders for textiles from Canadian plants before placing any such orders abroad;
2.	Eliminate the 10 per cent sales tax on clothing so that total sales of textiles in Canada may be increased;
3.	Provide for the orderly importing of textiles through export-import boards and the setting of appropriate quotas which will:
(a)	enable the Canadian industry to plan for the future;
(b)	guarantee Canadian consumers an economical supply of good quality textiles at fair prices;
(c)	provide security for the workers in the industry;
4.	Ensure fair trade practices and prohibit the unfair dumping of textiles into Canada at distress prices;
5.	Supervise the prices of textiles with power to fix or limit prices if necessary, so as to ensure that neither the consumers nor the workers are exploited by the textile companies;
6.	Take action to promote the modernization and increase the efficiency of the textile industry and thus to maintain wage rates and working conditions comparable with other industries;
7.	Actively assist in the establishment of alternative industries in communities where plants have closed down and there is no likelihood of their reopening soon;
8.	Provide vocational training for textile workers where necessary to re-establish them in other industries;
9.	Provide federal aid to help workers relocate in other areas if necessary to ensure full employment.
Those were the nine points that were enunciated as proposals to meet the great difficulties which the textile industry now faces, and more particularly the difficulties now facing the workers in the industry, while at the same time keeping in mind the interests of the Canadian economy as a whole.
Before I resume my seat, I repeat that this type of proposal by the government will do little to assist the textile industry, but it may do a great deal of harm by being adopted just before the commonwealth trade conference convenes. We hope the government will even now be prepared to allow this proposal to stand and not push it through parliament during this session, because we feel that this is the worst possible way by which the administration could deal with what we all admit is a very difficult problem. We think the efforts of the government should be directed toward increasing international trade and increasing the standard of living of all the people in this country, and in that we include the workers in the textile industry.
57071-3-219
Customs Tariff
(Translation):


Mr. Lafreniere:: Mr. Chairman, it is with pleasure-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I have recognized the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Anderson). If the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency will kindly wait a few moments he will be next in line.
(Text):


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not criticizing the Minister of Finance, because he has been of great help to me with his knowledge of the constituency which I serve and the large number of woollen textile firms in my constituency, but again I draw to the attention of the committee the serious plight of the various textile mills concerned, both woollen and cotton, in my area. Three large mills have closed completely, one with a subsidiary in Barrie and another in Peterborough. I may say that these large firms employed 2,500 employees, and according to the last information I had there were only four in the plant. And I received word yesterday that the largest remaining mill in my riding will be forced to close at the end of this month unless something can be worked out during the next few days.
While the management of the various mills are grateful for the meagre increase in the British preferential tariff, no change has been made in the most-favoured-nation tariff or the general tariff, and the reason for the major portion of our lost trade lies in increased imports from Italy, and some from Japan. The effect of these large mills closing is serious, and when I think of the wonderful contribution these firms made to the Canadian economy during war years I wonder where the government would turn in the event of a national emergency for the type of materials which were supplied by two of these very large firms in my constituency. One of these firms, the plant that may close this month, manufactures more than one third of all the woollen blankets made in Canada. The other, which is already closed, turned out a very large percentage of all the uniform material required and used in all the three services.
One of the mill owners, speaking to me a few weeks ago, put it very aptly, I think, when he told me that he realized the government had to plan in advance for defence and in so doing had to spend many millions of dollars. A striking example was the development of the CF-105. And yet, he said, they did not yet even have the pants for the pilots who were to fly these planes. It is my sincere hope that the government will make strong representations to the tariff

Customs Tariff
board that more protection should be provided for the industry in Canada against imports from Italy, Japan and other countries.
The closing of these mills has caused a serious increase in unemployment. My own area has long been well known for its fine textile plants at Galt, Preston and Hespeler, and for the fine products these mills have produced. It is a pity to watch the slow strangulation of an industry which has been carried on almost since confederation, and to see large numbers of people being turned over to the ranks of the unemployed. I sincerely hope we are not to lose the knowhow of third and fourth generations of the world's best textile workers, and that is what has been happening in my area, where so many have had to turn to other forms of employment. Their skill and know-how are being lost, and I urge the government to study this situation carefully and make the necessary representations to the tariff board in order to correct this serious situation.
(Translation):


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Chairman, it is easy to see that several members of this house are very much interested in the problems of the textile industry.
Well they might, Mr. Chairman, for there are no less than 745 textile establishments in Canada. The industry can therefore be said to be decentralized, a most important feature for the economic life of the country as a whole.
As far as I am concerned, I represent a riding where there is a textile plant, which in 1946-47, was employing about 2,000 workers and has now only 1,200 to 1,300 employees, merely on part time basis, that is, who work only three or four days a week. The same is true, Mr. Chairman, of several larger centres in Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. A number of towns are in the same position as Montmorency, in the riding of Quebec-Montmorency, in that their economic survival depends on a single industry. And since, in most cases, they are textile centres, if the mills should close down, those communities would become ghost towns. That is why it is essential that the government do something to help the textile industry.
Since we are supposed to speak only about woollens, it might also be useful to mention that in Canada some 54 establishments manufacture wool textile, while 36 of them manufacture only or mainly those products. Last May that industry had 11,000 people on its

pay roll, roughly 6,000 less than in 1950. It is sad to note that, in the last four or five years, some 25 factories have shut down and that others are in a shaky position.
Mr. Chairman, this general economic slowdown and this relative lack of jobs in certain areas and industries are what the tariff board had in mind when, last November it launched its inquiry which resulted in recommendations designed to make slight increases and adjustments in the customs duties on British woollens imported into Canada.
The improvement which will result from the adjustments recommended by the tariff board, since implemented by the government, will benefit the public of Canada. Of course, everybody understands that this is a temporary measure, but the government deserves to be commended for taking the only action possible in the circumstances. As everybody knows, we are going through a period where, in spite of the relatively high standard of income per capita and of national income, in spite of the growth in population and increased demand for goods, Canadian industry is losing ground instead of making any headway. Part of the explanation for this seemingly contradictory situation is the fact that world textile production has substantially increased in the last ten years. After the war, Canadian textile manufacturers could profitably market their entire output, not only in Canada but on the international market. Today, foreign producers can supply the demand on the international market at prices lower than production costs of Canadian manufacturers. Accordingly their sole outlets now are on the domestic market. But there also foreign competition is felt to the detriment of Canadian industry. For instance, in 1946, 72.5 per cent of woollens sold in Canada were of Canadian manufacture. For the first six months of 1957, that proportion was reduced to 47 per cent.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, production costs of Canadian textiles are relatively higher than they are in the textile mills of, say, England and Japan. On the other hand, production costs in the Canadian textile industry are not out of line with those of other Canadian manufacturing industries.
It is therefore pretty obvious that this important Canadian industry needs some degree of protection. Its prosperity would benefit all Canada and Canadians. Let us

therefore congratulate the government for this proposed amendment to the Customs Act and more particularly for the increase of tariff item 554b.
Moreover, as the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech of June 17 last, I quote:
The government intends to defend Canadian producers against the practice of dumping, whatever form it may take. This will require the strengthening of the present valuation provisions of the Customs Act and their effective enforcement.
As to the increase in custom duties, it is worthy of note that, about 30 years ago, a duty of 50 cents a pound was levied on British woollens imported into Canada. That measure was designed to promote imports of some of the expensive fabrics which were then considered a British specialty, and which were not manufactured in Canada. It was felt then, and rightly so, that the regular rate would raise the price of such fabrics to more than the Canadian consumer would be prepared to pay. Since that type of cloth was unavailable in Canada, it was felt it might be unfair to Canadian consumers and also to British manufacturers.
But, since that time, the situation has undergone a radical change. Prices have gone up to such an extent, on the whole, that practically every British fabric is just as high priced today as were the most expensive ones only a few years ago. As a result, practically all the woollens entering Canada from Great Britain were taking advantage of the maximum custom duty of 50 cents a pound. This had never been contemplated by the makers of the customs tariff and it obviously discriminates against Canadian manufacturers of similar fabrics. After many representations from the leaders of the Canadian woollen industry, the tariff board recommended that the maximum duty be increased to 55 cents in some cases, and to 60 cents in some others. Those duties now apply. They will temporarily alleviate the situation of the Canadian industry.
But, as everyone knows, those changes, as well as other minor changes in the rate of customs duty are considered to be merely temporary measures, pending a complete study of the industry's problems, a study which must be made at the highest level, as recommended by the tariff board.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, it is the government's duty to insure the Canadian industry against any kind of dumping, and, at the same time, to grant it the required level of tariff protection. That is
Customs Tariff
how measures enacted by this government should be understood.
It is gratifying to see that the government has the political courage to implement the advice of the tariff board, notwithstanding the trouble which, as they very well knew, would ensue.
Under the circumstances, I believe that the government has taken a step which can help the textile industry for a time. On behalf of all Canadian workers of the textile industry, which has become necessary to our economic well-being, I express the hope that the government will continue to study that important problem with a view to finding a permanent solution capable of ensuring a long life of prosperity to our Canadian textile industry.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, which was certainly a protectionist speech in the old Tory manner. If the government were to follow the advice of the hon. gentleman we would soon have about the same amount of trade as we had in the last year of the last Tory government. The hon. gentleman congratulated the government on their political courage in bringing forward this measure. I think, sir, that if the government had shown real political courage its members would have gone all across the country and told the people before March 31 that they intended at the first opportunity after they came into power to embark upon a protectionist policy, and the results of the election in certain parts of the country would undoubtedly have been very different.
As I said when I was speaking about this matter on the budget, at least in the old days the Tories were not ashamed of what they did. You can describe Mr. Bennett's approach to tariffs as a boastful one. The approach of the present government, the Fleming approach, seems to be a furtive one, and it is its very furtiveness, bringing in something that is supposed to be so small that it cannot possibly do consumers any harm and will make those of us who oppose it look as though we were somewhat niggling, that in my opinion constitutes the gravest danger of all of this proposal.
This view is not mine alone. I know I cannot quote views that I am not willing to endorse, and I endorse with great enthusiasm the view of Professor Walter B. Harvey,

Customs Tariff
published in that great Liberal paper the London Free Press on July 3. I assume the Free Press published this because they wanted their readers to see that there was this side to the question. The article is headed, "No Excuse for Raising Tariffs", and it says:
The tariff changes in Mr. Fleming's budget will come as a shock to the high hopes that many Canadians had placed on the new government. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians voted Progressive Conservative last March in the hope that Mr. Diefenbaker as a westerner would not revert to the tariff raising policies that were associated with the Conservative party in the past. Hundreds of thousands voted P.C. in the hope that a party which announced its intention to increase the United Kingdom's share in our trade would do something to make such an increase easier. All those hopes have been disappointed by Mr. Fleming's budget. You do not increase Britain's share of our trade by raising tariffs on one of her most important exports.
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald headed its main editorial on the budget "Back to Protectionism?" This was on June 20. They had this to say:
After some further probing into the reasons for tariff revisions contained in the federal budget this week, parliamentary news correspondents now are reporting that the Diefenbaker administration has embarked upon a definite policy of protectionism for domestic industry.
I have no doubt that the minister will get up and tell us that this is another press report that is without foundation, but unfortunately the facts are here on the other side of the case. I must say, speaking as one who spent 30 years of his life in the province of Manitoba, that I am not surprised that the minister from Manitoba is not in his seat when we are discussing this item; because I am perfectly certain that if he had gone to his electors in Winnipeg and said, "I am going down to Ottawa to raise the tariff on woollens", the results would have been very different from what they were.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps my friend would allow me to say that at this moment the Minister of Trade and Commerce is attending a cabinet meeting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes, I know; the business of parliament is arranged in such a fashion that it is no longer possible for ministers to be in their seats attending to their parliamentary duties. That was not what happened in former days. That is one of the reforms of parliament. They now have loudspeakers to listen to what goes on here.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I ask the hon. member to come back to resolution No. 7.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact I was diverted by the Minister of Finance, the minister of diversions. But whether or not the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in his seat, it is very interesting to observe that not one of all the Conservative members from the three prairie provinces has got up and said one word in commendation of the proposed increase in the tariff on woollens.


Mr. Palleli:: Have you checked the trade balance recently?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the vote is taken on this item it will be very interesting to see how many Conservative members from the prairie provinces find it convenient to be somewhere else, as one of the most distinguished Conservative members in other parliaments often used to find it convenient to be somewhere else.


John Cameron Pallett: Three hundred million bushels of wheat is a lot of wheat sales in one year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Peel, with his incomparable knowledge of our commerce, talks about the increase in our wheat sales. He has anticipated a point I had intended to make a little later but I will make it right now. My point is, and the furtive approach is all the more dangerous on this account, that the minister told us- perhaps he should not have told us; perhaps he should not have been so frank-that this was just to be the prelude to changing the most-favoured-nation tariff if he can negotiate a change because it is a bound item.
Now, sir, what country is it that exports most of the woollens to us under the mostfavoured-nation section of the tariff? It is Italy. The tariff board pointed out that Italy is a large and expanding market for two of our greatest and most important primary products, wheat and fish, and it is perfectly obvious that if this tariff is increased the Italians are not going to take it lying down. The . government has already succeeded in losing the market for our fish in Jamaica, and if they go on by this kind of tariff action to lose the market for our fish in Italy and we have that much more fish to be concentrated on the few markets left after these disastrous policies have been carried on for some length of time, we can see that the social position of an industry which employs far more people than the woollen industry is going to be adversely affected. The plain fact is that in my constituency and nearly all constituencies represented by members

from the Atlantic provinces there are fishermen whose main income is derived from the sale of salt codfish.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It is all right for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate to make a passing reference to that matter, but it is not all right for him to go on and make a budget speech on the fisheries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not making a budget speech. I am explaining, as surely is my right, why I am opposed to the passing of this item and why I intend to vote against it. I consider that to increase the tariff on wool against the British is a very bad thing in itself. I will say something more about that, though I cannot add much to what was said so admirably by the Leader of the Opposition on that point. But I say this is just part of the policy, this is just the prelude to an increase in the most favoured nation rate against a country which is an essential market for our primary producers. The only excuse the tariff board could find was that this industry had social significance. I sympathize with the hon. member for Waterloo South, and so does every decent Canadian sympathize with any hon. member who represents a constituency which is being adversely affected by the general economic policies of the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ricard:: What did you do to prevent it? You did nothing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And this government is doing nothing at all. In earlier days, as was quite correctly pointed out, many more people were employed than there are now. I sympathize with the hon. member-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It started to go down under a Liberal government.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I say, anyone who has any humanitarianism at all sympathizes with anybody in any part of this country who wants to work and is unemployed through no fault of his own. It is important that something be done to meet this unemployment problem. But the tariff board itself indicates that this increase will not meet the problem. The government says it is very insignificant; it cannot really have any effect on anything in Canada, but the external effects are going to be very serious indeed.


William Anderson: May I ask the hon. member
a question?
Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


William Anderson: Does the hon. member not recall that the cutback in the big mill from 2,500 happened during the regime of the former government?


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


William Anderson: My question was, does he not remember that this happened during the time of his government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course everyone is well aware of what the hon. member for Waterloo South has pointed out. Everybody is well aware of the fact that the textile industry in North America, not merely in Canada, has been going through very difficult times. It was for this reason my friend Mr. Harris, when he was minister of finance, made the original reference to the tariff board. I might poitn out to the hon. member for Waterloo South that the tariff board itself admits that this recommendation will do nothing effective to help this industry, but it will have the indirect effect, if it has any effect at all, of increasing costs to consumers and of jeopardizing markets for many of our most important raw materials such as fish and wheat.
Mr. Pallet!: Have you looked at the recent trade figures?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened patiently to the hon. gentleman speak for his constituents, as is his right, and I speak now for mine who will be affected not in one way, if the government carries out this policy, but in two ways. In the first place, like other Canadian consumers they will have to pay more for their woollens, and fishermen are consumers of woollens. They will have to pay more for what they buy, but they will have to go on selling in a market where we can give them no tariff protection, a market which is threatened by this very policy.
That is the point I am trying to make, that by embarking upon this policy, this protectionist policy, this restrictionist policy, this policy calculated to stop imports into Canada, the government is inevitably going to provoke retaliation which is going to affect primary producers who cannot, in the nature of things, be given any kind of special help through the tariff.
It does seem to me that this would be bad enough if it were going to be effective. When the tariff board admits that it is not going to be effective, that it is not really going to accomplish anything, it does seem to me that we are being asked here to do something which will-well, I cannot for the life of me understand why the government is asking us to do it. It may be that they feel

Customs Tariff
that by making this gesture at this time they will fob off the pressure on them from certain of their backbenchers; that may be one explanation. The other explanation is that they really believe this is an intelligent, constructive policy calculated to give Canadian self-sufficiency or something approaching self-sufficiency in the woollen industry.
The Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Greenwood, speaking in the budget debate described this industry-I thought he was rather shamefaced in doing so-as an indigenous industry. It is rather difficult to think of any industry that is much less indigenous. The raw material comes from abroad; the machinery in the plants come from abroad, and the skills originally came from abroad. It is certainly not by any stretch of the imagination an indigenous industry.
What is being proposed, if it is seriously intended and if the government gets away with it this time, is to provide really high protection and really to make us self-sufficient in woollens at the expense of other Canadians. If that is so I would say we are embarking upon a most dangerous course. We should know now whether we are embarking on that course. It does not matter whether you look at this from the point of view of the generality of Canadian consumers or from the point of view of those particular industries that depend upon markets abroad-the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan are the three principal exporters to us at the present time of woollen goods-it seems to me that this policy is folly. It is contrary to our interests.
I do want to say something too, though very briefly because the Leader of the Opposition has already mentioned this, about the opportuneness of this gesture. If I recall correctly, we listened from about 1950 or 1951 to hon. gentlemen who now occupy the treasury benches talking about a commonwealth economic conference. In season and out of season, every time they could find any excuse under the rules for doing so, they talked about a commonwealth economic conference.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Edward Rea: I shall have to ask the hon. member not to continue discussing the economic conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to discuss the commonwealth economic conference, because I have always preferred to discuss things that have happened rather than things that have not happened. As I was saying, in season and out of season in this house, hon. gentlemen opposite when they were on this side talked about the way in which the Liberal

administration was discouraging commonwealth trade. They did this at a time when we were doing what?


John Cameron Pallett: Nothing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We were lending hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain British trade with Canada after the war; removing restrictions one after another every year, and attempting to encourage trade with the United Kingdom in every way. Yet what do we find as the first positive-no, it is not positive; if anything it is more negative-action of this government? The first thing this government does, and they do it on the eve of a commonwealth conference, is to kick the British in the teeth and say we do not want your exports; we only want you to buy from us. We will let you export things to us if we are getting them from some other country.
Now, if it means anything at all that is what this step is calculated to do. It is calculated to reduce what the Leader of the Opposition pointed out was the biggest single British export to Canada, and what is their symbolic export to Canada. It seems to me we are being asked to embark upon a fundamental change in policy. The last time we did this-and this is another reason why I am opposed to it-was in the month of September, 1930. I sat in the gallery up there and watched Mr. Bennett introduce the first big increases in tariffs. We saw what happened. The trade of this country declined until it became a trickle; that is what happened.
In 1935 we embarked upon a different policy, a policy of expanding trade by every possible means. We saw that year after year our trade expanded. It would appear that in this furtive fashion we are going back to that Tory course again that will lead us into the position in which we were in 1933, 1934 and 1935. It seems to me that we in Canada should not take this dangerous turn.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, coming as I do from one of the main textile centres in the province of Quebec, St. Hyacinthe, where that industry counts 18 factories, and being myself a textile employee, as I worked in one of the most important plants of St. Hyacinthe, the Goodyear Cotton Co., I cannot refrain from saying a few words on a subject dear to my heart.
I would have liked to speak in English, after seeing the crocodile tears just shed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), but, as my notes are written in French and I have only a few minutes at my disposal, I shall express myself in French.


Mr. Dupuis:: He speaks and understands French very well.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In fact, he probably speaks better French than the hon. member who just made that interjection.
The textile industry, Mr. Chairman, is one of the most stable in Canada. Employment in the textile industry, which in 1951 gave work to 98,000 people has been reduced to only 81,000 workers in 1956.
You will have noted, Mr. Chairman, that this situation occurred under a Liberal regime and those people are the very ones who today reproach the government with helping out textile workers. Yet, they did nothing at the time to prevent this situation from developing at the expense of the worker.
While in 1930, that industry was supplying 71 per cent of the national consumption, in 1957 it got only 57 per cent of the domestic market, always under a Liberal regime. From 1950 to 1955, still under a Liberal regime, foreign producers were allowed to grab 43 per cent of our national consumption. In 1948, Japan exported 0.4 million dollars' worth of textile products to Canada while in 1954, under a Liberal regime, I repeat, $4 million worth of Japanese textiles were imported into this country. In 1956, Japan exported to Canada 13J million yards of cotton, that is, the equivalent of 5 per cent of the Canadian production. While the Canadian production of textile products slowed down by 19 per cent, the Liberal government allowed foreign producers to export 24 per cent more textile products into Canada. From Italy alone, during the year 1956, again under a Liberal administration, shipments of woollens amounted to 1,720,000 yards, that is an increase of 140 per cent over the preceding years.
Mr. Chairman, the speeches made in this house by some hon. members of the opposition show clearly that the textile industry's business had begun to decline long before the Conservative party came into power. Some time ago, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) said, among other things, that the Canadian production of running shoes, the manufacture of which is based upon textile products, had dropped from 3,127,222 pairs in 1949 to 1,931,178 pairs in 1955, and this was again under a Liberal administration. Again, according to the hon. member for Shefford, during the same period the importation of shoes went up from 2,000 to
Customs Tariff
2,200,000	pairs. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, to see people who did nothing at the time, shed hot tears now over the present fate of textile workers.
I am therefore happy, on behalf of the textile workers of St. Hyacinthe, to thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for his stand in connection with our textile industry. About the consequences of the steps he has taken, I would like to quote an article published in La Presse on July 9, 1958:
A.bout 200 employees of the Penman's mills, at St. Hyacinthe, have been called back to work after many months of forced idleness. Mill manager E. G. James stated at the beginning of the week that production was "almost" back to normal.
In a letter to the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot in the House of Commons, Mr. James expressed his satisfaction that the tariff board and the federal government seem concerned with the serious problems of the textile industry. He points out however that the company of which he is the manager at St. Hyacinthe is only indirectly connected with the woollen industry which at the moment is foremost in the minds of our legislators. Mr. James adds that his company is very much interested in the tariffs that will apply to the knitting industry. In conclusion, he conveys his thanks to the federal member for St. Hyacinthe, Mr. Theo Ricard, for his concern over the textile regression and the interest he has shown in ways to protect that basic industry.
Mr. Chairman, the textile industry certainly has not yet solved every problem it has to face, but I trust that the legislation introduced by this government will be such as to give more work to employees of Canadian textile mills.
(Text):
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. While:: I did not intend to take part in this debate until the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate quoted from the London Free Press. He mentioned an article by Mr. Walter Harvey of the University of Western Ontario, and he tried to leave the impression with this house that the ideas expressed by Mr. Harvey were those of the London Free Press. I should therefore at once point out to him and to the house that Mr. Harvey is a free lance writer and that practically all the articles carried in the London Free Press are preceded by these words:
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the London Free Press.

Customs Tariff
The Liberal party, in the speeches of its members today on tariff item 554b dealing with the woollen cloth industry, has demonstrated to Canadians-both industry and labour-that this industry is expendable. This is an industry which ever since confederation has employed a large number of workers in this country. Just to give the house an idea of some of the expressions of opinion voiced by Mr. Walter Harvey, I would like to mention two such expressions of opinion which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not quote. The first of these is as follows:
If the Canadian producers really need a 50 per cent duty, they must be inefficient.
And secondly he has this to say in the London Free Press of July 3 last:
The lower wages paid to workers in Britain, or in Hong Kong for that matter, have nothing to do with the case. The Canadian woollen industry is not in competition for labour with any industry outside Canada. Wages are high in Canada because we have some efficient industries that can pay high wages and meet all comers in the markets of the world.
I should not say that I am amazed because the Liberal party is following the policy it has verbally espoused for many long years. However, when it was in power it did not practise that policy, and in fact gave a great deal of high protection to some industries which did not need it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George Stanley White: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is perfectly satisfactory. I always do.


William Moore Benidickson: And he did this morning.


George Stanley White: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is at his best when he is interrupting people.


William Moore Benidickson: I think he is at his best when he is interrupted.


George Stanley White: However, I was just saying, Mr. Chairman, that the Liberal party has indicated to this house that the Canadian woollen cloth industry is expendable. I think it has also failed to realize that in June of 1957 and in March of this year the Canadian people very plainly told the Liberals that they had had enough of this nonsense which had been going on for 22 years and as soon as the Liberals wake up to the voice of the people they will cease saying the things they said this morning about Canadian industry.
I was also interested to hear the views of the C.C.F. party. That party stayed on the fence; it shed crocodile tears for the workers

but indicated it had no interest in the industry. Where does that get us? I think the Canadian people pretty well caught up to the C.C.F. in the last two elections, and I am just waiting to see the results of the next one.
I would also like to say that I am amazed at the opinions expressed by Mr. Walter Harvey, who professes to know so much and yet in some of his writings has revealed how little he knows about the political and economic facts of life in Canada. In this article he has demonstrated a very biased political opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member now permit a question? Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Liberal party had given more protection than was necessary to a number of industries?


George Stanley White: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member tell us which were those industries?


George Stanley White: No, I am not going to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not think he would.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the debate on the proposed amendment to tariff item 554b has been very interesting and useful contributions have been made by a number of hon. members who have come to this house from constituencies in which the textile industry is a very important factor in the economy of the local area and who have spoken with great authority as to the conditions in that industry.
Speeches were also made by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Assini-boia and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I suppose if we were thinking in terms of sport we could say that the Leader of the Opposition had undertaken to demonstrate his dexterity at skating because if ever a member skated around a question, the Leader of the Opposition this morning skated around this one. He talked about various sides of the problem but he did not linger on any one of them; he talked about the industry and said it was not inefficient but he did say, or he seemed to say, that it was in need of some assistance. He did not, however, stop there. He kept on going until he went right around in a circle and to this moment I do not suppose any member of this house knows what are the views of the Leader of the Opposition on this subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our view is that it is a bad resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He accused this government of making the worst of both worlds but certainly the Leader of the Opposition did his best to make for himself and

his party the best of both worlds, because he did not come down on any side of the real issue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are going to vote against the resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He still has not touched the ground on this subject, but it was left to the right arm of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, to remove all doubts as to the position of the Liberal party on this subject. And that eminent authority on questions economic and fiscal and almost everything else has been very definite today in his remarks. I suppose all members of the committee will be very grateful to the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate for having eked out the very evasive speech of his leader and clarified for the understanding of us all the position of the Liberal party.
Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition did not attempt to deny that there is a very serious problem confronting the textile industry in Canada today. The question would naturally arise in the mind of any intelligent and responsible person: what is to be done about that problem? But that question, though posed by the Leader of the Opposition, was then carefully dropped, and not an inkling did he give as to what ought to be done about it.
Let one thing be clearly understood in this committee: this problem grew up under the former government. I was so rash as to ask the Leader of the Opposition at one point in his remarks what he would do about it. But he turned his back on that question, and we know just as much now as we knew before he started this morning with regard to what he would do about it. Nevertheless, we can find readily at hand an answer to an associated question which may help us to know what answer the Leader of the Opposition would give had he the temerity to reply to the question I put to him this morning. This is the other question: what did you do about it when you were in power? And the answer is that they did nothing at all about this problem, though it was growing up right under their eyes.
This problem did not burst suddenly upon the Canadian economy; these difficulties did not suddenly overtake the textile industry in Canada. The difficulties which the textile industry faces today have been developing for years in this postwar period and they have been growing acute for some years past. And, Mr. Chairman, there is not one thing that hon. members opposite-the four of them who were members of the previous government-can point to as having been
57071-3-220
Customs Tariff
done by them to help to solve this problem or even to turn a helping hand to assist the textile industry. They simply ignored the problem.
I make one qualification. My predecessor, the former minister of finance, did something about this. I will not do him an injustice. He did something. But it was to take the pressure off himself and off the government. He directed a reference to the tariff board. And what a reference! He asked the board to inquire into the conditions of the woollen industry in Canada and, by no accident, he did not instruct it to make any recommendations. The tariff board, in accordance with his instructions, conducted this review and reported to the minister in February 1955 and, again, true to their instructions, did not attach to that report one single recommendation.
Why was not the tariff board instructed to make recommendations? That is a question which hon. members opposite have never answered yet, and one which they will not be able to answer. The fact is that that reference was initiated by the former government simply to take pressure off their own shoulders, and the textile industry was misled into thinking that the government was really serious in inquiring into the problems of the woollen industry. Let us clearly understand then the contrast between the irresponsible, do-nothing attitude of the former government and the steps which this government took soon after coming into office.
What member of this House of Commons who has any claim to knowing anything about conditions in Canada could fail to realize that the textile industry was in serious difficulties? The Canadian producers' share of the Canadian market had been falling, and indeed if you will look at the report of the tariff board on woollen fabrics, this recent report, No. 125, you will see it is pointed out that in 1954 domestic manufacturers supplied 62 per cent of the woollen goods sold on the Canadian market. But by 1956 and the first half of 1957 a very different situation existed. By that time Canadian producers were supplying only 48 per cent of the requirements of the Canadian market and, in contrast, imported supplies rose, as is shown on page 18 of the report, by more than four million yards in 1956 and by nearly two million yards in the first half of 1957.
Thus it is not hard to understand why the textile industry felt that their difficulties were associated with the very serious decline in the share of the Canadian market enjoyed by Canadian textile producers. What did

Customs Tariff
we do? We immediately directed the tariff board to conduct an inquiry into the whole textile industry-woollens, cottons, silks, synthetics, everything in the tariff pertaining to textiles. We asked the tariff board to make its report phase by phase as the studies were completed. And we did that which the former government chose not to do: we asked the tariff board to make recommendations. How can a report of the tariff board following an inquiry be really serious, or really effective, if it is not accompanied by recommendations based upon the board's review?
The tariff board began its work with the woollen items in the customs tariffs which was the section they had studied three years earlier. They brought their study of conditions up to date, and made their recommendations and, in the resolution now under debate, the committee has before it the amendments proposed to item 554b which have been recommended by the tariff board.
I have stressed that this problem was not of our creation. This was one more of the problems to which we fell heir when our predecessors-our do-nothing predecessors- went out of office. Surely the textile industry and the tens of thousands of Canadian workers in that industry are entitled to receive some intelligent understanding of their problems and some sympathy in the light of their difficulties. But, Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition did not commit himself on anything today, the effective spokesman for the opposition, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, made the position of the official opposition abundantly clear. One does not need to search the speech of the Leader of the Opposition with a fine tooth comb to find out what he might have meant. All we need do now is turn to the very clear statement by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and it is abundantly clear from his remarks that the textile industry so far as the Liberal party is concerned will be permitted to die.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Rubbish.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The speech of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a pronouncement of a sentence of doom upon the textile industry of Canada.
I have something to say about this textile industry. The hon. member for Waterloo South was good enough to recall today that I have had some occasion as a native of South Waterloo, a native of the city of Galt, to know something about the textile industry and what it has meant in the Canadian economy.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
Mr. Chairman, the textile industry has been a very important employer of Canadian workmen. The textile industry has shown in these recent years in the midst of its difficulties that it is prepared to meet the test of efficiency, for no finger has yet been successfully pointed in the course of any inquiry at the textile industry on the grounds of inefficiency. The textile industry has striven to keep ahead in a technological way of the developing needs of that industry.
I should like to tell the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the textile industry has rendered notable service to Canada in times past in days of national stress.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So have the farmers and fishermen.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not ask the
hon. member to take my word for it. I have here the recent report of the tariff board, and let me remind hon. members that every one of the members of the tariff board that prepared this report was a member appointed by the former government. Not one of the members of the board that wrote the report was appointed by the present government. Here is what we find at page 42 of that report:
In this connection, it should be stated that the record of this industry during world war II was outstanding; its contribution to the equipping, not only of the Canadian services but also those of various allies, was in every respect a splendid achievement.
Mr. Chairman, I need say no more about the notable contribution of this industry to the service of this country and its cause in days of stress.
But another important feature of the textile industry in the Canadian economy is that it has been largely a decentralized industry. It is true there are some very large textile mills in Canada, but it has been a feature of this industry that it has been largely decentralized. It has grown up as a localized industry and in that way it has contributed strength and stability to the economy of many a local area throughout this country. Let me quote again from page 43 of the report:
The industry is, by and large, a small town industry. Very often, even today, it is the industrial back-bone of semi-rural communities. It is currently giving employment to several thousand Canadians and affording the means of sustenance to their families. Partly because of its long association with scores of localities, it is part of the warp and woof of Canadian life. Often, in its own area, it provides the only openings for skilled or semi-skilled labour.
That is the industry which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, speaking for the Liberal party, would condemn to doom and extinction. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is a poor way to serve the admitted needs of this industry to offer words.

This industry deserves something more than words and it will require more than words to meet its needs of that industry. It will take more than the type of attitude the Leader of the Opposition exhibited here this morning. The hon. member made no contribution whatsoever to the solution of the problem.
Let me now deal with the recommendation of the tariff board and the action the government is inviting the house to take to carry into effect the recommendation of this board. No one pretends for one minute that this modest recommendation is the solution of all the problems of the textile industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course, it is not the whole solution to the problem. We are accompanying the proposal with a very important ingredient in the program of the government, namely the revision of section 35 of the Customs Act to meet the problem of dumping which has been at the heart of the problem.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, surely the minister is anticipating a debate which he expects next week.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am not launching into that subject at all.


Lionel Chevrier: You are.


Some hon. Members:: You are out of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: Canadian farmers and
fishermen.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, looking at this problem frankly as we did in the budget, what we did was this. We knew that this slight increase was not going to hurt any British exporter materially.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They loved it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nevertheless in the minds of some of them it may be regarded as a matter of regret. But we did something else in the budget that helped them very much. We increased the tourist exemption-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and that is going to be of considerable assistance to the British textile industry.
When questions are raised today by hon. members opposite about the commonwealth conference, does it not gladden your bosom and warm the cockles of your heart, Mr. Chairman, to find hon. members opposite, these Liberals, showing some interest at last in the commonwealth trade and economic conference?


William Moore Benidickson: Pretty heavy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What big hearts these gentlemen have today! They are filled with solicitude for the outcome of the commonwealth trade and economic conference. More moisture was on the floor of this house today than at almost any other time as their huge crocodile tears flowed left, right and centre. These are the same hon. members who not so long ago were deriding the efforts of this government to promote the commonwealth trade and economic conference.


Mr. Habel:: There is no flag draped on our desks, though.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but I believe we are straying away from the terms of the resolution which is before us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He has never been on it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It would be appreciated if we tried to keep as close as possible to the terms of the resolution before us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, on the point you raised, I think we ought to be as liberal as possible to my hon. friend and let him go as far as he will in this direction. We are interested in what he is saying. I think he

Customs Tariff
should be given every possible latitude in this highly protectionist speech.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Do you
want the job of Speaker?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. As chairman of this committee I regret to say I must ask hon. members of all parties to adhere to the terms of the resolution being discussed at the present time and although some latitude may be permitted in debate we must respect the principle of article 59, subparagraph 2 of the standing order which says that relevancy must be observed in debate.


William Moore Benidickson: There seems to be unanimous consent.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Again I ask the hon. member to keep his remarks as close to the resolution as possible.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I assure you I had no intention of saying anything more about that subject than to reply concisely to remarks that have been made about it by hon. members opposite in the course of their speeches today.
Hon. members opposite had something to say about the reaction in the United Kingdom. It is true that in several of the journals there and in the case of one or two trade associations, where naturally a proposal of this kind could hardly be expected to be received with cheers, there was expression of regret at the action taken, but to picture that as a general reaction throughout the United Kingdom is not only to exaggerate but to distort the facts. I will say that if there was anything lacking in an unfavourable response in the United Kingdom whatever was lacking has been supplied by hon. members opposite, for they have spent every effort in publicizing to the utmost every unfavourable aspect of that reaction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are now trying to stifle freedom of speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Indeed, they have done their best to trumpet this aspect of the reaction in the United Kingdom and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was at his distorting best this morning or worst, depending on your point of view, when he said that this was kicking the British in the teeth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister would prefer it I would be willing to substitute the word "stomach".


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as any
statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is concerned, if you wish to come close to the facts the very best thing you can do is to turn his sentence

completely around, make it read exactly the opposite and you will probably come fairly close to the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My time is nearly up. I will permit a question then. I have not time to be interrupted now.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It is the privilege of the minister to continue his speech and if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has remarks to make he can make them after the minister has finished.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is worth recalling that there have been some very different statements made in responsible quarters in the United Kingdom from those that my hon. friends read to the house in the course of their selective treatment of the subject. Here is a statement that has appeared within the last several weeks in the annual report of Patons and Baldwins Limited, one of the largest woollen operators in the United Kingdom. In referring to conditions in Canada they say:
In Canada the textile trade has continued in the doldrums and it is difficult at present to see how and when recovery will come. The Canadian government have recently announced their intention to increase the duties on imports of wool cloth from the United Kingdom but to maintain, in the face of imports from other countries such as Italy, the margin of British tariff preference. Though this in itself has no immediate effect on your company, Canadian spinners have made an application to the tariff board for an increase in yarn import duties. Undoubtedly the Canadian textile industry is in urgent need of a measure of protection if it is to revive or indeed to survive.
That is the statement in the annual report of one of the largest woollen manufacturers in the United Kingdom.
There is nothing symbolic in this proposal, Mr. Chairman, as hon. members opposite sought to pretend. The concern that has been expressed in some quarters in the United Kingdom stemmed in considerable part from the fact that the tariff board recommended an increase only in the British preferential rate and did not recommend an increase in the most-favoured-nation rate which would have preserved the extent of the British preference. In the budget speech, if I may remind hon. members, we indicated that we were going to initiate negotiations with the countries concerned with a view to maintaining the preference that has existed.
There is urgency in this situation. That is the reason this amendment has been included in the recommendations submitted to the house as part of the budget.
We were told this morning that the government has adopted a high protection approach.

That is a palpable untruth. That is another of those opposition charges that have no substantiation. To make that pretence is to indulge in misrepresentation of the facts. We have shown in the course of the discussions yesterday that with reference to the report of the tariff board in connection with iron and steel items we recommended some increases and some decreases compared with the recommendations of the tariff board and the decreases were in the majority. Similarly, on pipes and tubes, in the departures we recommended from the report of the tariff board there were some increases and some decreases and the decreases were in the majority.
No one can pretend, Mr. Chairman, that the tariff on wool items is a heavy or high tariff. Let me give you these figures by way of illustration. I am not going into other aspects of the textile industry. If you take woollen fabrics summed up in percentage figures the tariff hitherto applicable to woollens has been 15 to 16 per cent. With these modest changes it will be 17 to 18 per cent. Compare that with cotton goods under the Canadian tariff. The average tariff there is 21 per cent and on synthetics 30 per cent. Have we heard complaints from hon. members opposite about these other rates? These rates of 21 per cent on cotton and 30 per cent on synthetics were inherited from them but they left the woollen rates at 15 to 16 per cent and talk about an increase to 17 to 18 per cent, a 2 per cent increase, as though it would move this item into a high tariff rate. One has only to illustrate by the reference I have made to realize that kind of talk is simply poppycock.
Let me ask the rank and file of hon. members opposite this question. Are they prepared to disregard this modest recommendation of the tariff board, ignore the needs of this industry, go blithely forward and permit the industry, if necessary, to die, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said? He says it is not an indigenous industry and therefore it does not deserve to live.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say anything
of the kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He said it did not
deserve to live if it could not get along with low tariff rates. That was the whole burden of his speech. What indigenous industries are there in this country by his standard? I suppose fishing, hunting and some primitive agriculture are the only indigenous industries that he recognizes.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the Minister of Finance but I must advise him that his time has expired.
Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister a question and then he will have another half hour. The minister said that so far as any remark of mine was concerned the opposite meaning should be taken and it would be pretty accurate. The minister objected to my saying that this resolution was kicking the British in the teeth. I offered to substitute the word "stomach". I ask the minister seriously, taking the opposite meaning does he regard this gesture as an embrace of Britain?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, let us come down to facts and put aside my friend's metaphors and figures. This is not a gesture at all and there is nothing symbolic about it as he has sought to represent on this and other occasions. This is a measure that has to be judged by the house, in my respectful submission, precisely on its merits. It was not intended to have any symbolic significance other than its intrinsic merit and the effect it will have in creating a very modest increase here. In measuring the modesty of the increase, let me point out that it has been estimated, contrary to what was said by hon. members opposite about the burden this is going to throw upon Canadian consumers, that all it means is an increase of about 15 cents in the cost of the woollen material in a suit of clothes and an increase of about 25 cents in the cost of the material entering into an overcoat. In the face of that they try to pretend that this is something that is going to hurt Canadian consumers. I ask the hon. members opposite to judge this on its merits.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister just confirm that by the well known trade rules on yardage that apply to a suit or an overcoat?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend wishes, I shall be glad to give him the details of that. If he wishes to know the weight of the goods that go into the suit or into the overcoat, I shall be glad to tell him. Those are the figures that have been submitted by very competent authorities.
I am not going to take advantage of the opportunity which was given to me to extend my remarks. I simply wish to close my remarks by asking-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must ask hon. members to please permit the Minister of Finance to carry on his remarks. There is far too much noise in the chamber at the moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not intend to proceed, I simply wish to ask a question. I will close with a question. Will certain members opposite be prepared to follow the lead and endorse the statements made today by

Customs Tariff
the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate? Will the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska endorse what was said by this member? Will the member for Beauce do so? Will the member for Cartier do so? Will the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont do so?


Mr. Deschateleis:: Yes, of course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We shall watch with interest to see whether they are prepared to endorse the proposals to watch the textile industry go to the doom pronounced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Cresiohl:: Will the minister please answer a question? If what the minister is proposing is of modest assistance to the woollen industry, why is he suddenly so modest? Why does he not go farther and give the ultimate cure by imposing an embargo on British woollens?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: So smart.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should have thought my hon. friend would have been serious in the questions he asks. I think I need say no more than that I would prefer the hon. member should be treated as a member who asks serious questions, and as this obviously could not be regarded as a serious one I will not embarrass the hon. member by commenting on it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not intend to delay the committee very long, but what the minister has said deserves some notice from this side. We who have been in this house for some time are familiar with the minister's roaring and blustering tactics in debate. We know that the roaring of the minister is generally in inverse proportion to the strength of his case. Today, while he has not reached the maximum of roaring, his case was weak enough to require a certain amount of it, and we got it.
Let us try to get behind his roars and his blusters and see what are some of the realities of this situation. As a matter of fact, we have already dealt with them, but there are one or two questions the minister raised to which I should refer. He talked about our party, and what were we doing? What is our policy? It is very noticeable, and is becoming more noticeable as the session goes on, that whenever the government gets into a difficult position they fall back on the argument, if you can call it an argument, that you had 22 years and what did you do about it. Then, whenever that does not work, and they have no policy themselves, they say, what would you do? Will you give us some ideas? But it is they who are in the position of responsibility and we should look to them
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
for ideas. Certainly if this is the best they can do for the Canadian woollen textile industry, it is not very effective; in fact, it is not effective at all, except to get us into trouble with the United Kingdom which is the country about which they talk so much as being the one with whom we should develop and increase our trade.
As I have said already, and my colleagues have said, all the government has done in this resolution is to get the worst of both worlds. The minister's statement was interesting, and perhaps significant, because a great deal of the time he was completely out of order. He was talking about the textile industry as a whole. Nevertheless, we were very glad to have him do that, because it was quite clear from what he said- and this is one of the implications of this matter which causes us so much anxiety- that the remedy which they have seized upon to help the woollen textile industry is the remedy that they are going to apply to the textile industry as a whole, that is higher tariff protection. They are falling back, when they do that, on the traditional Tory policy. When they ask what did we do over the years let me warn the minister that the last time they were in power, from 1930 to 1935, more textile plants closed than at any other five-year period in our history. If they are merely going to apply the remedy now that they tried to apply in 1930 to 1935 the textile industry has not very much to look forward to under this government.
As we have already pointed out, the minister has made a lot of claims that this was only a small, modest proposal. It certainly is a modest proposal in so far as helping the woollen industry is concerned, but it is not a modest proposal in its implications on our trade relationships with the United Kingdom. It also might lead to other proposals which are not as modest. The modesty of this proposal, the futility and ineffectiveness of it, is shown by the fact that it deals only with the British trade. It does not touch those countries whose imports into this country of textiles are increasing while British imports are decreasing. The minister has said, and I want to be fair to him, that that matter is going to be negotiated under GATT, as is indeed required under GATT. If that is the case, surely they might have suspended action on this matter until they saw what the results of the negotiations under GATT would be in respect of imports from other countries. This is not the right way, I suggest, to deal with any measure of help to the woollen textile industry. But it is a wrong way to deal with those United Kingdom trade relationships about which they talk so much.

That is what we mean when we say that they are getting the worst of both worlds.
They are not going to save the industry about which they are talking. But they are going to hurt our trade relationships with the United Kingdom on the eve of a commonwealth economic conference, which is the one thing they have been boasting about ever since they came into office; what they were going to do to increase commonwealth trade. We know what they are going to do in so far as this particular industry is concerned, which is the one of greatest importance to the British in their exports to Canada. Furthermore anyone who considers this whole approach to the problem cannot escape anxiety over its implications in terms of higher protection for the whole textile industry in Canada.
The minister took great pleasure in referring to certain members of our party and demanding to know what they are going to do in respect of this particular matter. Let me ask representatives of farming and fishing constituencies on the other side what they are going to do about a proposal which means more protection for one industry. Moreover, the proposal does not deal with all countries affected by that industry, but merely with the United Kingdom. What are they going to do about a resolution of this kind that takes action against the United Kingdom but leaves the other countries untouched? I suggest they will be more embarrassed than any member of our party is going to be.
The minister asks, what are we going to do? I will tell him what we are going to do, we are going to vote against this resolution as a futile, feeble, ineffective gesture, a gesture which has very dangerous implications in terms of higher tariff policy and higher protection. We should have learned something about that remedy during the years from 1930 to 1935.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I am not very good at predicting but I have some figures which I should like to give to this house and which show what the Liberal government were doing while they were in power. In 1947, being an employee of Goodyear Cotton Company of Canada Limited, St. Hyacinthe, I may say that our production which was 18| million pounds dropped in 1953 to 11J million pounds.


William Moore Benidickson: Does this involve woollen goods?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We lost our markets in Australia, New Zealand and Peru.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Customs Tariff


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They do not like to learn the truth.


Lionel Chevrier: You are out of order; that is all.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: At the present time we are discussing one definite resolution and the hon. member's remarks at the present time are out of order.


John Cameron Pallett: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I point out to you that the hon. member was speaking about woollen goods.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They just do not want to hear about it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: All members of this house must confine their remarks to the resolution being discussed. It is out of order to discuss matters which are not pertinent to the resolution which is before us and which do not touch upon or concern the resolution being discussed at the present time. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Item agreed to: Yeas, 118; nays, 32.
8. Resolved, That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 90f, 99e, 125, 128, 198c, 206c, 208, 208x, 237a, 327a, 376a, 376b, 409t, 409u, 410s, 427c, 431d, 431g, 437b, 438b, 438c, 438d, 438e, 439b, 439e, 440m, 440n, 462d, 482, 504a, 505, 505a, 505b, 597a (4), 597b, 597d, 691(1), 695d, 696a, 696c, 696d, 703, 791, 901, 902, 907 and 914, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Customs tariff-79g. Rose stock, not including buds not scions, for grafting or budding: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I previously complimented the minister for designing these items in the tariff resolution in such a way that we could deal with them as groups. We have already dealt with groups that refer to particular items of a main trade variety. We are now looking at something that comes before this committee every year in the matter of tariff changes that relate to miscellaneous items. However, I should like the minister to indicate as we proceed with these items which of them relate to negotiation or trading which has resulted from our association with GATT. I am not given very much information any more about matters of this kind but I read in the Financial Post, I

Customs Tariff
think just after the introduction of the minister's budget, an article by Mr. Leslie Wilson in which he said this:
Canadian negotiators went to the GATT meetings last fall not with the idea of negotiating general decreases, but with that of getting specific increases and offering predetermined decreases as bait.
It happens that this correspondent in the press gallery for this reputable business journal indicated that in this section we were likely to find some of the concessions that had been given by Canada in consequence of some of the increases in tariff that we have previously dealt with in this committee. I should like the minister to comment upon that matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a large number of miscellaneous amendments to the tariff embraced within the scope of resolution No. 8. All but two of them contemplate decreases in the tariff. There are no increases provided with respect to any of these items in resolution No. 8. Some of them were bound under GATT. One could hardly expect that there would be any objection on the part of the countries in whose favour there are to be any decreases in tariff, the kind of decreases that are proposed in this resolution.
As to the course of negotiation with any country under the GATT procedure, Mr. Chairman, it has never been the policy-and for very good reason-to trace the course of the bargaining or negotiations or to indicate what items have been traded on one hand for advantages on the other hand.
If I may, I should like to make a qualification to my statement. There are two items where there are to be increases. They are the very last ones in resolution No. 8, namely item 907 and item 914. Under 907 there is an increase from free to 15 per cent B.P. and 20 per cent M.F.N. on foamed and expanded synthetic resins, in logs, blocks, or boards, or in flakes, granules or powder. In item No. 914 there is the same type of increase proposed with respect to foamed and expanded cellulose plastics in blocks or boards, granules or powder.


William Moore Benidickson: I just thought that as we go along in these miscellaneous items the minister might indicate which of them are items that we have negotiated with other countries through our association in GATT. Perhaps he would do that. In the article to which I made reference in the Financial Post it was suggested that if we just go down to the fourth of some 30 items that we are now to discuss, we will find an item that it is suggested was subject to a lower rate of duty by reason of something that we gave because we wanted something in this trading relationship that is known as GATT.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I fully appreciate the problems which my hon. friend's question has raised, but while some of these items are bound, that does not mean they entered into the scope of negotiations at all.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told with respect to a number of these items which were bound that they did not enter into the scope of negotiations with the United States at all.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not particularly refer to the United States. I simply say that we in the opposition naturally have little official knowledge these days of the details relating to items described in such particular form as we have before us.
I said to the minister last night that in previous days, as I recall it, I was always provided with a memo from the officials in the department who were giving full time to this kind of work, and I think invariably in those notes provided to me when I was on the other side there was an indication respecting the tariff items which were or were not bound items as a result of GATT negotiations. I thought therefore that the minister, in order to be fair, as I know he wants to be, might as we proceed indicate which items are and are not involved in our GATT tariff relationships.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Did I understand the minister's remarks to indicate that where he was able to, say, negotiate an increase in a tariff item, he was not willing to disclose to this committee what he had to give up in return for that increase? Did I understand him to say that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It does not work out just that way. We do not necessarily trade a specific item for something else. We have brought to this house the net result of all these negotiations up to the present time regarding these various classes of items in the Customs Tariff which are the subject of the recommendations of the tariff board. The results are now before the house and it would be a mistake to infer that the negotiations reach the point where something specific on the one hand is exchanged for something absolutely specific on the other.
We are here presenting these items in their totality, and we do not attempt to trace the course of the negotiations down to the minute details or to specific items of negotiation. As I have indicated, it has not been the practice to do so and it would be unwise to say anything about the course of the negotiations or the details of the bargaining

Customs Tariff
between two countries in such a way as has are no negotiations which have been con-been suggested. It would be harmful to our eluded which are not embodied within the future bargaining negotiations.	resolution now before the house.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I am not asking about negotiations which are pending; I am asking about negotiations which have been concluded with respect to any such items, and my understanding of the practice is a little different from the minister's understanding. That is why I want some clarification on this matter. As I understand the practice of this house under the former government, it was to bring before the house at the conclusion of any negotiation a statement involving the giving of a list of items for which we were successful in getting an increase and, at the same time, a corresponding list of the concessions we had to make. In other words, if there were advantages-if one can call an increase an advantage-to be gained by way of increase, at the same time a statement was given to this house indicating the list of concessions we had to make.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think there has been some misapprehension on the part of my hon. friend who is, I believe, referring to the original negotiations, the net result of which was a series of tariff reductions on the part of both parties. That is very different from the matter of negotiation at a later stage involving concessions during the period when the agreements are running. It has never been the policy, as I am reminded, to segregate the items in negotiations or bargaining in either case, that is to say, as to the benefits received or the concessions given.


William Moore Benidickson: Did my hon. friend refer to future or past negotiations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am referring to past practice.


William Moore Benidickson: I know, but to past
negotiations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I think my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River was under a misapprehension when he referred to his own experience in that regard. I think he referred to the same thing referred to by the hon. member for Ottawa West, namely the original negotiations, the outcome of which is a series of reductions on the part of both parties. I am told it has never been the practice to make detailed reports on the negotiations carried out during the time when agreements are in effect, in cases where negotiations have been carried out in order that a change might be made on the one hand which involves the giving of a concession by the other party. I might also say that the resolution now before the house embodies the results of concluded negotiations. There 57071-3-221


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, but has the minister yet indicated to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada the negotiations which, say, took place in 1957?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I reported on the negotiations in the budget speech I made to this house. Those negotiations had been carried out on this series of reports of the tariff board, and the negotiation results are embodied in the resolution now under debate. There are no other negotiations which are completed. I referred in my budget speech to one matter concerning another tariff board report which is not included in the budget resolutions. In that case negotiations are pending but there are no others which have been concluded.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, that is fruits and vegetables. That is perfectly true, but my hon. friend in that reference was looking to the future, and we cannot perhaps at the moment, under our laws, probe the minister's negotiations in that sphere although we are naturally very interested. I am concerned, however, about the negotiations which have taken place, shall we say, within the last year and upon which we would expect to receive a report.
Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the report given by the previous minister of trade and commerce, Mr. Howe, when on June 14 of 1955, as recorded at page 4750 of Hansard for that date, he gave a very complete report as to the give and take which was involved in negotiations with respect to GATT for the period concerning which parliament and the public were entitled to information.
Mr. Howe on that occasion had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, ... I wish to make an announcement about some tariff negotiations which have recently been concluded in Geneva. These negotiations have been carried out under three headings,-
Of course, one was with respect to a new entrant into the GATT arrangement, Japan, but something which is of more interest is the following:
-to give effect to the desire of some other countries to renegotiate certain increases in tariff rates bound under the general agreement;
3. I am reporting on renegotiations in certain Canadian tariff rates which are bound to other countries under the agreement.
And at that time he tabled before the House of Commons the results of this give and take over the years as a result of our partnership in this large association of nations in a trading sphere under GATT. The detail

Customs Tariff
is to be found in an appendix to the Hansard of June 14, 1955 entitled "The results of tariff negotiations at Geneva". I am not going to repeat this information for the benefit of the committee, but I am certainly going to say that under separate headings and in very valuable detail we find here in item (c), after a reference to the concessions given to the new entering partner, Japan, a reference to concessions by the United States to Canada. Then under (d) a reference is made to concessions by Canada to the United States.
This practice was followed in 1956 by the then minister of trade and commerce, and I refer to the June 7, 1956 copy of Hansard, page 4972. The then minister of trade and commerce, Mr. Howe, did just what was done in 1955 and this information is available to all members who care to read it. I want to quote just a few words of the minister spoken at the time he was tabling this document for the information of the public and the House of Commons. He said:
The agreement concluded between Canada and the United States is one of the major agreements resulting from this conference. The concessions that could be made by the United States were limited by United States legislation to maximum tariff reductions of 15 per cent spread over the next two years.
In an aside I questioned whether it was two years or three. I understood that the executive had never been given more than a 5 per cent discretion, and I think 5 per cent is a discretion which has been under consideration within the last few days in the United States congress with regard to tariff reduction and it has now, probably, been passed.
But to continue with my reference to what the minister of trade and commerce at that time said in the House of Commons. He went on:
Also there were a number of items, particularly in the agricultural and fisheries fields, on which the United States was not prepared to negotiate at this time. Within these limitations, however, we have concluded an agreement which should be most satisfactory to both countries. The fact that the United States concessions would be implemented in three stages was, of course, taken into consideration fully by our negotiators in determining the nature of the concessions Canada could justifiably grant. Canada has obtained maximum concessions on a large number of products including various chemicals, certain metals, some agricultural items and a number of manufactured products and machinery.


Mr. Broome:: Is that the detailed report
you were talking about?


William Moore Benidickson: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I still think there is some misapprehension here and perhaps I should do my best to clear that up now. It is one thing where there has been a fresh series of negotiations either at the outset of GATT in the fall of 1947 or at the time of the various renewals for the government charged with negotiations to bring back a report to the house and the public as to the result, pointing out what changes are to be made in the Canadian tariff in exchange for benefits to be had in other countries in relation to their tariffs, but it is an entirely different matter from negotiations, as I tried to say earlier, that may occur while an agreement is in effect where one country desires to make a change in its own tariff items that are bound by GATT and is precluded by the terms of GATT from doing so without the concurrence of the countries in whose favour the items are bound.


William Moore Benidickson: Largely the principal
supplier?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, whatever countries they may be in whose favour the items have been bound. In those cases, of course, it is customary for the country in whose favour the items are bound to demand concessions. The government, of course, must report on the results of those negotiations. We have done so. The results of the negotiations here are embodied in the resolutions now before us. My hon. friend

Customs Tariff
complains that we did not issue a press statement or make a separate report to the house earlier than June 17 in the budget speech.


William Moore Benidickson: It is 1957 I am concerned with, of course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure my hon. friend that the negotiations I referred to were concluded so short a time before the budget speech that the budget was the first convenient opportunity to make them known to the house. In these particular negotiations we were not seeking a change in the United States tariff; we were seeking freedom to make changes in the Canadian tariff items in accordance with the recommendations with respect to those items on which the tariff board had made recommendations. We negotiated with the United States over a period of time with the result that the United States did not make any changes in its tariff. So on that side, as a result of the negotiations, we simply have a maintenance of the status quo. But with respect to the items of the Canadian tariff we have obtained a concession on the part of the United States that gave us liberty to make the changes in our tariff that are embodied in the resolutions now before the committee, so far as those items had previously been bound, and have undertaken to make certain changes in our tariff as the quid pro quo to the United States; so what we bring before the committee now is a complete package, and the results of those negotiations are fully embodied in the terms of the resolutions.
My hon. friend goes on from that point and quotes what I gather was a newspaper article containing, I may say, a great deal of wild speculation about what were the items on which the negotiations proceeded.


William Moore Benidickson: That is usually my hon. friend's comment in debate, of course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a very accurate one.


William Moore Benidickson: Let us continue item by item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me talk about the hon. gentleman's reference to the fourth item of smelt. I can tell him that the changes proposed in the tariff on smelt-and was it oysters or lobsters?


William Moore Benidickson: I think smelt is a better item to take.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, item 115b. The newspaper article was quite erroneous in its speculation on that point.


William Moore Benidickson: It was not a bound item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a bound item and the reduction that is proposed here in the resolution was made at the request of the Canadian fisheries council.


William Moore Benidickson: What reasons did they advance when they requested the decrease?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to deal with this when we come to that item if my hon. friend wishes. I am just dealing now with the point he raised at the outset. The further matter he mentioned was the change contemplated in item 438d.
I may say to him that the changes proposed in item 438d were made at the request of the Canadian automotive chamber of commerce and at the request also of the automotive parts association representing the manufacturers of automotive parts.


William Moore Benidickson: Were there any representations from the united automobile workers of America?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We did not hear from them on that point. Perhaps we should wait until we reach the particular item before going into the details.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister a question with respect to his answer to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Do I understand the minister to say that even after these negotiations have been completed it is considered contrary to public policy to make a specific statement during the currency of the agreement? I understood the minister to say that when the agreement was renewed parliament was told what the concessions were and what the concessions made by other countries were, as Mr. Howe did on a couple of occasions to which the hon. gentleman referred, but that during the currency of a negotiation, even though this particular negotiation was itself concluded, parliament was not told that the reason for these changes was negotiations under GATT?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My friend has used the expression "during the currency of the agreement". What I was directing my remarks to, to which he has alluded, was the course of the negotiations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, quite.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been no attempt ever made, and I think the reason is obvious, to trace the course of negotiations, the various steps that enter into the bargaining.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would agree with that at once.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told in particular that in the case of bilateral negotiations no report has ever been made except as to the result, the exchanges of advantages on the one hand for concessions on the other. I think perhaps part of the earlier discussion proceeded on the basis of a misapprehension. I think the position is clear now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could state my understanding. I am not seeking to be contentious at all, but I was rather surprised, if I understood correctly, that once these negotiations had been completed, during the currency of an agreement, there would be any obstacle to telling parliament "we have made this tariff change because of negotiations concluded under GATT" and in another case because of representations from the automobile chamber of commerce and so on, as the minister has just said. I take it the minister has no objection to telling us in each case whether it is as a result of GATT negotiations that the change is being made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I have no objection at all on that score. As a matter of fact, there is a large number of miscellaneous items here and, of course, the great bulk of them did not enter into the negotiations at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I would imagine. I think that clears up the difficulty.


William Moore Benidickson: Except for this, that I indicated to the house by quoting from Hansard of 1955 and 1956 that the then minister of trade and commerce had in both of those years-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could my friend give me the reference in 1955 again, please?


William Moore Benidickson: The minister's statement is on page 4750 and the appendix he provided appears on page 4808.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was that a press statement?


William Moore Benidickson: No, it is an official document provided to the House of Commons by the then minister of trade and commerce indicating the effect in considerable detail. As a matter of fact it is headed "Results of Tariff Negotiations at Geneva", and it has several subheadings. The first subheading is "Concessions by Japan to Canada" and the second is "Concessions by Canada to Japan". The third is "Concessions by the United States to Canada" and the fourth is "Concessions by Canada to the United States and Japan."


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will my hon. friend permit me to point out-we have the volume now-that what was reported on there was the result of original negotiations and not renegotiations, except as to the third
Customs Tariff
item. This was a matter of a new negotiation with Japan over the establishment in the tariffs of both countries of certain rates which were bound in favour of the other.


William Moore Benidickson: I made that very clear but let us go to the next year, 1956. I refer my hon. friend again to page 4792 where the then minister of trade and commerce did the same thing. It seemed to me to be a comprehensive review and a very proper report to parliament upon the results achieved by Canada's officials in negotiations of this importance over a past period. My difficulty is that I do not know the period for which the report is given. Certainly it was presented to the house in June, 1956. I make the point that in June, 1957, we were engaged in an election campaign but we met on October 14, I believe, and sat for some time. I would have thought that in 1957 we would have received a similar report from the new Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to GATT negotiations for a comparable period.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid we are going back into the misapprehension that existed earlier. The 1956 report to which my hon. friend refers was a report on original negotiations. There were no renegotiations in 1956. What the then minister of trade and commerce gave to the house was the result of those original negotiations. That is the situation with respect to 1956. As to 1957, again there is a misapprehension. No negotiations under GATT were concluded in 1957. Some negotiations were started at Geneva in the fall but no negotiations were concluded in 1957.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps we can sum it up that the minister agrees that when there are original negotiations under GATT all particulars with regard thereto should be made available to parliament as they have been in the past but as far as renegotiations are concerned he thinks that the procedure he has adopted is quite adequate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. We have laid everything before the house in this resolution. It is true that it is a bulkier resolution than the house usually has before it. It may be that we have been pounding on an open door here because I do not see that there is any difference between us with regard to the matter of the reporting. Where there are original negotiations involving changing the agreement on the part of Canada to make certain changes in return for changes on the part of another country or countries in their tariffs then of course a report should be made to the house giving the particulars of the changes; in other words, the quid as

Customs Tariff
well as the quo. In this case we had a situation which followed the desire of the government to make certain changes in rates that had already been bound and the whole story is there in the resolution.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about this problem. I have admitted my ignorance about some of these procedures because they largely involve trade and commerce. The minister may correct me if I am wrong in my understanding, but what is the situation when Canada decides that it would like to approach its principal supplier of fruits and vegetables, shall we say, which would be the United States? Some items at least are under GATT. Am I right in thinking that before the United States comes to grips in negotiations with Canada, under its tariff board procedures public notice is given of the fhct that it has been approached by Canada which desires to increase its tariffs with respect to these products. Is that correct?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, that is correct. The law of the United States requires public notice to be given.


William Moore Benidickson: We have not that provision here, I realize.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman.


William Moore Benidickson: The difficult thing, of course, is that the government is very secretive about its intentions to request adjustments with respect to these agreements. They approach a foreign government such as the United States and the United States, under its law, publicizes the fact of the approach. People who might be affected are given an opportunity to come before a certain governmental body down there to express their views. Here the minister says we are not entitled even to know he has gone forward to ask for some of these changes. This makes it very awkward, indeed, I think, in public discussions in the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries, would the minister tell us whether this was one of the items affected by the GATT discussions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. I have indicated them already. There are only three items out of I think about 75 items in resolution 8 which entered into the negotiations under GATT. They were 438d; 504a and 505.


William Moore Benidickson: They are the only ones in this group involved in GATT negotiations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That were involved in negotiations that have been concluded.


William Moore Benidickson: That is past negotiations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: It is quite understandable that if the minister is negotiating in the future with respect to some other quid pro quo, we would not have this before us at the time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 90f; 99e agreed to.
Customs Tariff-115b. Smelt, fresh, for processing in Canadian plants per pound: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 1 ct.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister just what is the origin of this change, and who requested it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The change in item 115b was requested by the fisheries council of Canada. This is a new item to assist Canadian smelt processors who must occasionally import smelt when smelt is not available in Canadian waters. Most of the smelt which is processed in Canada is exported. It is my understanding that no Canadian fishermen will be adversely affected by this reduction. The annual imports are estimated at $50,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff-125. Oysters, shelled; cans containing shelled oysters: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if we could have an explanation of this one?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The change here applies to the words, "cans containing shelled oysters".


John Whitney Pickersgill: What was the rate before?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was always free before. My hon. friend will see on the right-hand side the reference to the prior rate. The words "cans containing shelled oysters", have been added to this item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is my point, what was the rate on cans containing shelled oysters?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is on the right-hand side; they were always free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff-128.	Lobsters or lobster meat,
fresh or boiled: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if we could have an explanation of this item, as I am interested in it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 206c, 208, 208x, 210h, 237a, 296g, 327a, 347, 347a, 409t, 409u, 410s, 427c, 431d, 43 lg, 434e agreed to.
Customs Tariff-438b. Bearings, ball or roller;
Bearings, clutch release, with or without collar attached;
Bearings, graphite;
Bearings, steel or bronze backed, with nonferrous metal lining, parts and materials therefor;
Bearings, steering knuckle thrust;
Bushings or sleeve bearings of bronze or powdered metal;
Bushings, graphited or oil impregnated;
Ceramic insulator spark plug cores not further manufactured than burned and glazed, printed or decorated or not, without fittings;
Collars, crankshaft thrust;
Compressors and parts thereof, air;
Commutator copper segments; commutator insulating end rings;
Tapered discs of hot-rolled steel, with or without centre hole, for disc wheels;
Diaphragms for fuel and vacuum pumps;
Distributor rotors and cam assemblies;
Door bumper shoes;
Electric wiring terminals, sockets, fittings and connectors and parts and combinations thereof, including brackets and fittings permanently attached thereto, but not to include battery terminals;
Gaskets of any material except cork or felt, composite or not, parts and materials therefor;
Ignition contact points;
Keys for shafting;
Auxiliary driving control kits, designed for attachment to motor vehicles to facilitate their operation by physically disabled persons, and parts thereof;
Laminated composition plastic timing gear blanks;
Lenses of glass for motor vehicle lamps and for light reflectors;
Lock washers;
Magnetic plugs;
Piston ring castings in the rough, with or without gates and fins removed;
Propeller shaft tubes of steel bonded by rubber;
Rails of lock seam section, corners, locks and catches, unplated ventilators and parts thereof, the foregoing being of metal other than aluminum, for the manufacture of window sashes for bus bodies;
Shift control, electric, for two speed rear axles;
Steel bolts, studs, plugs, rivets or nuts, capped with stainless steel, and parts thereof;
Switches, relays, circuit breakers and solenoids and combinations and parts thereof, including starter switch assemblies;
Synchronizing cones or blocking rings for transmissions;
Vacuum, hydraulic or air control assemblies and parts thereof;
Vulcanized fibre in sheets, rods, strips and tubings;
Parts of all the foregoing;
All of the foregoing for use in the manufacture or repair of goods enumerated in tariff items 410a (iii), 424 and 438a, or for use in the manufacture of parts thereof:
1. When of a class or kind not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Customs Tariff
2. When of a class or kind made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, 171 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: I should like to raise a question on 438b. Hon. members will note, down at the bottom of the page, the words, "when of a class or kind not made in Canada". The rate previously was free, but in some instances was 17J per cent. Am I right in thinking that the 17J per cent probably was applicable only to the items in the section that are in italicized printing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The explanation is in the note at the bottom of page 21. So far as those items that are of a class or kind not made in Canada are concerned, those always were free. There is no change proposed. To the extent that they were of a class or kind made in Canada, there were various rates and the effect of the change applies to the italicized items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff-438c. Ammeters;
Arm rests and wheel housing lining of indurated fibre, pressed to shape;
Axle housings, one piece welded, machined or not, including parts welded thereto;
Carburetors;
Chassis frames and steel shapes for the manufacture thereof;
Cigar and cigarette lighters, whether in combination with a cigarette holder or not, including base;
Control ventilator gear box;
Cylinder lock barrels, with or without sleeves and keys thereof;
Dash heat indicators;
Engine speed governor units;
External ornaments unplated, including name plates, letters and numerals, but not including finish or decorative mouldings;
Fluid couplings with or without drive plate assemblies;
Gauges, gasoline, oil or air;
Grilles not plated, polished or not before assembly, and parts thereof not plated or polished after final forming, casting or piercing, not including added finish or decorative mouldings;
Hinges, finished or not, for bodies;
Horns;
Instrument bezel assemblies; instrument board lamps; instrument panel, glove compartment, luggage compartment, hood compartment and door step lamps and wire assemblies;
Instrument board panels of moulded or laminated glass fibres and plastic;
Locks, electric ignition, steering gear, transmission, or combinations of such locks;
Mouldings of metal, with nails or prongs set in position, lead filler or not;
Oil filter, namely perforated filter refill oil board bodies, refill end discs, and roll-seam perforated tubes;
Ornaments and identification plates of metal, unplated, not including finished or decorative mouldings;
Pipe lines of tubing, rigid, covered or not, with or without fittings, and tubing therefor;
Purifiers for gasoline, including brackets and fittings therefor;
Radiator shutter assemblies, automatic;
Radiator water gauges;
[Stage Direction]
Customs Tariff
Radiator shells not plated nor metal finished in any degree;
Shackles, bearing spring;
Speedometers;
Spring covers of metal and closing strips or shapes therefor;
Stampings, body, cowl, fender, front end, hood, instrument board, shields and baffles, of metal in the rough, coated or not, trimmed or not, whether or not welded in any manner before final forming or piercing, but not metal finished in any degree;
Steering wheels, rims and spiders therefor;
Sun visor blanks of gypsum weatherboard;
Tachometers, with or without tachographs, both electric and gear driven;
Thermostatic controls;
Throttle, spark, choke, and hood lock release assemblies, including buttons therefor;
Torque convertors;
Auxiliary transmission overdrive units and controls therefor;
Universal joint ball assemblies;
Windshield and window wipers;
Parts of all the foregoing, including brackets, fittings and connections therefor;
All of the foregoing when for use in the manufacture or repair of the goods enumerated in tariff items 410a (iii), 424 and 438a, or for use in the manufacture of parts therefor; British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 171 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
(1)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of passenger automobiles (having a seating capacity for not more than ten persons each) enumerated in tariff item 438a, whose total factory output, during the year in which importation is sought, does not exceed ten thousand such complete passenger automobiles, and if not less than forty per cent of the factory cost of production of such automobiles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British Commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(2)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of passenger automobiles (having a seating capacity for not more than ten persons each) enumerated in tariff item 438a, whose total factory output, during the year in which importation is sought, exceeds ten thousand, but does not exceed twenty thousand such complete passenger automobiles, and if not less than fifty per cent of the factory cost of production of such automobiles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British Commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(3)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of passenger automobiles (having a seating capacity for not more than ten persons each) enumerated in tariff item 438a, whose total factory output, during the year in which importation is sought, exceeds twenty thousand such complete passenger automobiles, and if not less than sixty per cent of the factory cost of production of such automobiles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British Commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; mostfavoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(4)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of motor trucks, motor buses, electric trackless trolley buses, fire fighting vehicles, motor ambulances, and hearses, or

chassis for same, as enumerated in tariff items 410a (iii), 438a and 424, whose total factory output of such vehicles during the year in which importation is sought, does not exceed ten thousand such vehicles, and if not less than forty per cent of the factory cost of production of such vehicles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British Commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(5)	If the above articles, when of a class or kind not made in Canada, are for use as original equipment by a manufacturer of motor trucks, motor buses, electric trackless trolley buses, fire fighting vehicles, motor ambulances and hearses, or chassis for same, as enumerated in tariff items 410a (iii), 438a and 424, whose total factory output of such vehicles during the year in which importation is sought, exceeds ten thousand units, and if not less than fifty per cent of the factory cost of production of such vehicles, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British Commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(6)	If the above articles are of a class or kind not made in Canada and are for use in the repair of the goods enumerated in tariff items 410a (iii), 424 and 438a, or are for use in the manufacture of repair parts therefor, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(7)	The Governor in Council may make such regulations, if any, as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this item.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an
amendment which I should like to read to this section which affects this item. I move:
That resolution No. 8 be amended in so far as the provision for stampings under tariff item 438c is concerned by inserting the words "coated or not" after "of metal" and deleting them after "in the rough".
I would ask my colleague the Minister oi Northern Affairs and National Resources to move this amendment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I so move.


William Moore Benidickson: Is this an amendment beyond those given to us?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, there are no amendments except those of which I gave the house notice and which are recorded in Votes and Proceedings of July 28.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ernest James Broome: I should like to say a few words with regard to item 438c, and particularly those sections which have to do with the percentage of Canadian content which is linked to annual production. It states in one part, where the production does not exceed 10,000 units a year and has a 40 per cent commonwealth content, that the items under 438c are imported free of duty.

Customs Tariff
It goes on to say that when annual production is 20,000 units, then the comparable figure is 50 per cent Canadian content, and over 20,000 the figure is 60 per cent Canadian content. This item was brought into the tariff schedule, I believe, in 1937. Canadian production of motor vehicles today is almost 2J times what the figure was in 1937. I would suggest to the minister that perhaps the tariff board might make a review to ascertain whether these percentage figures now are realistic in view of increased production, and particularly in regard to the top bracket, that is over 20,000 units having a 60 per cent Canadian content.
With the greater complexity of motor cars, the result would be, I believe, that a great deal of manufacturing which could have been done in Canada has not been done. Furthermore, this will not affect the price to the consumer because the prices of motor cars are set on the United States price plus duty and then a certain adjustment from that figure. I have had a rather long experience with the motor car industry. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that manufacturing costs in Canada are quite comparative as far as labour costs are concerned with similar figures in the United States. Such items as automatic transmissions, elements with regard to power steering and so on might well be considered by the manufacturers for manufacture in Canada but they do not have to do so because they already are above the 60 per cent. So an annual volume of some 50,000 units in 1937 from General Motors has increased so that today that company will have an annual figure of around 150,000 units. They have room for greater manufacturing in Canada than they are doing now. I suggest this is one item that should be well checked into by the tariff board with respect to promoting a greater Canadian content.


William Moore Benidickson: Am I right in thinking that the tariff board would not, on its own initiative, look into this matter? Certainly it has a heavy body of work ahead of it. Would it not only be done as a result of a request from the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct. This item is one that is bound under GATT. There was a time when the 60 per cent that was referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South was 65 per cent. These matters are constantly under review and due note will be taken of my hon. friend's observations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-438d. Axles, front and rear;
Bell or clutch housings for vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of over 19,500 pounds;
Brakes;
Brake drums;
Clutches;
Drive shafts;
Fuel pumps for engines of 260 cubic inches and over in displacement;
Hubs;
Hydraulic or fluid couplings;
Internal combustion engines of 349 cubic inches and over in displacement;
Linkages and controls for use with clutches, transmission assemblies, power dividers or transfer cases, when the main assemblies are of a class or kind not made in Canada;
Magnetos;
Power dividers or transfer cases;
Rims for pneumatic tires;
Spring shrouds, spring seats, and spring anchor plates of metal for vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of over 19,500 pounds;
Steel road wheels;
Steering drag links for vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 20,000 pounds or over;
Steering gears;
Tandem axle suspensions, not to include springs;
Transmission assemblies;
Universal joint;
Parts of the foregoing;
All of the foregoing when of a class or kind not made in Canada, and when imported only for the manufacture of motor trucks, motor buses, electric trackless trolley buses, fire fighting vehicles, ambulances, hearses, and the chassis for same: British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, 171 per cent; general tariff, 27| per cent.
(1)	If the above articles are imported for use as original equipment for motor trucks, motor buses, electric trackless trolley buses, fire fighting vehicles, ambulances, hearses, or for chassis for same, by a manufacturer of the goods enumerated in tariff items 410a (iii), 424 and 438a, and during the year in which importation is sought, not less than forty per cent of the factory cost of production of such vehicles and chassis therefor, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British Commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 27J per cent.
(2)	If the above articles are for use in the repair of motor trucks, motor buses, fire fighting vehicles, ambulances, hearses and electric trackless trolley buses, or for chassis for same or for use in the manufacture of repair parts therefor, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 27j per cent.
(3)	The Governor in Council may make such regulations, if any, as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this item.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to item 438d. It has been printed and perhaps I do not have to read it again for that reason. It appears in Votes and Proceedings. I will ask my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to move it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I so move.


Charles Edward Rea: As the committee is familiar with the amendment, may I dispense with the reading of it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Customs Tariff
William Moore Benidickson: On the main item as amended may I say this. The minister indicated that this was indeed an item that did involve, in the recent past, negotiations with the United States because Canada had approached the United States for certain amendments to its agreements with respect to tariffs on other items. I wonder whether the minister would just indicate to us the essential items in this tariff category that were involved in the trading and perhaps the value of the trade per annum.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The changes in the items or the descriptions, of course, are set forth in italics. The essential change, as far as rate is concerned, is that the rate has been reduced from 7J per cent to free on goods of a class not made in Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: Are these invariably
motor trucks rather than passenger automobiles?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; all motor trucks.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister
indicate what has been the past annual import value of items that are now subject to change?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps we can give my friend that information at the end.


William Moore Benidickson: I did not want to follow up until we came to an unusual item the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. But the minister will no doubt remember that I made reference to this delegation that we all received here from Windsor, Oakville and probably Oshawa, from the automotive trades industry because of unemployment that was bothering them severely. At that time the Minister of National Revenue indicated that rather than reducing the tariffs, as is indicated here, he and his new administration had provided something that was of benefit to the people that were working in Canada at this trade. Would the Minister of Finance give the committee some information on that matter? The industry as a whole was complaining that many of the things were imported from the United States that could very well be manufactured in Windsor, Oshawa or Oakville but that they were not manufactured there because of the protective element. I understood from the Minister of National Revenue that something had been done by the new administration in their favour. This would rather indicate something that makes it easier to import such things as transmissions and so on about which the hon. member for Vancouver South spoke.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I do not know precisely what was the context of the remarks attributed to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue. However, I think it is obvious that he was talking about something quite different from what is involved in this resolution respecting item 438d. The changes contemplated here were requested by the Canadian automotive chamber of commerce-


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, surely; but they are dominated by United States industry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and the automotive parts association who represent all the manufacturers of automotive parts in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I was lenient with respect to 438c. I knew that we had before us a reference to something that might be done by the governor in council. I wonder whether the committee would grant me the indulgence of allowing me to refer to item 438c, although I admit that we are on item 438d.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member the consent of the committee to revert to item 438c?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Moore Benidickson: I deliberately avoided discussion on item 438c because of the minister's reference that item 438d was the only automobile item that had reference to GATT. But in item 438c there is a paragraph, namely paragraph 7. As the minister and all hon. members of the committee will find, it reads as follows:
(7) The Governor in Council may make such regulations, if any, as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this item.
Have there been any orders in council with respect to this item since the new administration took office?


Donald Methuen Fleming: None has been made since this new government came into office. But item 438c is not proposed to be amended in this respect at all.


William Moore Benidickson: Not here. I meant since June, 1957.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was in operation during the time my hon. friend was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and no additional use has been made of that power since the new government came into office.
Customs tariff-438e. Internal combustion engines of 348 cubic inches and under in displacement; Parts of the foregoing;

All of the foregoing when of a class or kind not made in Canada, and when imported only for the manufacture of motor trucks, motor buses, electric trackless trolley buses, fire fighting vehicles, ambulances, hearses, and the chassis for same: British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, 111 per cent; general tariff, 211 per cent.
(1)	If the above articles are imported for use as original equipment for motor trucks, motor buses, electric trackless trolley buses, fire fighting vehicles, ambulances, hearses, or for chassis for same, by a manufacturer of the goods enumerated in tariff items 410a (iii), 424 and 438a, and during the year in which importation is sought, not less than forty per cent of the factory cost of production of such vehicles and chassis therefor, not including duties and taxes, is incurred in the British Commonwealth, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 11 per cent; general tariff, 211 per cent.
(2)	If the above articles are for use in the repair of motor trucks, motor buses, fire fighting vehicles, ambulances, hearses and electric trackless trolley buses, or for chassis for same or for use in the manufacture of repair parts therefor, the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 11 per cent; general tariff, 211 per cent.
(3)	The Governor in Council may make such regulations, if any, as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an amendment to item 438e. I would ask my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to move it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I so move.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the amendment carry?


William Moore Benidickson: Would you read the amendment, Mr. Chairman?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is in Votes and Proceedings. This amendment is to item 438e.


William Moore Benidickson: I am satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Item 438f agreed to.
William Moore Benidickson: I would like to ask the minister if it is only the numbering which is new with respect to 438f?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct.
Items 439b, and 439e agreed to.
Customs	tariff-440m. Aircraft, not including
engines, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe:
1.	When of types or sizes not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, free; general tariff, 274 per cent; on and after July 1, 1960: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 274 per cent.
2.	When of types and sizes made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 274 per cent.
Customs Tariff


Mr. Peters:: I do not profess to know anything at all about this matter, but I would like to know if this general tariff affects the government with respect to its purchases for national defence. If, say, it has occasion to buy items under 440m or 440n, is the government exempt from this part of the tariff with respect to its purchases?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, the federal
government pays the tariff duty on its imports in accordance with the provision of the statute.


William Moore Benidickson: I must confess that I do not recall the effect of this particular item. I see that the proposed change is with respect to the "on and after July 1, 1960". Is this something which is an annual extension, perhaps, subject to discretion?


Donald Methuen Fleming: At the present
time the tariff simply reads "1958", whereas the resolution proposes in italics "1960". It is, in other words, to extend for a period of two years the effect of the present item.


William Moore Benidickson: And the rate of course would be 15 per cent after 1958 if this resolution had not been brought forward?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, if we had not
made the change, that would have been the effect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 440n agreed to.
Customs tariff-462d. Cinematograph and motion picture cameras for use by professional motion picture producers having studios in Canada equipped for motion picture production; parts of the foregoing:	British preferential tariff, free; mostfavoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 15 per cent;
On and after July 1, 1959: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 9 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: Is there anything significant about the "on and after July 1, 1959", or is this similar to the other item which the minister has kindly explained?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a new provision for effect until July 1, 1959, and it will give the government an opportunity in the next 10J months to decide whether this duty-free entry should be extended.


William Moore Benidickson: That is possibly one of those items upon which the Financial Post speculated was involved in GATT trading, but of course I take the minister's word on that subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and they were wrong.

Customs Tariff Mr. Benidickson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 462i, 463b, 482 and 482a agreed to.
Customs tariff-504a. Ponderosa pine lumber (pinus ponderosa), California sugarpine lumber (pinus Lambertiana) and California redwood, lumber (sequoia semper virens), not further manufactured than planed, dressed or jointed: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
William Arnold Peters: Would the minister care to explain the thinking of the tariff board on this item and the other items connected with the lumber industry, particularly the pine industry, and if any consideration has been given to protection, particularly of white pine. The industry is facing very serious problems because of the imports of competing white pine from the United States. Markets are being lost as a result by the Canadian industry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This item was not the subject of an inquiry by the tariff board. It resulted from an appeal to the tariff board as I outlined in my budget speech. The result was that the tariff board ruled that lumber which had been dressed, such as shiplap, did not qualify for entry at the lower rate. This gave a good deal of concern to the lumber producers of British Columbia because the United States tariff item read to the same effect. They were concerned that if the ruling of the Canadian tariff board on this item stood, the United States might choose to apply it against imports from Canada, and at the urgent request of the British Columbia lumber industry we have here undertaken what is in effect a clarification to restore the law to the effect it was always understood to have.
This actually reverses the ruling of the tariff board and in effect reduces the Canadian tariff, but it has been done for the purpose of maintaining uniformity with the United States tariff in order that Canadians may still have the benefit of access to the United States market for Canadian lumber at the lower rate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will be delighted to hear that this is one thing which he has done with which I completely agree.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am quite overwhelmed, and I thank my hon. friend most humbly.


Ernest James Broome: In this regard I would like to say that the British Columbia lumber manufacturers' association were very greatly concerned about the matter and the action of the minister has the most wholehearted approval of the British Columbia lumber industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 505, 505a, 505b, 505c, 505d and 595a agreed to.
Customs tariff-597d. Musical instruments, namely: autoharps, clavichords, harpsichords, harps; bass violas, violas, violins, violin cellos; strings for the foregoing; recorders, xylophones; bassoons, clarinets, English horns; fifes, flutes, oboes, piccolos, saxophones:	British preferential tariff, free; mostfavoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an amendment to 597d, consisting simply of the addition of the words, "parts of the foregoing", and I would like to ask my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to move it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Items 691, 695d, 896a, 696c, 703a, 703b, 703c, 791, 901 and 902 agreed to.
Customs tariff-907. Foamed and expanded synthetic resins, in logs, blocks or boards, or in flakes, granules or powder: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Customs tariff-914. Foamed and expanded cellulose plastics in blocks or boards, granules or powder: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an amendment with respect to items 907 and 914, which I would like to ask my colleague to move.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That resolution No. 8 of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting therefrom items 907 and 914 and by substituting therefor the following:
"Customs tariff-907. Foamed and expanded synthetic resins, in logs, sheets, blocks or boards, or in flakes, granules or powder: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Customs tariff-914. Foamed and expanded cellulose plastics in sheets, blocks or boards, granules or powder: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent."


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, these are very substantial increases, as hon. members will see. I am not too well informed as to where these particular products, namely resins, eventually arrive in industry or in respect to consumer utilization, but I believe they do become very important items in consumer spending on insulation and such things. I am well aware that a few years ago there was a reference to the tariff board with respect to the general situation respecting resins and cellulose plastics, and as a

result we brought in some recommendations to the House of Commons. I would just like some assurance from the minister that these items are comparable to certain items which were recommended for rates similar to these and perhaps the minister could indicate in a comparable form the items he believes to be comparable. Normally I would not think an item involving spending on a consumer or industrial level of the size I suspect is involved in these items to be dealt with without reference to the tariff board. I should like the minister to make some comment on the increases that he proposes here, having regard to the fact that this, again, has not been referred to the tariff board.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This takes us back to the tariff board's report of 1952i on plastics. Following that report, items were written into the Canadian tariff with the rates which are proposed in the present resolution, namely British preferential, 15 per cent; most-favoured-nation, 20 per cent; general tariff 25 per cent. At that time, foamed and expanded synthetic resins were not made in Canada. They are made in Canada today, and this amendment is simply designed to apply to them the same rates as were recommended by the board in 1952 with respect to similar products which the board found to be made in Canada at that time and to be entitled to protection.
I may say there are several companies now making this product in Canada, and we are recommending the same rates should apply to foamed and expanded resins as apply to comparable products. Under comparable products I might refer to item 908 of the tariff which applies to manufactures of synthetic resins including floor and wall tiles containing synthetic resins. This is the general item. The rates are: British preferential, 15 per cent; most-favoured-nation, 20 per cent and the general tariff, 20 per cent. Another item that is comparable is item 918b which applies to cellulose sponges and which carries the same rates, 15 per cent, 20 per cent and 30 per cent.
As far as the amendment is concerned I may say that this product in sheet form has always been classified under these various items. However, for the sake of clarity and ease of administration, the word "sheets" is being added to both items in the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These items, as the minister has said, are, of course, being subjected to the same duty as certain other products of a generally similar character. But it will be recalled that these are duties which were put on only after an inquiry by the tariff board, and since there was no inquiry made by the
Customs Tariff
tariff board in this case I wonder if the minister could tell us what it was that induced the government to apply these rates. After all, they represent an impost on the general public, as do all such tariffs, and presumably the government had stronger reasons for taking the action it did than mere reasoning by analogy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We received strong representations from Canadian producers who pointed out that there had been a change in the forms of production since the tariff board wrote its report in 1952, and there was no reason to doubt that had these producers been producing foamed and expanded synthetic resins in 1952 the tariff board would have proposed to extend to them the rates which were recommended by the board in its report on these comparable products such as I have mentioned in items 908 and 918b.


William Moore Benidickson: Since the minister announced on June 17 his intention to increase tariff protection for these particular products, may I ask whether he has received any protests? He has mentioned the people who have applied for the increase.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The matter has been discussed with us since that time by several interested parties, and in the course of that discussion I think a clear understanding was brought about as to the effect, and we are not aware that there are any objections outstanding now with respect to this proposed change.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say just another word about this matter. The minister pointed out earlier today that I have a consumer bias, and I do not object to that. The effect of these tariff changes would almost certainly be to increase the price of these products to someone. I assume that this will be the effect, otherwise there seems to be very little point in making them. Under the tariff board hearing procedure which has been in effect for a long time, consumers and potential consumers do have an opportunity to attend and make their representations. It does occur to me to wonder why it was not possible to have the usual procedure-the procedure of tariff board hearings-followed in this case.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We do not send everything to the tariff board. As I pointed out in the budget speech, there are a great many individual items with which it would be quite hopeless to clutter the tariff board. The tariff board's docket is a very heavy one and we cannot expect the board to deal with a multitude of small individual items. Besides, the case here was very clear, and a strong case was made out for the need

Excise Tax Act
for the application of these rates to the manufacture of foamed and expanded synthetic resins, otherwise the Canadian market would be taken up by imports from abroad. This is going to enable the Canadian manufacturers in this field to carry on with the same protection, no more and no less than manufacturers of similar products now have. A number of these products happened to be in existence and in production in 1952 when the tariff board made its report, and this is how they obtained the benefit of the rate recommended by the board at that time. There are manufacturers who have come along since, and who are making a comparable product.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume that the manufacturers began making these products before they had any protection, and that they did not undertake to make them at a loss merely in the lively expectation of getting a tariff later on. I must say that the minister's argument is just the usual, indeed the classic argument in favour of protection, and it does seem to me that before embarking upon protection on an important new product which will, presumably, grow and increase in importance, the time necessary to have referred this question to the tariff board might have been taken.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the committee that the cost of manufacture has been rising in this field and that one Canadian manufacturer who was turning out this product was compelled by high cost and foreign competition to go out of business.
Item 907 as amended agreed to.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall item 914 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say that I repeat all my observations on this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions 9 and 10 agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.
Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-50, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXCISE TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-44, to amend the Excise Tax Act-Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On schedule III.
Charles Edward Rea: When this committee rose on July 30 we were discussing the

heading "Municipalities" at page 11 in the schedule attached to the bill. Shall this heading carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, discussion had opened under the heading "Municipalities" on a subject which applied really to the concluding words on page 12 under the heading "Processing Materials" where hon. gentlemen will find the words:
Materials (not including grease, lubricating oils or fuel for use in internal combustion engines) consumed or expended directly in the process of manufacture or production of goods.
And then provision had been made for an amendment so that the tax with respect to diesel fuel oil should not apply to the consumption of that product in logging and lumbering operations. For that reason at the resolution stage the words had been added which appear at the bottom of page 12 of the bill:
Diesel fuel oil when used In internal combustion engines used in logging operations and in the manufacture of rough lumber.
We discussed these two matters, Mr. Chairman, that on page 11 and that on page 12 together, because that was the way hon. members opposite wished it and because in particular under the heading "Municipalities" provision had been made for the exemption of diesel fuel oil used by municipalities in the generation of electricity.
When the committee last sat, which was on July 30 two weeks ago today, several hon. members had raised the question as to whether the exemption might not be applied as well to the consumption of fuel oil in the generation of electricity in mining operations. I gave some indication that we would consider that matter, and I am now in a position to submit to the committee an amendment on that point. The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill No. C-44, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be amended by adding thereto at the end of schedule III on page 12 the following:
Diesel fuel oil when used in internal combustion engines at mines to generate electricity for use in mining operations and other purposes connected therewith.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the minister for reaching this decision. When we last discussed this item I do not think he did, as he now says, suggest he would give this consideration, but I am very glad he has done so and I believe he has significantly shortened the debate that might follow upon this bill. I believe the decision was inevitable and a very desirable one. Inadvertently and with the best intentions the minister informed the committee on July 29 that to his knowledge the mines had not enjoyed the benefit that had come from a decision of the Department of Justice given

to the Department of National Revenue that persons utilizing this product for the purposes of production would be exempt from tax. The following day he very properly announced to the committee that he was misinformed and that since last October the mines like the lumbering industry and the municipalities had indeed enjoyed the benefit of this decision of the Department of Justice.
I do not want to prolong the discussion. I compliment the minister for reaching this decision. I merely say it was not anticipated as a result of anything he said the last time we were together on this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps my hon. friend is correct in saying I did not say anything in the committee on that point. We had a number of representations from hon. members and mines and mining associations in this respect, and I had given an indication to them that we would give consideration to their proposals.


William Moore Benidickson: It was not given to your colleagues in the committee; but, however-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I also want to say we in this group are very pleased that the minister has given consideration since the resolution stage to the representations of the mining associations and those of hon. members of the house when the debate took place at that stage. While this will not mean a large saving it will be a valuable thing to many small mining operations that are in a touch and go position at the present time. This type of thing helps them carry on. I know a number of mines that are operating with a very small profit and some with a loss and they are hoping to carry on in the expectation that there will be an improvement in the price of metal in the future under this beneficent government.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express the appreciation of the northern mining companies and those engaged in mining operations in the north of this amendment. A good number of hon. members on the government side of the house discussed the matter with the minister inasmuch as we did not have the opportunity to do so when it came up in the committee on the last occasion when the resolution was under discussion. It will effect substantial savings to those engaged in mineral operations in the far north where in some areas diesel fuel and gasoline reaches a cost as high as $8 or $9 a gallon. I wish to add my words of appreciation to the minister for this progressive forward step in assisting those engaged in northern mining operations.
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, like those hon. members who have spoken I am grateful to the minister for having brought in this amendment thus allowing the mining companies to profit by the exemption. As was mentioned by previous speakers, and more particularly by the hon. member for the Yukon, the mining operations in the remote areas will certainly benefit by this exemption. The hon. member mentioned that the price of diesel fuel oil in the northern districts is very high. I am aware that the Taurcanis Mines Limited is paying 85 cents a gallon in the Northwest Territories and the price is also high in parts of northern Quebec and Ontario. If the amendment had not been proposed it would have represented a double imposition. The first imposition would be the high price and the second having to pay a tax on top of that. We are grateful to the minister for having brought in the amendment permitting the mining companies to benefit as a result of this exemption.


Charles Edward Rea: The committee has heard the amendment. Shall it carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Is there any more discussion on "municipalities"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I should tell the committee for the sake of the record that these two exemptions which have been approved, the exemption for logging and lumbering operations and the exemption in respect of mining operations, will, it is estimated, reduce our revenues by about $2 million. Consequently I have to tell the house that I must revise my estimated budget deficit upward by that amount. It accordingly rises from $648 million to $650 million.


William Moore Benidickson: You will have to change it a lot more than that.


Charles Edward Rea: Is there any
discussion on "printing and educational"? Is there any discussion on "processing materials"?
Schedule III as amended agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Trust Companies Act TRUST COMPANIES ACT


AMENDMENTS RESPECTING INCORPORATION, ANNUAL STATEMENT, ETC.
Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. S-ll, to amend the Trust Companies Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-ll, an act to amend the Trust Companies Act, and Bill No. S-10, an act to amend the Loan Companies Act, are almost identical and while we cannot embrace two bills in the one motion nevertheless the explanatory statement I now propose to make really applies to both bills. The bills have in fact only four points in each of them that might be regarded as substantial or significant. All other clauses are consequential or incidental and arise in the main through cross-references to these four points in other sections of the two acts.
The Loan Companies Act and the Trust Companies Act were first enacted in 1914 and apply only to companies incorporated by or under the authority of parliament. These acts, and the amendments to them that are now being proposed, have therefore no application to loan and trust companies that have been incorporated under provincial authority. The number of companies to which these acts do apply is in each case relatively small, there being at the present time only five dominion loan companies and eleven dominion trust companies. Moreover, one of the trust companies, Western Trust Company of Winnipeg, is now in the process of being merged with another trust company, Guaranty Trust Company, after which there will only be ten trust companies under federal jurisdiction.


William Moore Benidickson: Is the minister proposing to name the companies for the benefit of members?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it might be simpler if that were left to the committee stage. I am going to suggest after second reading that these two bills might be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce where there can be a detailed review of the clauses and where Mr. MacGregor, the superintendent of insurance, will be available as a witness. Most of these dominion loan and trust companies have been transacting business for many years. Several were incorporated prior to the turn of the century and some had their origin before confederation.
The Loan Companies Act and the Trust Companies Act did not originally provide for regular supervision by the government but the companies were required to file statements annually with the minister of finance.

However, by amendments made in 1920 the companies were thereafter required to be inspected at least once each year by the superintendent of insurance, and further amendments in 1927 provided for annual licences from the minister. At the present time the powers of these companies, including their investment and lending powers, are strictly limited by statute and all such companies are regularly inspected by the staff of the department of insurance.
The first main amendment relates to the minimum capital that a new loan or trust company must have before the first meeting of the shareholders is called and before the company may commence business. Under the Loan Companies Act it has heretofore been required that in respect of a new company there must be $100,000 and under the Trust Companies Act $150,000 of the capital stock subscribed, and in either case at least $50,000 paid thereon before the provisional directors may call a general meeting of the shareholders; also, that a certificate permitting the company to commence business shall not be issued by the minister until at least $250,000 of the capital stock has been subscribed and at least $100,000 paid thereon.
These amounts have not been changed since the acts were originally passed in 1914 and they are now, in general, quite inadequate. The capital required for a new loan or trust company should be substantial but may vary in amount depending upon the nature of the business to be done by a particular company and the field of its operations. Only a very few loan and trust companies have been incorporated by parliament during the last 25 years, one loan company and four trust companies, and it seems preferable to leave it to each company's act of incorporation to determine the amount of authorized capital, the amount to be subscribed and the amount to be paid before commencing business, as is the practice in the case of insurance companies. Parliament can then give consideration to any special circumstances in settling upon suitable amounts of capital. With respect to the incorporation of loan and trust companies by the dominion, it might be pointed out that since 1914 no such company may be incorporated by letters patent under the Companies Act of Canada. Incorporation by special act of parliament is the only permissible course.
The second main amendment relates to the form of the annual statement and the procedure for filing it with the government. Each act prescribes in a schedule the form of annual statement to be submitted to the minister but gives power to the minister to make changes to elicit additional information.

From time to time it has been found necessary to change the forms and the point has now been reached where they bear little resemblance to the forms set forth in the schedules to the acts.
It is therefore proposed that schedule B to each act be repealed and that the form of the statement be left to the minister to determine. In addition, for administrative convenience it is further proposed that the statements and the auditors' reports be required to be filed in the department of insurance rather than with the minister. This is the procedure authorized by the insurance acts in reference to insurance companies, both with respect to the determination of the forms and the filing of them with the government.
I now come to the third of the four main amendments. Loan companies are empowered to accept money on deposit and to issue debentures. Trust companies are also empowered to accept deposits and may issue guaranteed investment certificates covering money left in trust for investment, the repayment of which is guaranteed by the company.
All such moneys are regarded under the acts as borrowed moneys. Under each act, the amount that may be borrowed by a company including debentures issued by loan companies, guaranteed investment certificates issued by trust companies, and deposits accepted by either loan or trust companies, is limited to ten times the amount of the company's unimpaired paid-up capital and reserve. Such a limitation ensures that a company will have, in the form of capital and reserves, an adequate safety margin in relation to its borrowed money, presently 10 per cent, to give adequate security for the repayment of its liabilities.
Over the years the limit has been raised from time to time. Under the Loan Companies Act, the maximum amount that might be borrowed was set at four times the unimpaired paid-up capital and reserve in 1914. It was raised to six times in 1927 and to the present level in 1948. Under the Trust Companies Act, the original maximum of five times the unimpaired paid-up capital and reserve in 1914 was raised to seven times in 1931 and to the present level in 1947. In the light of the increased experience of these companies and of their financial stability, it is now proposed to increase their borrowing capacity by raising the maximum amount prescribed by each act from ten times to 12J times the unimpaired paid-up capital and reserve.
The fourth and last main amendment relates to the values at which dominion and
Trust Companies Act
provincial government bonds may be carried into the balance sheet in the annual statement. At present, all bonds and stocks are required to be carried at values which, in the aggregate, do not exceed the aggregate of their market values. It is now proposed that a company subject to either of these acts be permitted to take its bonds and stocks into account at values that, in total, do not exceed the amortized values of redeemable securities not in default issued or guaranteed by the government of Canada or by the government of any province of Canada and the market values of all other bonds and stocks. I am sure hon. members are aware of the fact that the amortized value of a bond is sometimes referred to as the investment value and may be defined generally as the cost price adjusted from year to year after purchase to reach the par value at maturity.
The foregoing change would authorize the same procedure as that now followed by the Bank of Canada, and authorized for the chartered banks, the Quebec Savings Banks, and life insurance companies. The acts would, however, continue to require the market values of all bonds and stocks to be shown in the detailed schedules to annual statements, and it is intended that the relationship between aggregate market values and the values carried on the balance sheet would continue to be shown in the detailed schedules to the annual statement. As I mentioned earlier all other amendments in these bills are consequential to the four main amendments to which reference is made here, and are purely incidental, and are being proposed merely in the interests of greater clarity and completeness.
If it meets with the approval of the house this bill, after being given second reading may, as I suggested earlier, be referred to the banking and commerce committee for further study and at this meeting Mr. MacGregor, the superintendent of insurance, will be glad to attend.


William Moore Benidickson: I am very glad to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) say that we will have an opportunity to discuss very carefully the provisions of these bills in the banking and commerce committee. We did read, as these bills were originally introduced in the Senate, that there arose a fair amount of controversy respecting them. I have read the debates of the other place with reference to these bills. They are contained in the Senate Hansard for July 10, July 15, July 17 and July 23. I am all the more gratified that the minister is prepared to let us have a detailed discussion of these bills because I find there is no Hansard report covering the

Trust Companies Act
discussion of these bills in the Senate banking and commerce committee. Apparently they did not have a reporter available when they were examining the superintendent of insurance and others.
The minister has indicated that the proposed amendments, with respect to both loan and trust companies, are very similar, although we have to deal with them in separate bills. I thought the minister would indicate to the house at this stage, particularly with respect to trust companies, that our consideration of these bills does not involve some of the more prominent trust companies of the country with which we are familiar. Many of the trust companies are incorporated under provincial jurisdiction. The minister indicated that there were 11 trust companies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to put that on the record if my hon. friend thinks it is of any advantage.


William Moore Benidickson: No, but the hon. senator who introduced this bill in the other place referred to 10 companies. I felt this should be on the record because many of the members of the house are not members of the banking and commerce committee. We all know that sometimes, after careful consideration in the committee, our colleagues are quite prepared to accede to the recommendations that come from such a committee.
So far as I am informed the trust companies that would be involved in this legislation are the Canada Permanent Trust Company, the Canada Trust Company, Chartered Trust Company, Commercial Trust Company Limited, the Eastern Trust Company, Guaranty Trust Company of Canada, the Premier Trust Company, Prudential Trust Company, Limited, the Sterling Trusts Corporation, and the Investors Trust Company. Hon. members of the house will recognize the absence of the names of many of the very prominent trust companies of the country with which we are familiar because of the fact that they are not subject to federal law with respect to their incorporation.
The minister indicated that there were four significant points in the bills that are before us. I, of course, cannot at this stage refer to the various clauses, but he did indicate that perhaps of the four, two have aroused particular public concern. One is the suggested change in the relationship between paid-up capital and borrowings of the institutions. The other which I think has major significance is the question of whether or not those institutions or corporations will be empowered under the law to make their annual statement to the superintendent of

insurance with respect to federal and provincial bonds based on the market value of those bonds or whether or not instead it might be on the amortized values. I am impressed by the fact that many other institutions today follow the practice in their reports of utilizing the amortized values. The minister indicated that this is permitted to the chartered banks and to the insurance companies. I understand that the Bank of Canada adopts this form in its annual report. I understand that this is the practice of companies of this kind in the United Kingdom, so I say that I am not going to make any criticism of the proposal at this stage.
I happen to be a member of the banking and commerce committee and will have an opportunity of meeting there with the superintendent of insurance and other witnesses, and examining very carefully the public interest with respect to the proposals that are before us.
In conclusion, may I just say that I know of no public servant in whom the House of Commons in past experience has reason to have more confidence than the superintendent of insurance. I have sat on many committees over the past 13 years or so and on most of those committees I have found that my friend the Minister of Finance was also a member of the same committees. I think he will agree with me that perhaps no public official comes before a House of Commons committee with a greater respect for the members of the House of Commons committee or a Senate committee. I think he is, perhaps beyond all others, anxious to explain in the utmost detail for those of us who are not too experienced in some of these matters the elements that are involved in the legislation that is under discussion. I said that I regret that whatever the superintendent of insurance had to say directly to the senators was not available in a Hansard. He was quoted, of course, in the Senate debates, sometimes for a persons viewpoint and sometimes against it. I shall look forward to the opportunity of having these bills discussed in the banking and commerce committee. I am pleased that the Minister of Finance has announced that the superintendent of insurance will be available so that hon. members may have his guidance and his advice in the discussion of this bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the outline of the purpose of this bill which I understood the minister to say is almost identical with the next bill which will be introduced in this respect. Like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), I perused with some interest the debates in

the other place with respect to this measure and I noticed that there was not a unanimity, shall I say, of opinion with respect to the value of this legislation. Then later I thought I would go and find the committee minutes; but so far as I could find there are no published minutes of the committee's hearing of evidence in connection with this bill and the bill which I presume is coming next. However, I get the impression that the major amendments have been sought for some years by the trust companies and the loan companies and for that reason I presume that they are to the advantage or to the benefit of the trust companies and the loan companies.
I think the main thing that we must prove with respect to these two bills is this: Are they in the public interest? It is for that reason that I was pleased to hear that the minister is recommending that the bills go before the banking and commerce committee. I think that procedure is necessary because there has been a good deal of eyebrow raising, suspicion and criticism of, shall I say, the action that was taken with respect to the insurance companies along similar lines during the depression. It is for that reason that we in this group are glad the bills are going before the banking and commerce committee where there will be an opportunity to hear the superintendent of bankruptcy, Mr. MacGregor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The superintendent of insurance.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me; I am always
thinking in terms of bankruptcy; that is my tendency. In that committee there will be an opportunity to hear the superintendent of insurance, Mr. MacGregor and representatives of the companies concerned-I like everything brought out in the open; we in this group like that procedure-and any other persons who might properly give evidence or information to the committee.
We in this group think there should be a most thorough examination of these amendments in order to make certain that these proposals are in the public interest. From our point of view in this group the major amendment is section 12 with which, under the rules, I am not allowed to deal at this time. However, I can say that I have often thought -as I think have other members of this group-that it would be very nice if the superintendent of bankruptcy would give the same consideration to individuals when the officials are assessing their assets with respect to bankruptcy and things of that sort. We do not see why individuals should not have the same privileges as will be given under section 12 of this bill with respect to
Supply-Northern Affairs valuating assets at what might be a very critical or deciding period.
That is about all I have to say at this time.
I am sure we shall look forward to the report of the banking and commerce committee and the opportunity to deal in detail with the sections of the bill when it comes back to the house and is discussed in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. S-10, to amend the Loan Companies Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
266. Departmental administration, $731,410.
Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to draw the minister's attention to a project which is very dear to my district. I should like to draw the minister's attention to the historic site of Ile-aux-Noix, better known as Fort Lennox.
In a French publication issued by the Canadian tourist bureau under the authority of Hon. Jean Lesage in 1954 this important monument is described as follows:
Among the historic memorials of Canada there is none richer in interest or more charmingly situated than massive old Fort Lennox. The fort stands in quiet dignity on the southern end of Ile-aux-Noix, in the Richelieu river, 12 miles below the outlet of lake Champlain and 10 miles from the United States border.
This is a very picturesque area where the old Fort Lennox has been preserved intact and where its majestic appearance recalls in a striking manner the moving story of the early defenders of the nation. This monument encourages and maintains forever the respect and the memory of these brave people who paid the greatest possible sacrifice for the glory of their country.
However, Mr. Chairman, this island and this magnificent monument are not well known to our fellow citizens or to our United States neighbours who live only ten miles from this site.
3496	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
I think it is very important that this site should be better known and more justly appreciated.
I do not intend to outline here in the House of Commons the complete history of Fort Lennox but it is fitting that I should recall, briefly, a few facts which illustrate the importance and value of this picturesque island of which the citizens of St. Jean-Iberville are so proud.
Samuel de Champlain, founder of the city of Quebec, visited Ile-aux-Noix in 1609. The island was first occupied in 1759 by the French under the command of General de Bourlamaque. On the night of August 28, 1760, the 2,000 men stationed there were surprised by a massive attack by English soldiers under the command of General Haviland. The surrender of the island to the English was the prelude to the fall of Montreal and was the last defence of the old French regime. The English established themselves on the island in order to try to stop the advance of the American rebels when the war of independence broke out in 1775. In November of the same year the Americans took the island, but the English General Arnold recaptured it a year later in July, 1776.
The fort was erected in 1782 under the capable direction of the engineer William Twiss, who later became governor and colonel in command of the royal engineers. The fort was completed in 1812 and the island and fort were of great value to the English during the 1812-14 war against the Americans. It was only in 1870 that the English troops left the island for the last time. For several months it served as a penitentiary and was subsequently abandoned.
On May 18, 1921 the historic sites and monuments commission brought pressure to bear on the Canadian government to place the island under the national parks service in order to preserve the fortress and the surrounding area. Since that time considerable money has been spent by the Canadian government in beautifying Ile-aux-Noix, which has become a rendezvous for tourists and picnickers. Unfortunately, not enough has been done as yet to develop the full potential of this beautiful island and that is why I rise today to ask the assistance of the minister.
I feel that the department should undertake a publicity campaign in co-operation with the chambers of commerce and municipal authorities of the area to make this area better known and appreciated. I suggest construction work should be immediately undertaken with a view to attracting tourists, which would of course result in additional revenue to the St. Paul-Ile-aux-Noix area and surrounding municipalities.


There is a great need in the island for restaurants, modern cabins, swimming facilities and an amusement park along lines similar to those of Coney island. Such a development would result in increased revenue for the government and would help to solve the difficult unemployment problem at present existing all across our country.
I am confident the minister and his officials will wish to investigate this matter and I feel sure it will receive serious consideration. In addition to the advantages I have mentioned such an approach would give to Fort Lennox its full historic importance in this country and the amusements which would be available to the tourists would be an added advantage. Visitors should become acquainted with the beautiful museum containing many relics from Indian days and the historic military events of our great country.
There are already two very fine docks on either side of the island. Yachts and boats requiring greater depth of water have easy access to the dock on the right bank.
Situated halfway between Montreal and Plattsburg in the United States, only 10 miles from the United States border, this beautiful island could become a tourist paradise, an historic chef-d'oeuvre and an important source of revenue if the department agrees with the suggestion which I have made.
I sincerely hope the minister will give his very best consideration to my arguments in favour of Ile-aux-Noix, and I feel sure that if this is done, in a short time Canadians and Americans will find it pleasurable and interesting to spend their weekends or holidays in Canada for the greater good of the Canadian economy.
I notice that the minister intends to spend an increased amount on construction work with reference to national parks and historic sites, and I would like to draw to his attention another important matter.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I now would like to add a few words in French to say that the whole area of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville would benefit from any action which could be taken in this regard by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton). We have in Ile-aux-Noix a magnificent site, an ideal tourist attraction, and I believe the matter should be considered as soon as possible so that the whole area might benefit from the potentialities of this island.
As to my questions, Mr. Chairman, I shall let them stand until we come to the estimates of the department.

(Text):


Mr. Godin:: I rise to discuss two matters which might be considered to be of importance in the area which I represent. The riding of Nickel Belt is, of course, situated in northern Ontario, and in discussing the estimates of the department I realize the minister is very much interested in the historical sites of our country, so I would like to point out that this riding is favoured by the fact that the French river, formerly known as la riviere des Frangais, flows through its centre. This necessarily brings to the minds of my constituents and to the minds of many other citizens of Canada the fact that Champlain in the early days of our country had occasion to travel through this area. Many thousands today know that the French river is one of the nicest spots in northern Ontario and the area accommodates many United States tourists every year.
Possibly, therefore, some assistance could be given to local organizations which have in the past made efforts to preserve some of the souvenirs related to those days. I know the chamber of commerce in my area, in fact there are two such bodies, have done preliminary work to try to revive interest in certain historical facts, and no doubt if assistance could be given by the department, before too long certain monuments could be erected which would be of interest to the numerous visitors to our country and those Canadians who come from many other parts of Canada to admire the site of these historical events in the French river area.
Documents have been prepared by the chamber of commerce of the city of Sudbury and I read a few days ago in the Sudbury Star that arrowheads have been found in the French river bed. These arrowheads have been sent away for identification as it is felt that they probably date back to the days of Champlain's travels in this area. I am hoping that some of the funds mentioned in the estimates might be used to assist the various groups in my area to promote the development of these historic sites.
The second matter I should like to discuss is the tourist trade. At some of the committee meetings we were repeatedly told by the minister that the tourist trade was a matter of importance in which his department was most interested. I have tried to find out just what the policy of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is with regard to this matter, and I may say that the expression I should apply to it is "the policy of the rocking chair". It gives the Conservatives much to do, and it gets the country nowhere. I do not suppose I should say this without justifying what I have said.
Supply-Northern Affairs
We talk about dreams and visions of the great north and yet, as a new member of the house, I recall that we were informed only the other day that our Eskimo Canadians were dying of starvation. We have heard much about the great northland, and I have tried to follow the minister's policy as it was explained to us in the committee with the help and assistance of maps. We were shown roads which were described as access roads, and we were told that this was not where the roads should be or would be. But we need access roads. The minister was asked whether a policy with regard to access roads could be used as a means of developing the tourist trade in this country, and he replied that it could.
I stand here to speak on this problem because in the Nickel Belt area we face grave difficulties. Our nickel industry is down to four days a week, and our chamber of commerce and many other institutions are trying to bring in other industries. But it is very difficult to bring in new industries to a mining area because wages are so high. But I do feel that one way in which this great area could be helped, now that the mining industry and the lumber industry have gone down, would be by developing the area more extensively as a tourist attraction with the help of well designed access roads. In my riding I have wonderful communities such as Gogama and Foleget which cannot be reached by automobile unless one travels through five other ridings from my own. They are wonderful communities. They used to be rich on account of the lumber that is in there but the lumber industry being in its present state in northern Ontario, these towns may now become ghost towns. I feel that if through co-operation between the federal government and the provincial government, through the intermediary of the department of northern affairs, roads could be constructed west of Capreol, such access roads would definitely bring new wealth to this riding.
I realize that a program of this kind would undoubtedly require a certain amount of study, but it would, perhaps, be appropriate for the minister at this time to let us know just what discussions are going on now between the government of Ontario and the federal government as to the position with regard to access roads and the development of the tourist trade in our region. We have heard for many months, about the great improvements which are intended for the northland. We Liberals feel that without doubt certain surveys and inspections should continue; as the minister realizes, these were begun during the Liberal administration. But I feel, also, that this government should pay
3498	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs attention to some of the areas in Ontario which are only partly developed and which are still definitely lacking in facilities for accommodating and expanding the tourist trade, a trade which undoubtedly, in my district, might certainly become an industry second to nickel.


Mr. Fairfield:: A great deal has been said both in the house and in the committee concerning the problem of the conservation of our great national resources. I am sorry I was not a member of the committee, but I have read the reports and the minutes and I can say that I think the committee has examined our conservation program very thoroughly. I think all hon. members as well as the people of Canada are fairly conversant with the action which the government has taken under its conservation programs.
I think the minister and the department have this problem well in hand and are going to do a good job. The minister himself, when he was addressing the committee, according to the minutes, made an eloquent and, I think, fairly thorough analysis of our present position in so far as the conservation of our resources is concerned. I know the experience of the United States natural resources exploitation has been well demonstrated by the report called the Paley report. I happened to look at this report in the library the other day. Unfortunately, one of the principal reports was missing, the one on water resources in the United States. However, these reports certainly show that there has been a great lack of planning in the United States, and it is gratifying that some of the warnings which have been issued have already been heeded and that we, in Canada, may be saved from making the same mistakes.
One other matter which the minister brought up was his announcement that there is going to be a dominion-provincial conference on conservation this fall. I think it goes without saying that we in Canada have some of the greatest natural resources in the world today, but in thinking of natural resources we also have to think of soil, forest, and water, because they are all interdependent and they together make up the elements of our renewable resources. And unless all three are conserved and skilfully managed under a plan in perpetuity we face not only the loss of our renewable resources but economic ruin and, consequently, the loss of those things which sustain .our very existence.
There are grave responsibilities facing us all today to study and formulate a conservation program on the broadest possible basis. Under the British North America Act

the responsibility for most aspects of national resources has been delegated to the provinces. There are a few exceptions such as migratory birds which know no international or provincial Boundaries. They therefore come under federal and even international control. Another example is the sockeye salmon fishing industry in the Fraser river which because it enters international water comes under a joint Canadian-United States commission.
We find in the ten provinces there is a great deal of concern about the conservation of our renewable resources. A great deal of good work is being done on this very important subject. It is the split in the federal and provincial jurisdiction which makes it all the more difficult no matter how well intentioned the plans of each province are and there is no definite over-all national program.
The minister himself stated in the standing committee that we have no right to interfere with the policies of any provincial government. He said that as Canadians we can only put forward suggestions which we think are in the interest of the whole country and then it is up to the provinces to try to carry out those suggestions. Perhaps the dominion-provincial conference this fall will help solve some of these problems but we fear that some of these jurisdictional difficulties will preclude complete success in achieving the goal toward which we are now striving.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I must draw your attention to the fact that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General has been waiting for us for the last ten minutes.
(Text):
Progress reported.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, August 13, 1958
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Mr. Justice J. H. G. Fauteux, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 13th August, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
P. S. Burt for
J. F. Delaute
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)

A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the folowing bills:
An act for the relief of Eileen Rose Brown Porteous.
An act for the relief of Anita Duguay Brais.
An act for the relief of Sydney Lesser.
An act for the relief of Stella Rachel Cater Harris
An act for the relief of Samuel Jack Goldberg.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Claire Carmichael Glas.
An act for the relief of Francis Allan Quinn.
An act for the relief of Kaljo Klasman.
An act to amend The Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921.
An act to amend the Criminal Code.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1958, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act to amend the Indian Act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and for Friday and Saturday as well?


Mr. Green:: Tomorrow we intend to commence with the estimates of northern affairs
The Royal Assent
and then take labour, fisheries and transport. I am not sure on what day, except that the estimates of mines and technical surveys will be on Saturday, but before the end of the week we plan to take also post office, national health and welfare and citizenship and immigration.


Lionel Chevrier: What does the government intend to do on Monday? I hope the leader will find it possible to tell us.


Howard Charles Green: It will be legislation.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister indicate what legislation?


Howard Charles Green: No, I cannot give the order at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: When is it intended to discuss the dumping legislation?


Howard Charles Green: I hope that the resolution preceding the bill will be in Votes and Proceedings for tomorrow which will come out on Friday.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the leader give any indication as to when the legislation having to do with radio and television will be introduced?


Howard Charles Green: That too is almost ready to come before the house. I am not sure on what date it will actually appear but I believe within the next day or so.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.

[Stage Direction]
Vy

[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1958
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 16, 1958 [Later:]